Translating the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: (Art. III) De Dilectione et Impletione Legis (xxiii)

Posted: October 31, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Book of Concord, Latin Translation, Law and Gospel, Lutheranism, Melancthon | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ceterum haec sententia de dilectione sumpta est ex Proverbiis, 10, 12, ubi antithesis clare ostendit, quomodo[1] intelligi debeat: Odium suscitat rixas, et universa delicta tegit dilectio. Idem prorsus docet, quod[2] illa Pauli sententia ex Colossensibus sumpta,[3] ut, si quae dissensiones inciderint, mitigentur et componantur aequitate et commoditate nostra.[4] Dissensiones, inquit, crescunt odiis, ut saepe videmus[5] ex levissimis offensionibus maximas fieri tragoedias. Inciderant quaedam inter C. Caesarem et Pompeium leves offensiones, in quibus, si alter alteri paululum cessisset, non extitisset bellum civile. Sed dum uterque morem gerit odio suo,[6] ex re nihili maximi motus orti sunt.

Et multae in ecclesia haereses ortae sunt tantum odio doctorum. Itaque non de propriis delictis, sed de alienis[7] loquitur, quum ait: Dilectio tegit delicta, videlicet aliena, et quidem inter homines, id est, etiamsi quae[8] offensiones incidunt, tamen dilectio dissimulat, ignoscit, cedit, non agit omnia summo iure. Petrus igitur non hoc vult, quod[9] dilectio coram Deo mereatur remissionem peccatorum, quod sit propitiatio excluso mediatore Christo,[10] quod regeneret ac iustificet, sed quod erga homines non sit morosa, non aspera, non intractabilis, quod quaedam errata amicorum dissimulet, quod mores aliorum etiam asperiores boni consulat, sicut vulgaris quaedam sententia praecipit: Mores amici noveris, non oderis. Neque temere de hoc officio dilectionis toties praecipiunt apostoli, quod philosophi vocant επιείκειαν.[11] Necessaria est enim haec virtus ad publicam concordiam retinendam,[12] quae non potest durare, nisi multa dissimulent, multa condonent inter se pastores et ecclesiae.

Ex Iacobo citant 2, 24: Videtis igitur, quod ex operibus iustificatur homo et non ex fide sola. Neque alius locus ullus magis putatur officere nostrae sententiae, sed est[13] facilis et plana responsio. Si non assuant adversarii suas opiniones de meritis operum, Iacobi verba nihil[14] habent incommodi. Sed ubicunque fit mentio operum, adversarii affingunt suas impias opiniones, quod[15] per bona opera mereamur remissionem peccatorum, quod bona opera sint propitiatio ac pretium, propter quod Deus nobis reconcilietur, quod bona opera vincant terrores peccati et mortis, quod bona opera coram Deo propter suam bonitatem sint accepta, nec egeant misericordia et propitiatore Christo. Horum nihil[16] venit in mentem Iacobo, quae tamen omnia nunc defendunt adversarii praetextu sententiae Iacobi.

[1] Introduces an indirect question

[2] A quod substantive clause

[3] A perfect passive participle

[4] Ablative of means

[5] Introduces an indirect statement

[6] Conducted himself with hatred

[7] others

[8] A relative conjunction

[9] The first in a series of quod substantive clauses

[10] An ablative absolute

[11] leniency

[12] Ad with the gerundive to indicate purpose

[13] An impersonal construction: there is

[14] Nihil incommode is an objective genitive: are no setback

[15] The first in a series of quod substantive clauses

[16] The objective genitive: none of these things

Vocabulary
Amicus, i, m.- friendMitigo, are, avi, atus- to alleviate, lighten
Antithesis, is, f.- antithesisMorosus, a, um- hard to please
Bonitas, bonitatis, f.- kindness, benevolence, goodnessNihilum, i, n.- nothing; nothingness; something valueless; no respect
Cedō, ere, cessī, cessus- to yield, submitOfficio,ere, offeci, offectus- to impede; check
Commoditas, commoditatis, f.- timeliness, aptness; due measurePastor, pastoris, m.- pastor
Compono, ere, composui, compositus- to build; settlePaululum, i, n.- a little bit, a little
Dissensio, dissensionis, f.- disagreement, quarrelPraetextus, us, m.- outward appearance; pretext
Duro, are, avi, atus- to last, endure; hardenSuscitō, āre, āvī, ātus- to raise up
Egeo, ere, egui- to need (with the gen/abl.), to lack, want; requireTego, ere, texi, tectus- to cover, protect; defend; hide
Exto, ere, extiti- to stand our; exist; arise, appearTragoedia, ae, f.- tragedy
Incido, ere, incidi, incisus- to fall into; happenVulgaris, e- commonplace, common
Intractabilis, e- intractible, inflexible, unbending

Moreover, this teaching about love has been taken up from the Proverbs (10:12) where the antithesis is clearly shown how it must be understood, “Hatred raises quarrels, and the love hides all faults.” The same passage absolutely teaches that that teaching of Paul, taken from the epistle to the Colossians, that, if any dissensions arise, they should be lightened and composed by our fairness and just proportion. Dissensions, he says, rise from hatreds, as we often see from trivial offenses the greatest tragedies happen. Certain light offenses happened between Caius Caesar and Pompey, in which if one yield a little to the other, a civil war would not have arisen. But while each conducted himself with hatred, very great movements arose from a matter of no respect.

And many heresies in the church rose only from the hatred of teachers. And so he speaks not about his own sins but about the sins of another when he says, “Love hides faults” just as the faults of another, and indeed among men, that is, even if those offenses happened, nevertheless, love ignores, pardons, yields to and does not interact with everything according to the highest law. Peter, therefore, does not want this: that love before God merits the forgiveness of sins, that it is a propitiation since Christ as our mediator has been excluded, that it regenerates and justifies but that towards men it is not hard to please, not harsh, not intractable, that it ignores certain errors of friends, that it considers for good even the harsher habits of others just as the commonplace expression commands: “You should learn the habits of a friend not hate them.” And the apostles do not command rashly in regard to this duty of love, which the philosophers call leniency, a great number of times. For this virtue is necessary in order to retain public harmony which is not able to last unless pastors and the churches ignore and pardon many things among themselves.

And they cite from James 2:24, “You see, therefore, that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” No other doctrine is thought to more impede our teaching, but there is an easy and plane response. If the adversaries do not sew on their opinions of the merits of works, the words of James are not a setback. But everywhere the mention of works happens, the adversaries affix their impious opinions that through good works we merit the forgiveness of sins, that good works are a propitiation and price on account of which Good is reconciled to us, that good works conquer the terrors of sin and death, that good works before God on account of his goodness are accepted not that they need mercy and Christ our propitiator. None of these things, which nevertheless the adversaries now defend with the outward appearance of the teaching of James, came into the mind of James.

CAVE, EMPTOR, SELF PROMOTION: Check out my author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09F3PXYJY

And follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550921382723&mibextid=ZbWKwL

And on X:
https://twitter.com/LSApublishing

Like this post and follow the blog if you enjoy this content!

Translating the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: (Art. III) De Dilectione et Impletione Legis (xxii)

Posted: October 30, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Book of Concord, Latin Translation, Law and Gospel, Lutheranism, Melancthon | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Turpe est[1] autem adversariis, tantopere praedicare dilectionem, quum nusquam praestent eam. Quid nunc agunt? Dissipant ecclesias, scribunt leges sanguine et has proponunt Caesari, clementissimo Principi, promulgandas,[2] trucidant sacerdotes et alios bonos viros, si quis leviter significavit[3] se aliquem manifestum abusum non omnino probare. Haec non conveniunt ad ista praeconia dilectionis, quae, si sequerentur adversarii, ecclesiae tranquillae essent et respublica pacata. Nam hi tumultus consilescerent, si adversarii non nimis acerbe exigerent quasdam traditiones inutiles ad pietatem, quarum plerasque ne ipsi quidem observant, qui vehementissime defendunt eas. Sed sibi facile ignoscunt, aliis non item, ut ille apud poetam: Egomet mi ignosco, Maevius [Maenius] inquit. Id autem alienissimum est ab his encomiis dilectionis, quae hic ex Paulo recitant, nec magis intelligunt, quam parietes intelligunt vocem, quam reddunt.

