Chapter 4: "If Abraham is justified by works, he may boast, but

not before God." However, when all works are so completely

rejected--which must mean faith alone justifies--whoever would

speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works would have

to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself

and the nature of language necessitates it.

"Yet", they say, "it has such an offensive tone that people infer

from it that they need not do any good works." Dear, what are we to

say? IS it not more offensive for St. Paul himself to not use the

term "faith alone" but spell it even more clearly, putting the

finishing touches on it by saying "Without the works of the Law?"

Gal. 1 [2.16] says that "not by works of the law" (as well as in

many other places) for the phrase "without the works of the law"

is so ever offensive, and scandalous that no amount of revision

can help it. How much more might people learn from "that they

need not do any good works", when all they hear is preaching

about the works themselves, stated in such a clear strong way:

"No works", "without works", "not by works"! If it is not

offensive to preach "without works", "not by works", "no works",

why is it offensive to preach "by faith alone"?

Still more offensive is that St. Paul does not reject just

ordinary works, but works of the law! It follows that one could

take offense at that all the more and say that the law is

condemned and cursed before God and one ought only do what is

contrary to the law as it is said in Rom. 3: "Why not do evil so

that there might be more good?" which is what that one divisive

spirit of our time was doing. Should one reject St. Paul's word

because of such 'offense' or refrain from speaking freely about

faith? Gracious, St. Paul and I want to offend like this for we

preach so strongly against works, insisting on faith alone for no

other reason than to offend people that they might stumble and

fall and learn that they are not saved by good works but only by

Christ's death and resurrection. Knowing that they cannot be

saved by their good works of the law, how much more will they

realize that they shall not be saved by bad works, or without the

law! Therefore, it does not follow that because good works do not

help, bad works will; just as it does not follow that because the

sun cannot help a blind person see, the night and darkness must

help him see.

It astounds me that one can be offended by something as obvious as

this! Just tell me, is Christ's death and resurrection our work,

what we do, or not? It is obviously not our work, nor is it the

work of the law. Now it is Christ's death and resurrection alone

which saves and frees us from sin, as Paul writes in Rom. 4: "He

died for our sin and arose for our righteousness." Tell me more!

What is the work by which we take hold of Christ's death and

resurrection? It must not be an external work but only the

eternal faith in the heart that alone, indeed all alone, which

takes hold of this death and resurrection when it is preached

through the gospel. Then why all this ranting and raving, this

making of heretics and burning of them, when it is clear at its

very core, proving that faith alone takes hold of Christ's death

and resurrection, without any works, and that his death and

resurrection are our life and righteousness? As this fact is so

obvious, that faith alone gives, brings, and takes a hold of this

life and righteousness--why should we not say so? It is not

heretical that faith alone holds on to Christ and gives life; and

yet it seems to be heresy if someone mentions it. Are they not

insane, foolish and ridiculous? They will say that one thing is

right but brand the telling of this right thing as wrong--even

though something cannot be simultaneously right and wrong.

Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that

faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and

many others who said it before me. And if one is to read and

understand St. Paul, the same thing must be said and not anything

else. His words, as well, are blunt--"no works"--none at all!

If it is not works, it must be faith alone. Oh what a marvelous,

constructive and inoffensive teaching that would be, to be taught

that one can be saved by works as well as by faith. That would be

like saying that it is not Christ's death alone that takes away

our sin but that our works have something to do with it. Now that

would be a fine way of honoring Christ's death, saying that it is

helped by our works, and that whatever it does our works can also

do--that we are his equal in goodness and power. This is the

devil itself for he cannot ever stop abusing the blood of Christ.

Therefore the matter itself, at its very core, necessitates that one

say: "Faith alone makes one righteous." The nature of the German

tongue teaches us to say it in the same way. In addition, I have

the examples of the holy fathers. The dangers confronting the

people also compel it so they do not continue to hang onto works

and wander away from faith, losing Christ, especially at this time

when they have been so accustomed to works they have to be pulled

away from them by force. It is for these reasons that it is not

only right but also necessary to say it as plainly and forcefully

as possible: "Faith alone saves without works!" I am only sorry I

did not add "alle" and "aller", and said "without any (alle) works

or any (aller) laws." That would have stated it most effectively.