Ex Petro citant et hanc sententiam, 1 Petr. 4, 8: Universe delicta operit caritas. Constat[4] et Petrum loqui de dilectione erga proximum, quia hunc locum accommodat ad praeceptum, quo iubet, ut[5] diligant se mutuo.

Neque vero ulli[6] apostolo in mentem venire potuit, quod[7] dilectio nostra vincat peccatum et mortem, quod dilectio sit propitiatio, propter quam Deus reconcilietur omisso mediatore Christo,[8] quod dilectio sit iustitia sine mediatore Christo. Haec enim dilectio, si qua esset, esset iustitia legis, non evangelii, quod promittit nobis reconciliationem et iustitiam, si credamus, quod[9] propter Christum propitiatorem Pater placatus sit, quod donentur nobis merita Christi. Ideo Petrus paulo ante iubet, ut[10] accedamus ad Christum, ut aedificemur super Christum. Et addit: Qui crediderit in eum, non confundetur, 1 Petr. 2, 4 6. Dilectio nostra non liberat nos a confusione, quum Deus iudicat et arguit nos. Sed fides in Christum liberat in his pavoribus, quia scimus[11] propter Christum nobis ignosci.

[1] An impersonal construction

[2] The gerundive: it is modifying leges and functions as a future passive participle

[3] Introduces an indirect statement

[4] Introduces an indirect statement

[5] Introduces an indirect command

[6] Dative singular

[7] This and the following quods introduce quod substantive clauses

[8] An ablative absolute

[9] This and the following quod introduce quod substantive clauses

[10] This and the following ut introduce indirect commands

[11] Introduces an indirect statement

Vocabulary
Accommodo, are, avi, atus- to adapt, adjust to, fit; apply toPoeta, ae, m.- poet
Confundō, ere, confudī, confusus- to upset, confuse; bring to ruin; destroyedPromulgo, are, avi, atus- to publish, make known by public proclamation
Confusio, confusionis, f.- confusionSacerdos, sacerdotis, m.- priest
Consilesco, ere, consilui- to fall silent; become still; be hushedSanguis, sanguinis, m.- blood
Delictum, i, n.- fault, transgression; sinTantopere (adv.)- so much, so hard
Encomium, i, n.- praise, eulogyTraditiō, traditiōnis, f.- tradition
Exigō, ere, exēgī, exactus- to drive out, expel; examineTranquillus, a, um- tranquil
Leviter (adv.)- lightly, gently softlyTrucido, are, avit, atus- to slaughter, butcher
Mutuus, a um- mutual, in return; borrowedTumultus, us, m.- tumult, confusion
Paries, parietis, m.- wall, house wallTurpis, turpe- disgraceful, shameful
Pietas, pietatis, f.- piety; responsibilityUniverse (adv.)- generally

It is disgraceful, however, for the adversaries to proclaim so hard that love when they nowhere supply it. What are they doing now? They are destroying churches, and they are writing laws in blood, and they propose these laws, which they would make known publicly, to the Emperor, a most merciful prince, and they slaughter priests and other good men if anyone indicates gently that he does not entirely approve of some clear abuse. These things do not agree with those praises of theirs of love, which, if the adversaries followed them, the churches would be tranquil and the state at peace. For these tumults would become silent if the adversaries did not examine them too sharply certain traditions useless to piety of which they themselves, who most vehemently defend them, do not even observe several. But they pardon themselves easily but not likely others as he says about the poet: “I pardon myself, Maenius says.” However, that is very foreign from those praises of love which here they recite from Paul and they do not understand more than walls understand the voice they echo.

From Peter they also cite this sentence, “Charity generally covers faults “ (1 Peter 4:8). It is agreed also that Peter is speaking about love towards a neighbor because this passage applies to the command by which he orders to love each other mutually.

But it cannot have come into the mind for any apostle that our love conquers sin and death, that love is a propitatior, on account of which God is reconciled although Christ is omitted as our mediator, that love is righteousness without the mediator Christ. For this love, it is to some extent, it is the righteousness of the law not of the gospel which promises to us reconciliation and righteousness if we believe that, on account of Christ our propitatior, the Father is reconciled that the merits of Christ are given to us. So Peter, a little before, orders that we approach Christ that we are built upon Christ. He also adds, “He, who believed in him, will not be brought to ruin” (1 Peter 2:4-6). Our love does not free us from ruin when God judges and accuses us. But faith in Christ frees us in these terrors because we know that on account of Christ we are pardoned.

CAVE, EMPTOR, SELF PROMOTION: Check out my author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09F3PXYJY

And follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550921382723&mibextid=ZbWKwL
And on X:
https://twitter.com/LSApublishing

Like this post and follow the blog if you enjoy this content!

Translating the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: (Art. III) De Dilectione et Impletione Legis (xxi)

Posted: October 29, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Book of Concord, Latin Translation, Law and Gospel, Lutheranism, Melancthon | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Loquitur igitur non de personali perfectione, sed de integritate communi ecclesiae. Ideo enim ait,[1] dilectionem esse vinculum seu colligationem, ut[2] significet[3] se loqui de colligandis et copulandis[4] pluribus membris ecclesiae inter se. Sicut enim in omnibus familiis, in omnibus rebuspublicis concordia mutuis officiis[5] alenda est,[6] nec retineri tranquillitas potest, nisi quaedam errata inter se dissimulent homines et condonent: ita iubet[7] Paulus in ecclesia dilectionem existere, quae retineat concordiam, quae toleret, sicubi opus est, asperiores mores fratrum, quae dissimulet quaedam levia errata, ne[8] dissiliat ecclesia in varia schismata et ex schismatibus oriantur odia, factiones et haereses.

Necesse est enim dissilire concordiam, quando aut episcopi imponunt populo duriora onera, nec habent rationem imbecillitatis in populo. Et oriuntur dissidia, quando populus nimis acerbe iudicat de moribus doctorum aut fastidit doctores propter quaedam levia incommoda; quaeruntur enim deinde et aliud doctrinae genus et alii doctores. Econtra perfectio, id est, integritas ecclesiae, conservatur, quando firmi tolerant infirmos, quando populus boni consulit quaedam incommoda in moribus doctorum, quando episcopi quaedam condonant imbecillitati populi.

De his praeceptis aequitatis pleni sunt libri omnium sapientum, ut[9] in hac vitae consuetudine multa condonemus inter nos propter communem tranquillitatem. Et de ea quum hic, tum alias saepe praecipit Paulus. Quare adversarii imprudenter ratiocinantur ex nomine perfectionis, quod[10] dilectio iustificet, quum Paulus de integritate et tranquillitate communi loquatur. Et sic interpretatur hunc locum Ambrosius: Sicut aedificium dicitur perfectum seu integrum, quum omnes partes apte inter se coagmentatae sunt.

[1] Introduces an indirect statement

[2] Introduces a purpose clause

[3] Introduces an indirect statement

[4] Gerundives modifying membris

[5] An ablative of means

[6] The passive periphrastic: must be nourished

[7] Introduces an indirect statment

[8] Introduces a negative purpose clause

[9] Introduces an indirect command

[10] A quod substantive clause

Vocabulary
Acerbe (adv.)- sharplyFamilia, ae, f.- family
Aedficium, i, n.- buildingHaeresis, is, f.- heresy
Aequitas, aequitatis, f.- justice, evennessImprudenter (adv.)- foolishly
Apte (adv.)- skillfullyInfirmus, a, um- weak
Coagmento, are, avi, atus- to join/fashion together; connect; fit togetherIntegritas, integritatis, f.- soundness; chastity; integrity
Coligatio, colligationis, f.- binding together; bond, connection; band; conjunctionMutuus, a um- mutual, in return; borrowed
Copulo, are, avi, atus- to connect; bind together, associateOrior, iri, ortus sum- to rise
Dissidium, i, n.- disagreement, quarrel; separationPersonalis, e- personal, of/relating to an individudal
Dissilio, ire, dissilui- to burst apart; break up; be broken upRespublica, reipublicae, m.- commonwealth
Dissimulo, are, avi, atus- to conceal, dissemble, disguise; ignoreSchisma, schismatis, n.- schism
Durus, a, um- inflexible; hard, harshSicubi (adv.)- if anywhere, if at any place
Episcopus, ī, m.- bishopTolero, are, avi, atus- to bear; endure; tolerate
Erratum, i, n.- error, mistakeTranquilitas, tranquilitatis, f.- tranquility
Factio, factionis, f.- faction, partyVarius, a, um- various, different

Therefore, he is not speaking about personal perfection but about the integrity of the whole church. For he says such that love is a chain or bond so that he indicates that he is talking about the collecting and binding together of many members of the church. For thusly harmony must be nourished in every family and state with mutual duties, and tranquility cannot be retained unless men ignore and condone certain mistakes among themselves: thusly Paul orders that in the church a love, which maintains harmony and which tolerates, if anywhere it is necessary, the coarse habits of our brothers, which ignores certain trivial mistakes lest the church be broken apart into various schisms and from those schisms hatreds, factions and heresies arise, exist.

For it is necessary that harmony burst apart when either bishops impose too hard burdens on the people and or do not have a reckoning of the weakness in people. Quarrels also arise when the people judge too sharply concerning the morals of teachers or scorn teachers on account of certain trivial and disagreeable things; for then another kind of doctrine and other teachers are also sought. On the contrary perfection, that is, the integrity of the church is preserved when the strong tolerate the weak and when the people consider certain disagreeable things in the habits of the teachers to be good and when the bishops pardon the weakness of the people.

Concerning these commands about justice, the books of all the wise men are full that in this life we should condone many customs among ourselves on account of common tranquility. And concerning these things, Paul teaches here and then in other places often. Wherefore the adversaries foolishly conclude from the name of perfection that love justifies when Paul is talking about common integrity and tranquility. And Ambrose interprets it in this way in this passage: “Just as a building is said to perfect or whole when all the parts have been skillfully fashioned together.

CAVE, EMPTOR, SELF PROMOTION: Check out my author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09F3PXYJY

And follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550921382723&mibextid=ZbWKwL
And on X:
https://twitter.com/LSApublishing

Translating the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: (Art. III) De Dilectione et Impletione Legis (xx)

Posted: October 28, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Book of Concord, Latin Translation, Law and Gospel, Lutheranism, Melancthon | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Est autem et haec obedientia erga Deum, velle[1] accipere oblatam[2] promissionem, non minus λατρειία, quam dilectio. Vult sibi credi Deus, vult nos ab ipso bona accipere, et id pronuntiat esse verum cultum. Ceterum adversarii tribuunt dilectioni iustificationem, quia ubique legis iustitiam docent et requirunt. Non enim possumus negare,[3] quin dilectio sit summum opus legis. Et humana sapientia legem intuetur et quaerit in ea iustitiam. Ideo et scholastici doctores, magni et ingeniosi homines, summum opus legis praedicant, huic operi tribuunt iustificationem. Sed decepti[4] humana sapientia non viderunt faciem Mosis retectam,[5] sed velatam, sicut Pharisaei, philosophi, Mahometistae.[6] Verum nos stultitiam evangelii praedicamus, in quo alia iustitia revelata est, videlicet, quod[7] propter Christum propitiatorem iusti reputemur, quum credimus[8] nobis Deum propter Christum placatum esse. Nec ignoramus, quantum[9] haec doctrina abhorreat a iudicio rationis ac legis.

Nec ignoramus[10] multo speciosiorem esse doctrinam legis de dilectione. Est[11] enim sapientia. Sed non pudet nos[12] stultitiae evangelii. Id propter gloriam Christi defendimus et rogamus Christum, ut[13] Spiritu Sancto suo adiuvet nos, ut[14] id illustrare ac patefacere possimus.

Adversarii in confutione et hunc locum contra nos citaverunt ex Col. 3, 14: Caritas est vinculum perfectionis. Hinc ratiocinantur, quod[15] dilectio iustificet, quia perfectos efficit.[16] Quamquam hic multis modis de perfectione responderi posset, tamen nos simpliciter sententiam Pauli recitabimus. Certum est[17] Paulum de dilectione proximi loqui. Neque vero existimandum est,[18] quod[19] Paulus aut iustificationem aut perfectionem coram Deo tribuerit operibus secundae tabulae potius, quam primae. Et si dilectio efficit perfectos, nihil igitur opus erit propitiatore Christo.[20] Nam fides tantum apprehendit propitiatorem Christum. Hoc autem longissime abest a sententia Pauli, qui nunquam patitur excludi propitiatorem Christum.

[1] The infinitive is in apposition to obedentia

[2] A perfect passive participle

[3] Introduces indirect discourse

[4] A perfect passive participle

[5] Retectam and velatam are perfect passive participles

[6] Mohammadens

[7] A quod substantive clause

[8] Introduces an indirect statement

[9] Introduces an indirect question

[10] Introduces an indirect statement

[11] An impersonal construction

[12] We are not ashamed of the folly of the gospel

[13] Introduces an indirect command

[14] Introduces a purpose clause

[15] A quod substantive clause

[16] It makes men perfect

[17] An impersonal construction which introduces an indirect command: it is certain that

[18] The passive periphrastic

[19] A quod substantive clause

[20] There is no need for Christ the propitiator

Vocabulary
Abhorreo, ere, abhorrui- to abhor, shrink back; be averse to; differ fromRetego, ere, retexi, retectus- to uncover, lay bare, reveal, disclose
Adiuvō, āre, āvī, ātus- to help, aidRevelo, are, avi, atus- to show; reveal
Confutio, confutionis, f.- confutationSpeciosus, a, um- beautiful; appealing; respectable
Ingeniosus, a, um- clever, ingenious; naturally suited (to)Stutitia, ae, f.- folly, stupidity
Patefacio, ere, patefeci, patefactus- to reveal, uncover; make known; openVelo, are, avi, atus- to veil, cover, cover up; hide
Potius (adv.)- ratherCeterum (adv.)- moreover; still
Pudeō, ēre, uī, itus- to be ashamed

Moreover, this obedience towards God, to want to receive the offered promise, is no less latreia than love. God wants to be believed; He wants us to receive goods from Him, and He pronounces that to be true worship. Nevertheless, the adversaries attribute justification to love because everywhere they teach and require the righteousness of the law. In fact we are not able to deny that love is the greatest work of the law. Human wisdom also defends the law and seeks righteousness in it. So the scholastic teachers, great and clever men, also proclaim the greatest work of the law, and they attribute justification to this work. But, deceived by human wisdom, they do not see that the face of Moses uncovered but veiled just as the Pharisees, philosophers and Mohammadens do. But we proclaim the righteousness of the gospel in which another righteousness has been revealed, that, on account of Christ our propitiator, we are considered just when we believe that God has been peaceful towards us because of Christ. And we are not ignorant how much this doctrine differs from the judgment of reason and the law.

We are not unaware how much more appealing the doctrine of the law concerning love is. For it is wisdom. But the righteousness of the Gospel is not shameful to us. We defend it on account of the glory of Christ, and we ask Christ to help us with His Holy Spirit so that we are able to explain and make it known.

The adversaries cite in their confutation also this passage against us from Colossians 3:14, “Charity is the bond of perfection.” From here they conclude that love justifies because it makes men perfect. Although this passage is able to be responded to in many ways concerning perfection, we, nevertheless, simply  will recite this teaching of Paul. It is certain that Paul spoke about love. But it was thought that Paul attributed either justification or perfection before God to works of the second table more than the first. If love also makes men perfect, there will be, therefore, no need for the propitatior Christ. For faith only grasps the propitiator Christ. However, this is very far from the teaching of Paul who never allowed Christ the atoner to be excluded.

CAVE, EMPTOR, SELF PROMOTION: Check out my author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09F3PXYJY
And follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550921382723&mibextid=ZbWKwL

Translating the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: (Art. III) De Dilectione et Impletione Legis (xix)

Posted: October 27, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Book of Concord, Latin Translation, Law and Gospel, Lutheranism, Melancthon | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tollant[1] adversarii promissionem de Christo, aboleant evangelium, si nihil opus est Christo[2], si nostra dilectione possumus vincere mortem, si nostra dilectione sine propitiatore Christo accessum habemus ad Deum.

Adversarii corrumpunt pleraque loca, quia suas opiniones ad ea afferunt, non sumunt ex ipsis locis sententiam. Quid[3] enim habet hic locus incommodi, si detraxerimus interpretationem, quam adversarii de suo assuunt, non intelligentes,[4] quid[5] sit iustificatio aut quomodo flat? Corinthii antea iustificati[6] multa acceperant excellentia dona.

Fervebant initia, ut fit. Deinde coeperunt inter eos existere simultates, ut significat Paulus, coeperunt fastidire bonos doctores. Ideo obiurgat eos Paulus, revocans[7] ad officia dilectionis; quae,[8] etiamsi sunt necessaria, tamen stultum fuerit somniare, quod[9] opera secundae tabulae coram Deo iustificent, per quam agimus[10] cum hominibus, non agimus proprie cum Deo. At in iustificatione agendum est[11] cum Deo, placanda est ira eius, conscientia erga Deum pacificanda est. Nihil[12] horum fit per opera secundae tabulae.

Sed obiiciunt[13] praeferri dilectionem fidei et spei. Paulus enim ait 1 Cor. 13, 13: Maior horum caritas.[14] Porro consentaneum est[15] maximam et praecipuam virtutem iustificare. Quamquam hoc loco Paulus proprie loquitur de dilectione proximi et significat,[16] dilectionem maximam esse, quia plurimos fructus habet. Fides et spes tantum agunt cum Deo. At dilectio foris erga homines infinita habet officia, tamen largiamur[17] sane adversariis, dilectionem Dei et proximi maximam virtutem esse, quia hoc summum praeceptum est: Diliges Dominum Deum, Matth. 22, 37. Verum quomodo inde ratiocinabuntur, quod[18] dilectio iustificet?

Maxima virtus, inquiunt, iustificat. Imo, sicut lex etiam maxima seu prima non iustificat, ita nec maxima virtus legis. Sed illa virtus iustificat, quae apprehendit Christum, quae communicat nobis Christi merita, qua accipimus gratiam et pacem a Deo. Haec autem virtus fides est. Nam, ut saepe dictum est, fides non tantum notitia est, sed multo magis velle accipere seu apprehendere ea, quae in promissione de Christo offeruntur.

[1] Tollant and aboleant are in the subjunctive to indicate a less certain future result: would destroy…would abolish

[2] A dative of agency: if Christ is not necessary

[3] Quid…incommodi: an objective genitive: what troublesome thing…

[4] A present active participle modifying adversarii

[5] Quid and quomodo introduce indirect questions

[6] A perfect passive participle

[7] A present active participle

[8] A relative conjunction which serves as a direct object in the clause tamen stultum fuerit somniare where the subject is the infinitive somniare: to dream….is stupid

[9] A quod substantive clause introduced by somniare

[10] Interact

[11] The first in three passive periphrastic constructions

[12] None

[13] The implied subject is adversarii, and the verb introduces an indirect statement

[14] Est is the implied main verb: the greater of these is charity

[15] An impersonal construction which introduces an indirect statement: it is fitting that

[16] Introduces an indirect statement

[17] Introduces an indirect statement

[18] A quod substantive clause

Vocabulary
Coepio, ere, coepi, coeptus- to beginPlerique, pleraeque, pleraque- very many, the majority
Consentaneus, a, um- agreeable; appropriate, fitting; in harmony withPraefero, praeferre, praetuli, praelatus- to prefer, give preference to
Excellens, excellentis- distinguished, excellentSane (adv.)-reasonably, certainly
Fastidio, ire, ivi, itus- to disdain; feel averse to; be scornfulSimultas, simultatis, f.- enmity; rivalry; hatred
Ferveo, ere, ferbui- to be busy; be hot; seetheSummus, a, um- the greatest, the highest
Largior, īrī, largitus sum- to give generously; grant

The adversaries would destroy the promise of Christ, and they would abolish the gospel if Christ is not necessary or  if we are able to conquer death with our love or if we have an approach to God by our love without Christ our propitiator.

The adversaries corrupt very many passages because they bring to them their opinions, and they do not derive a meaning from those passages. For what troublesome thing does this passage have if we remove their interpretation which the adversaries, who do not know what justification is or how it occurs, sew on about this passage. The Corinthians, before they were justified, received many excellent gifts.

They were very busy in the beginning as it happens. Then rivalries began to exist among them, as Paul indicates, and they began to be scornful of good teachers. So Paul, recalling them to the duties of love, reproaches them; to dream that works of the second table, through which we interact with men not properly with God, justify before Godt, even if they are necessary, nevertheless was stupid. But in justification there must be an interaction with God: his wrath must be appeased, and consciences must be put at ease towards God. None of these things happen through the works of the second table.

But they object that love is preferred to faith and hope. For Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:13, “The greater of these is charity.” Again it is fitting that the greatest and special virtue justifies. Although in this passage Paul properly is speaking about the love of our neighbor and means that it is the greatest love because it has many fruits. Faith and hope only interact with God. But love has unlimited duties outside of us towards men; nevertheless let us certainly grant to our adversaries that love of God and neighbor is the greatest virtue because it is the sum of the commandment: “You will love the Lord God” in Matthew 22:37. But how will they conclude from there that love justifies?

The greatest virtue, they say, justifies. Rather, in this manner even the greatest law or the first does not justify and thus not the greatest virtue of the law. But that virtue justifies which grasps Christ and which communicates to us the merits of Christ by which we receive grace and peace from God. However, this virtue is faith. For, as it has often been said, faith is not only knowledge but much more to want to receive or grasp those things which are offered in the promise of Christ.

.

CAVE, EMPTOR, SELF PROMOTION: Check out my author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09F3PXYJY
And follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550921382723&mibextid=ZbWKwL

Translating the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: (Art. III) De Dilectione et Impletione Legis (xviii)

Posted: October 26, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Book of Concord, Latin Translation, Law and Gospel, Lutheranism, Melancthon | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nunc igitur respondebimus ad illos locos, quos citant adversarii, ut[1] probent[2] nos dilectione et operibus iustificari. Ex Corinthiis, 1 Cor. 13, 2, citant: Si omnem fidem habeam etc., caritatem autem non habeam, nihil sum. Et hic magnifice triumphant. Totam ecclesiam, aiunt, certificat Paulus, quod[3] non iustificat sola fides. Facilis autem responsio est, postquam ostendimus supra, quid[4] de dilectione et operibus sentiamus. Hic locus Pauli requirit dilectionem. Hanc requirimus et nos. Diximus[5] enim supra, oportere existere in nobis renovationem et inchoatam[6] legis impletionem, iuxta illud, Ier. 31, 33: Dabo legem meam in corda eorum. Si quis[7] dilectionem abiecerit, etiamsi habet magnam fidem, tamen non retinet eam.[8]

Non enim retinet Spiritum Sanctum. Neque vero hoc loco tradit Paulus modum iustificationis, sed scribit his, qui, quum fuissent iustificari, cohortandi erant,[9] ut[10] bonos fructus ferrent, ne[11] amitterent Spiritum Sanctum. Ac praepostere faciunt adversarii: hunc unum locum citant, in quo Paulus docet de fructibus, alios locos plurimos omittunt, in quibus ordine disputat de modo iustificationis. Ad hoc in aliis locis, qui de fide loquuntur, semper ascribunt correctionem, quod[12] debeant intelligi de fide formata. Hic nullam ascribunt correctionem, quod fide etiam opus sit sentiente,[13] quod[14] reputemur iusti propter Christum propitiatorem. Ita adversarii excludunt Christum a iustificatione et tantum docent iustitiam legis. Sed redeamus[15] ad Paulum.

Nihil quisquam[16] ex hoc textu amplius ratiocinari potest, quam quod[17] dilectio sit necessaria. Id fatemur. Sicut necessarium est non furari. Neque vero recte ratiocinabitur, si quis inde velit hoc efficere: non furari[18] necessarium est, igitur non furari iustificat; quia iustificatio non est certi operis approbatio, sed totius personae. Nihil[19] igitur laedit nos hic Pauli locus; tantum ne affingant adversarii, quidquid ipsis libet. Non enim dicit, quod[20] iustificet dilectio, sed quod nihil sim, id est, quod fides extinguatur, quamlibet magna contigerit. Non dicit, quod[21] dilectio vincat terrores peccati et mortis, quod dilectionem nostram opponere possimus irae ac iudicio Dei, quod dilectio nostra satisfaciat legi Dei, quod sine propitiatore Christo habeamus accessum ad Deum nostra dilectione,[22] quod dilectione nostra[23] accipiamus promissam remissionem peccatorum. Nihil horum[24] dicit Paulus. Non igitur sentit, quod[25] dilectio iustificet, quia tantum ita iustificamur, quum apprehendimus propitiatorem Christum et credimus[26] nobis Deum propter Christum placatum esse. Nec est iustificatio somnianda[27] omisso propitiatore Christo.[28]

[1] Introduces a purpose clause

[2] Introduces an indirect statement

[3] A quod substantive clause

[4] Introduces an indirect question

[5] Introduces an indirect statement

[6] A perfect passive participle

[7] Si (ali)quis

[8] The pronoun refers to fides

[9] The passive periphrastic

[10] Introduces an indirect command

[11] Introduces a negative purpose clause

[12] A quod substantive clause

[13] A present active participle modifying fide

[14] A quod substantive clause

[15] The hortatory subjunctive: let us return

[16] Noone

[17] A quod substantive clause

[18] The infinitive is the subject of this clause and the next

[19] Not

[20] The first in a series of quod substantive clauses

[21] The first in a series of quod substantive clauses

[22] An ablative of cause

[23] An ablative of cause

[24] An objective genitive: None of these things

[25] A quod substantive clause

[26] Introduces an indirect statement

[27] The passive periphrastic

[28] An ablative absolute: after our propitiator Christ has been disregarded

Vocabulary
Approbatio, approbationis, f.- approval; proof, confirmationInde (adv.)- from there
Ascribo, ere, ascripsi, ascriptus- to add, insert; appointLaedō, ere, laesī, laesus- to strike; hurt, injure, wound
Certifico, are, avi, atus- to certify; register; assureMagnifice (adv.)- superbly, proudly
Cohortor, ari, cohortatus sum- to exhort, encourageOrdō, ordinis, f.- order; rite; hierarchy
Correctio, correctionis, f.- correction; amendmentRatiocinor, ari, ratiocinatus sum- to argue, infer; conclude; calculate
Extinguo, ere, extinxi, extinctus- to quench, extinguish; kill; destroyRenovatiō, renovatiōnis, f.- renewal
Formo, are, avi, atus- to form, shapeTextus, us, m.- text; woven fabric; cloth
Furor, ari, furatus sum- to steal, plunder

Now, therefore, we will respond to those passages which the adversaries cite to prove that we are justified by love and works. From the Corinthians, in 1 Corinthians 13: 2, they cite this: “If I have complete faith etc, but I do not have charity, I am nothing.” And here they boast so proudly. They say Paul assures the whole church that faith alone does not justify. However, a response is easy after we have shown above what we think about love works. This passage of Paul requires love. We also require this. For we have said above that it is necessary that a renewal and begun fulfillment of the law exist in us; concerning that in Jeremiah 31:33, it says, “I will bestow my law in their hearts.” If anyone casts away love, even if he has great faith, nevertheless, he does not preserve it.

For he does not preserve the Holy Spirit. But Paul does not teach in this passage a mode of justification, but he writes for those, who, when they had been justified, must be exhorted so that they bear good fruits lest they lose the Holy Spirit. And the adversaries make this topsy-turvy: they this one passage in which Paul teaches about fruits, and they omit many other passages in which he disputes about the mode of justification. To this in other passages, which speak about faith, they always add a correction: that they must be understood to be about faith which has been formed. Here they ascribe no correction: that it is necessary with a faith which understands that we are considered just on account of Christ our propitiator. Thusly the adversaries exclude Christ from justification, and they teach only the righteousness of the law. But let us return to Paul.

Noone can argue more from this text than that love is necessary. We confess that. Thus to not steal is necessary. But they do not argue rightly if anyone from there wants to effect this: to not steal is necessary; therefore, to not steal justifies; because justification is not an approval of a certain work but of the whole person. Therefore, this passage of Paul does not harm us; the adversaries add whatever is pleasing to themselves. For he does not say that love justifies but that I am nothing, that is, that faith is extinguished however much it was granted to be great. He does not say that love conquers the terrors of sin and death, that we are able to oppose our love to the wrath and judgment of God, that our love satisfies the law of God, that without our atoner Christ we have access to God on account of our love, that we receive the promised forgiveness of sins on account of our love. Paul says none of these things. He, therefore, does not think that love justifies, because we are justified only in this way when we grasp the atoner Christ and believe that God has been made peaceful on account of Christ. Justification must not be dreamed about once Christ our propitiator has been disregarded. 

CAVE, EMPTOR, SELF PROMOTION: Check out my author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09F3PXYJY
And follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550921382723&mibextid=ZbWKwL

Translating the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: (Art. III) De Dilectione et Impletione Legis (xvii)

Posted: October 25, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Book of Concord, Latin Translation, Law and Gospel, Lutheranism, Melancthon | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Antonius, Bernhardus, Dominicus, Franciscus et alii sancti patres elegerunt certum vitae genus vel propter studium, vel propter alia utilia exercitia. Interim sentiebant[1] se fide propter Christum iustos reputari et habere propitium Deum, non propter illa propria exercitia. Sed multitudo deinceps imitata est non fidem patrum, sed exempla sine fide, ut[2] per illa opera mererentur remissionem peccatorum, gratiam et iustitiam; non senserunt[3] se haec gratis accipere propter propitiatorem Christum.

Sic de omnibus operibus iudicat mundus, quod[4] sint propitiatio, qua placatur Deus, quod sint pretia, propter quae reputamur iusti. Non sentit[5] Christum esse propitiatorem, non sentit, quod[6] fide gratis consequamur, ut[7] iusti reputemur propter Christum. Et tamen quum opera non possint reddere pacatam conscientiam, eliguntur subinde alia, fiunt novi cultus, nova vota, novi monachatus praeter mandatum Dei, ut[8] aliquod magnum opus quaeratur, quod possit opponi irae et iudicio Dei. Has impias opiniones de operibus adversarii tuentur contra Scripturam. At haec tribuere[9] operibus nostris, quod[10] sint propitiatio, quod mereantur remissionem peccatorum et gratiam, quod propter ea iusti coram Deo reputemur, non fide propter Christum propitiatorem, quid hoc aliud est, quam[11] Christo detrahere[12] honorem mediatoris et 93] propitiatoris?

Nos igitur, etsi sentimus ac docemus,[13] bona opera necessario facienda esse[14] (debet enim sequi fidem inchoata[15] legis impletio), tamen Christo suum honorem reddimus. sentimus ac docemus, quod[16] fide propter Christum coram Deo iusti reputemur, quod non reputemur iusti propter opera sine mediatore Christo, quod non mereamur remissionem peccatorum, gratiam et iustitiam per opera, quod opera nostra non possimus opponere irae et iudicio Dei, quod opera non possint terrores peccati vincere, sed quod sola fide vincantur terrores peccati, quod tantum mediator Christus per fidem opponendus sit[17] irae et iudicio Dei. Si quis secus sentit, [18] non reddit Christo debitum honorem, qui propositus est, ut[19] sit propitiator, ut[20] per ipsum habeamus accessum ad Patrem. Loquimur autem nunc de iustitia, per quam agimus[21] cum Deo, non cum hominibus, sed qua apprehendimus gratiam et pacem conscientiae. Non potest autem conscientia pacata reddi coram Deo, nisi sola fide, quae statuit[22] nobis Deum placatum esse propter Christum, iuxta illud, Rom. 5, 1: Iustificari[23] ex fide, pacem habemus; quia iustificatio tantum est res gratis promissa propter Christum, quare[24] sola fide semper coram Deo accipitur.

[1] Introduces an indirect statement

[2] Introduces a purpose clause

[3] Introduces an indirect statement

[4] This and the following quod introduce quod substantive clauses

[5] Introduces an indirect statement

[6] A quod substantive clause

[7] Introduce a purpose clause

[8] Introduces a purpose clause

[9] The infinitive is the subject of this clause: To attribute these things to our works…

[10] This and the following quods introduce quod substantive clauses

[11] than

[12] The infinitive is the predicate nominative of est: than to remove…

[13] Introduces an indirect statement

[14] The passive periphrastic is the infinitive main verb of an indirect statement: good works must be done of necessity

[15] A perfect passive participle

[16] This and the long string of quods in the sentence introduce quod substantive clauses

[17] The passive periphrastic: must be opposed to the wrath and judgment of God.

[18] Si (ali)quis sentit (esse) secures: if anyone thinks he is secure…

[19] Introduces a purpose clause

[20] Introduces a purpose clause

[21] interact

[22] Introduces an indirect statement

[23] A perfect passive participle

[24] therefore

Vocabulary
Deinceps (adv.)- in order, in turn; one after another; hereafter, thereafterStudium, ī, n. zeal; study
Eligo, ere, elexi, electus- to pick out, chooseUtilis, e- helpful, advantageous, profitable
Monachatum, i, n.- monkeryVel (conj.)- or
Multitudo, multitudinis, f.- multitudeVel… (conj.)- either…or

Antony, Bernhard, Dominicus, Franciscus and other holy fathers chose a certain kind of life, either on account of zeal or on account of other useful exercises. Meanwhile they thought that they were considered just on account of Christ and that they had a propitious God, not on account of those exercises themselves. But a multitude thereafter imitated not the faith of the fathers but their examples without faith in order to merit the forgiveness of sins, grace and righteousness through those works; they have not understood that they received these thing freely on account of the propitiator Christ.

Concerning all these works the world thinks that they are an atonement by which God is pleased, that they are the price on account of which we are considered just. It does not think that Christ is the atoner, and it does not think that we obtain it freely by faith so that we are considered just on account of Christ. And, nevertheless, since works are not able to restore a peaceful conscience, other things are picked thereupon, and new forms of worship, new vows and new monastic orders are made beyond the command of God so that some other great works is found which is able to be opposed to the wrath and judgment of God. The adversaries uphold these impious opinions about works against Scripture. But to attribute these things to works: that they are an atonement, that they merit the forgiveness of sins and grace, that on account of them we are considered just before God, not by faith on account of Christ, our propitiator, what is this other than to take away the honor of mediator and propitiator from Christ?

Therefore, even if we think and teach that good works must be done of necessity (for the begun fulfillment of the law should follow faith), we, nevertheless, we restore His honor to Christ, and we think and teach that we are considered just before God on account of Christ by faith, that we are not considered just on account of works without the mediator Christ, that we do not merit the forgiveness of sins, grace and righteousness through works, that our works are not able to oppose the wrath and judgment of god, that works are not able to overcome the terrors of sin but that the terrors of sin are able to be overcome by faith alone, that only Christ, as mediator, must be opposed to the wrath and judgment of God. If anyone thinks that he is secure, he does not restore the owed honor to Christ who has been put forward so that He is our atoner so that we have access to the Father through Him. However, we are now speaking about the righteousness through which we interact with God not with men but by which we grasp grace and peace of conscience. However, a peaceful conscience cannot be restored before God except by faith alone which understands that on account of Christ God has been made well-disposed towards us. Concerning that Romans 5:1 says, “Justified by faith, we have peace.” Because justification is only a thing promised freely on account of Christ, therefore, it is always received before God by faith alone.

CAVE, EMPTOR, SELF PROMOTION: Check out my author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09F3PXYJY
And follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550921382723&mibextid=ZbWKwL

Translating the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: (Art. III) De Dilectione et Impletione Legis (xvi)

Posted: October 24, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Book of Concord, Latin Translation, Law and Gospel, Lutheranism, Melancthon | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Semper autem in mundo haesit impia opinio de operibus. Gentes habebant sacrificia, sumpta[1] a patribus. Horum opera imitabantur, fidem non tenebant, sed sentiebant[2] opera illa propitiationem et pretium esse, propter quod Deus reconciliaretur ipsis.

Populus in lege[3] imitabatur sacrificia hac opinione, quod[4] propter illa opera haberent placatum Deum, ut ita loquamur, ex opere operato.[5] Hic videmus, quam[6] vehementer obiurgent populum prophetae. Psalmo 50, 8: Non in sacrificiis arguam te. Et Ieremia 7, 22: Non praecepi de holocaustomatis. Tales loci damnant non opera, quae certe Deus praeceperat ut externa exercitia in hac politia, sed damnant impiam persuasionem, quod sentiebant[7] se per illa opera placare iram Dei, et fidem abiiciebant.

Et quia nulla opera reddunt pacatam conscientiam, ideo subinde nova opera excogitantur praeter mandata Dei. Populus Israel[8] viderat[9] prophetas in excelsis sacrificasse. Porro sanctorum exempla maxime movent animos, sperantes[10] se similibus operibus perinde gratiam consecuturos esse, ut illi consecuti sunt. Quare hoc opus mirabili studio coepit imitari populus, ut[11] per id opus mereretur remissionem peccatorum, gratiam et iustitiam. At prophetae sacrificaverant in excelsis, non ut[12] per illa opera mererentur remissionem peccatorum et gratiam, sed quia in illis locis docebant, ideo ibi testimonium fidei suae proponebant.

Populus audierat[13] Abraham immolasse filium suum. Quare et ipsi, ut[14] asperrimo ac difficillimo opere placarent iram Dei, mactaverunt filios. At Abraham non hac opinione immolabat filium, ut[15] id opus esset pretium et propitiatio, propter quam iustus reputaretur.

Sic in ecclesia instituta est coena Domini, ut[16] recordatione promissionum Christi, quarum in hoc signo admonemur, confirmetur in nobis fides et foris confiteamur fidem nostram et praedicemus beneficia Christi, sicut Paulus ait 1 Cor. 11, 26: Quoties feceritis, mortem Domini annunciabitis etc. Verum adversarii nostri contendunt[17] missam esse opus, quod ex opere operato iustificat et tollit reatum culpae et poenae in his, pro quibus fit. Sic enim scribit Gabriel

[1] A perfect passive participle

[2] Introduces an indirect statement

[3] Populus in lege: the people in the law (the Israelites)

[4] A quod substantive clause

[5] A perfect passive participle

[6] Introduces an indirect question

[7] Introduces an indirect statement

[8] Apposition for populus

[9] Introduces an indirect statement

[10] A present active participle which introduces an indirect statement

[11] Introduces a purpose clause

[12] An unconventional introduction to a purpose clause

[13] Introduces an indirect statement

[14] Introduces a purpose clause

[15] that

[16] Introduces a purpose clause

[17] Introduces an indirect statement

Vocabulary
Annuncio, are, avi, atus- to announce, reportImmolo, are, avi, atus- to sacrifice; immolate
Asper, aspera, asperum- cruel, violent; harsh; severe; sharpMacto, are, avi, atus- to magnify, honor; sacrifice; slaughter
Coena, ae, f.- SupperPerinde (adv.)- just as, in the same way
Difficilis, e- difficult, hard; intractablePraeter+acc.-contrary to, besides
Excelsus, a, um- high, loftyRecordatio, recordationis, f.- recollection
Gens, gentis, f.- gentiles; tribe, peopleSacrifico, are, avi, atus- to sacrifice
Holocaustoma, holocaustomatis, n.- burnt offeringVehementer (adv.)- violently; very much

However, an impious opinion about works has always remained in the world. The gentiles have sacrifices which they were taken up from their fathers. They imitated their works, and they did not have faith, but they thought that those works were a propitiation and price on account of which God was reconciled to them.

The people in the law imitated the sacrifices in this opinion: that on account of those works they had a placated God as we said by the work which had been worked. Here we see how violently the prophets reproach the people. In the Psalm 50:8, it says, “I will not accuse you in sacrifices.” And in Jeremiah 7:22, “I did not command you concerning burnt offerings.” Such passages condemn not works, which certainly God commanded as external exercise in this kingdom, but they condemn an impious opinion that they they think that they placate the wrath of God through those works and cast aside faith.

And because no works restore a peaceful conscience, so new works must be invented constantly besides the commands of God. The people of Israel had seen the prophets offer sacrifices in the high places. Later on the examples of the saints moved many souls who hoped that they would obtain grace through similar works as they performed. Wherefore, the people began to imitate this wonderful work with zeal in order to merit the forgiveness of sins, grace and righteousness through it.. But the prophets sacrificed in the high places not so that those works would merit the forgiveness of sins and grace but since in those places they taught, so there they offered testimonies of their faith.

The people had heard that Abraham had sacrificed his son. Wherefore they also honored their sons so that they calmed the wrath of God with a most severe and difficult work. But Abraham was not sacrificing his son with this opinion so that the work was a price and propitiation on account of which he was considered just.

Thus in the church the Lord’s Supper has been instituted so that faith is strengthened in us by this recollection of the promises of Christ of which we are admonished in this sign, and from without we confess our faith and proclaim the benefits of Christ just as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:26, “As often as you do it, you will announce the death of the Lord” etc. But our adversaries contend that the Mass is a work which justifies by the doing of the work and removes the state of guilt and punishment in those for whom it is done. For Gabriel writes thusly.

CAVE, EMPTOR, SELF PROMOTION: Check out my author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09F3PXYJY

And follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550921382723&mibextid=ZbWKwL

Translating the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: (Art. III) De Dilectione et Impletione Legis (xv)

Posted: October 23, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Book of Concord, Latin Translation, Law and Gospel, Lutheranism, Melancthon | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Laudamus igitur et requirimus bona opera et multas ostendimus causas, quae fieri debeant. Sic de operibus docet et Paulus, quum inquit[1] Rom. 4, 9 sq., Abraham accepisse circumcisionem, non ut[2] per illud opus iustificaretur. Iam enim fide consecutus erat, ut[3] iustus reputaretur. Sed accessit circumcisio, ut[4] haberet in corpore scriptum signum, quo commonefactus[5] exerceret fidem, quo etiam confiteretur fidem coram aliis et alios ad credendum[6] suo testimonio invitaret. Abel fide gratiorem hostiam obtulit, Hebr. 11, 4. Quia igitur fide iustus erat, ideo placuit sacrificium, quod faciebat, non ut[7] per id opus mereretur remissionem peccatorum et gratiam, sed ut fidem suam exerceret et ostenderet aliis ad invitandos eos[8] ad credendum.[9]

Quum hoc modo bona opera sequi fidem debeant, longe aliter utuntur operibus homines, qui non possunt credere ac statuere[10] in corde, sibi gratis ignosci propter Christum, se habere Deum propitium gratis propter Christum. Hi, quum vident opera sanctorum, humano more iudicant,[11] sanctos promeruisse remissionem peccatorum et gratiam per haec opera. Ideo imitantur ea et sentiunt[12] se per opera similia mereri remissionem peccatorum et gratiam, sentiunt[13] se per illa opera placare iram Dei et consequi, ut[14] propter illa opera iusti reputentur.

Hanc impiam opinionem in operibus damnamus. Primum, quia obscurat gloriam Christi, quum homines proponunt Deo haec opera tamquam pretium et propitiationem. Hic bonus,[15] debitus[16] uni Christo, tribuitur nostris operibus. Secundo, neque tamen inveniunt conscientiae pacem in his operibus, sed alia super alia in veris terroribus cumulantes[17] tandem desperant, quia nullum opus satis mundum inveniunt. Semper accusat lex et parit iram. Tertio, tales nunquam assequuntur notitiam Dei; quia enim irati fugiunt Deum iudicantem et affligentem,[18] nunquam sentiunt[19] se exaudiri. 84] At fides ostendit praesentiam Dei, postquam constituit, quod[20] Deus gratis ignoscat et exaudiat.

[1] Introduces an indirect statement

[2] Introduces a purpose clause

[3] Introduces a purpose clause

[4] Introduces a purpose clause

[5] A perfect passive participle

[6] Ad with the gerund to reflect purpose

[7] This and the following ut introduce a result clause

[8] Ad with the gerundive to reflect purpose

[9] Ad with the gerund to reflect purpose

[10] Introduces two indirect statements

[11] Introduces an indirect statement

[12] Introduces an indirect statement

[13] Introduces an indirect statement

[14] Introduces a purpose clause

[15] Honor

[16] A perfect passive participle

[17] A present active participle

[18] Present active participles

[19] Introduces an indirect statement

[20] A quod substantive clause

Vocabulary
Assequor, assequi, assecutus sum- to follow on, go after; gain; equalInvitō, āre, āvī, ātus- to invite
Commonefacio, ere, commonefeci, commonefactus- to recall, rememberMundus, a, um- clean
Cumulo, are, avi, atus- to heap up, pile; accumulate; increasePromereor, eri, promeritus sum- to merit, deserve
Hostia, ae, f.- sacrifice, victimSecundo (adv.)- secon
Imitor, ari, imitatus sum- to imitateTertio (adv.)- third
Invenīo īre, invēnī, inventus- to find

Therefore, we praise and require good works, and we have shown many reasons for which they must be done. Paul also teaches thusly concerning works when he says in Romans 4:9 and following that Abraham received circumcision, not so that through that work he would be justified. For he also acquired it by faith so that he was considered just. But circumcision was added so that he had in his body a written sign  with which, once it had been recalled, he would exercise his faith and with which he also would confess his faith before others and invite others to believe his testimony. Abel offered a more pleasing sacrifice by faith (Hebrews 11:4). Because, therefore, he was just by faith, so the sacrifice, which he made, was pleasing not that it merited the forgiveness of sins and grace through itself but that it exercised and showed his faith to others in order to invite them to believe.

Since in this way good works ought to follow faith, men, who are not able to believe and understand in their heart that they are forgiven freely on account of Christ and that they have a propitious God freely on account of Christ, use good works differently. These people, when they see the works of the saints, judge in a human fashion that the saints merited the forgiveness of sins and grace through these works, and they think that they placate the wrath of God through those works and obtain that so that they are considered just on account of those works.

We condemn this impious opinion about works. First, because it obscures the glory of Christ, since men place these works before God as a price and propitiation. This honor, owed to Christ alone, is attributed to our works. Second, consciences still do not find peace in these works, but, as they pile things upon things in true terror, they at last despair because they find no work clean enough. The law always accuses, and it produces wrath. Third such people never obtain the knowledge of God; for since they, angry, flee God who judges humbles, they never think that they are heard. But faith shows. But faith shows the presence of God it has determined that God freely forgives and hears us.

CAVE, EMPTOR, SELF PROMOTION: Check out my author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09F3PXYJY

And follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550921382723&mibextid=ZbWKwL

Translating the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: (Art. III) De Dilectione et Impletione Legis (xiv)

Posted: October 22, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Book of Concord, Latin Translation, Law and Gospel, Lutheranism, Melancthon | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Atque hic addimus etiam de praemiis et de merito. Docemus[1] operibus fidelium proposita et promissa esse praemia. Docemus[2] bona opera meritoria esse, non remissionis peccatorum, gratiae aut iustificationis (haec enim tantum fide consequimur), sed aliorum praemiorum corporalium et spiritualium in hac vita et post hanc vitam, quia Paulus inquit 1 Cor. 3, 8: Unusquisque recipiet mercedem iuxta suum laborem. Erunt[3] igitur dissimilia praemia propter dissimiles labores. At remissio peccatorum similis et aequalis est omnium, sicut unus est Christus, et offertur gratis omnibus, qui credunt[4] sibi propter Christum remitti peccata. Accipitur igitur tantum fide remissio peccatorum et iustificatio, non propter ulla opera, sicut constat in terroribus conscientiae, quod non possunt irae Dei opponi ulla nostra opera, sicut Paulus clare dicit Rom. 5, 1: Fide iustificati,[5] pacem habemus erga Deum per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, per quem et accessum habemus fide etc.

Fides autem, quia filios Dei facit, facit et coheredes Christi. Itaque quia iustificationem non meremur operibus nostris, qua efficimur filii Dei et coheredes Christi, non meremur vitam aeternam operibus nostris. Fides enim consequitur, quia fides iustificat nos, et habet placatum Deum. Debetur[6] autem iustificatis[7] iuxta illud Rom. 8, 30: Quos iustificavit, eosdem et glorificarit.[8]

Paulus Eph. 6, 2 sq. commendat nobis praeceptum de honorandis parentibus mentione praemii,[9] quod additur illi praecepto, ubi non vult, quod[10] obedientia erga parentes iustificet nos coram Deo; sed postquam fit in iustificatis, meremur alia magna praemia. Deus tamen varie exercet sanctos et saepe differt praemia iustitiae operum, ut[11] discant non confidere sua iustitia, ut discant quaerere voluntatem Dei magis quam praemia, sicut apparet in Iobo, in Christo et aliis sanctis. Et de hac re docent nos multi psalmi, qui consolantur nos adversus felicitatem impiorum, ut Ps. 37, 1: Noli aemulari.[12] Et Christus ait Matth. 5, 10: Beati[13], qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam, quoniam ipsorum est regnum coelorum.[14] His praeconiis bonorum operum moventur haud dubie fideles ad bene operandum.[15] Interim etiam praedicatur doctrina poenitentiae adversus impios, qui male operantur, ostenditur ira Dei, quam[16] mutatus est omnibus, qui non agunt poenitentiam.

[1] Introduces an indirect statement

[2] Introduces an indirect statement

[3] An impersonal construction

[4] Introduces an indirect statement

[5] A perfect passive participle

[6] An impersonal construction: it is owed

[7] A perfect passive participle used substantially: the justified

[8] Glorifica(ve)rit

[9] An ablative of accompaniment: with the mention of a reward

[10] A quod substantive clause

[11] Ut in the following two clauses introduces purpose clauses

[12] A negative imperative

[13] Blessed are they

[14] The kingdom of heaven is theirs

[15] Ad with the gerund to reflect purpose

[16] How

Vocabulary
Coheres, coheredis, c.- co-heir, joint heirHonorō, āre, āvī, ātus- to honor
Differo, differre, distuli, dilatus- to delay, postpone; differ, disagree; spread abroadMuto, are, avi, atus- to change
Disco, ere, didici, discitus- to learnParens, parentis, c.- parent
Dissimilis, e- unlike, differentPersecutio, persecutionis, f.- persecution; suffering
Dubie (adv.)- doubtfully, uncertainly, dubiously; dangerouslyPraeconium, i, n.- praise, celebration
Exerceō, ēre, uī, exercitus- to train, exerciseVarie (adv.)- differently
Haud (adv.)- not, not at all

And here we add this also concerning rewards and merit. We teach that rewards were promised and offered for the works of the faithful. We teach that these works  were meritorious, not of the forgiveness of sins, grace or justification (for we receive these things only by faith) but of other corporeal and spiritual rewards in this life and after this life because Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:8, “Each one will receive his reward according to his labor.” Therefore,  there will be dissimilar rewards for dissimilar labors. But the forgiveness of sins is similar and equal for all just as Christ is the same and is offered freely to all who believe that on account of Christ sins are forgiven for them. Therefore, the forgiveness of sins and justification is only received by faith, not on account of any work just as it is fitting for the terrors of conscience because none of our works are able to be opposed to the wrath of God just as Paul clearly says in Romans 5:1, “Justified by faith, we have peace towards God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we also have an audience by faith” etc.

Moreover, faith, because it makes us sons of God, makes us also coheirs of Christ. And so, because we do not merit justification, by which we are made sons of God and coheirs of Christ, with our works, and we do not merit eternal life with our works. For faith acquires it because faith justifies us, and faith has a placated God. Moreover, it is owed to the justified, and concerning that Romans 8:30 says, “Those, whom he justified, he also glorified the same ones.”

Paul commends in Ephesians 6:2 and following the command concerning honoring parents with the mention of a reward to us, which is added to that precept whereby he does not want that obedience towards parents to justify us before God; but after it happens in the justified, we merit other great rewards. Nevertheless, God trains the saints in different ways, and often He postpones the rewards for works of righteousness so that they learn to not trust their own righteousness and so that they learn to seek the will of God more than rewards just as it appears in in Job, Christ and the other saints. And concerning this matter many Psalms, which console us against the fortune of impious, teach us as Psalms 37:1 does, “Do not imitate them.” And Christ says in Matthew 5:10, “Blessed are those who are suffer persecution on account of righteousness because the kingdom of heaven is theirs. The faithful are certainly moved by these praises of good works to work well. Meanwhile even the doctrine of repentance is proclaimed against the impious who do evil works; the wrath of God is displayed: how He is moved by all who do not do repentance.

CAVE, EMPTOR, SELF PROMOTION: Check out my author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09F3PXYJY
And follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550921382723&mibextid=ZbWKwL

← Older Entries