Therefore, it will remain in the New Testament, and though all the

papal asses rant and rave at me, they shall not take it away from

me. Let this be enough for now. I will have to speak more about

this in the treatise "On Justification" (if God grants me grace).

On the other question as to whether the departed saints intercede

for us. For the present I am only going to give a brief answer as

I am considering publishing a sermon on the beloved angels in

which I will respond more fully on this matter (God willing).

First, you know that under the papacy it is not only taught that

the saints in heaven intercede for us--even though we cannot know

this as the Scripture does not tell us such--but the saints have

been made into gods, and that they are to be our patrons to whom

we should call. Some of them have never existed! To each of these

saints a particular power and might has been given--one over

fire, another over water, another over pestilence, fever and all

sorts of plagues. Indeed, God must have been altogether idle to

have let the saints work in his place. Of this atrocity the

papists themselves are aware, as they quietly take up their pipes

and preen and primp themselves over this doctrine of the

intercession of the saints. I will leave this subject for now--but

you can count on my not forgetting it and allowing this

primping and preening to continue without cost.

And again, you know that there is not a single passage from God

demanding us to call upon either saints or angels to intercede for

us, and that there is no example of such in the Scriptures. One

finds that the beloved angels spoke with the fathers and the

prophets, but that none of them had ever been asked to intercede

for them. Why even Jacob the patriarch did not ask the angel with

whom he wrestled for any intercession. Instead, he only took from

him a blessing. In fact, one finds the very opposite in revelation

as the angel will not allow itself to be worshipped by John. [Rev.

22] So the worship of saints shows itself as nothing but human

nonsense, our own invention separated from the word of God and the

Scriptures.

As it is not proper in the matter of divine worship for us to do

anything that is not commanded by God (and that whoever does is

putting God to the test), it is therefore also not advisable or

tolerable for one to call upon the saints for intercession or to

teach others to do so. In fact, it is to be condemned and people

taught to avoid it. Therefore, I also will not advise it and

burden my conscience with the iniquities of others. It was

difficult for me to stop from worshipping the saints as I was so

steeped in it to have nearly drowned. But the light of the gospel

is now shining so brightly that from now on no one has an excuse

for remaining in the darkness. We all very well know what we are

to do.

This is itself a very risky and blasphemous way to worship for

people are easily accustomed to turning away from Christ. They

learn quickly to trust more in the saints than in Christ himself.

When our nature is already all too prone to run from God and

Christ, and trust in humanity, it is indeed difficult to learn to

trust in God and Christ, even though we have vowed to do so and

are therefore obligated to do so. Therefore, this offense is not

to be tolerated whereby those who are weak and of the flesh

participate in idolatry, against the first commandment and our

baptism. Even if one tries nothing other than to switch their

trust from the saints to Christ, through teaching and practice, it

will be difficult to accomplish, that one should come to him and

rightly take hold of him. One need not paint the Devil on the

door--he will already be present.

We can finally be certain that God is not angry with us, and that

even if we do not call on the saints for intercession, we are

secure for God has never commanded it. God says that God is a

jealous God granting their iniquities on those who do not keep his

commandments [Ex.20]; but there is no commandment here and,

therefore, no anger to be feared. Since, then, there is on this

side security and on the other side great risk and offense against

the Word of God, why should we go from security into danger where

we do not have the Word of God to sustain, comfort and save us in

the times of trial? For it is written, "Whoever loves danger will

perish by it" [Ecclus. 3], and God's commandment says, "You shall

not put the Lord your God to the test" [Matt. 4].

"But," they say, "this way you condemn all of Christendom which

has always maintained this--until now." I answer: I know very

well that the priests and monks seek this cloak for their

blasphemies. They want to give to Christendom the damage caused

by their own negligence. Then, when we say, "Christendom does not

err," we shall also be saying that they do not err, since

Christendom believes it to be so. So no pilgrimage can be wrong,

no matter how obviously the Devil is a participant in it. No

indulgence can be wrong, regardless of how horrible the lies

involved. In other words, there is nothing there but holiness!

Therefore to this you reply, "It is not a question of who is and

who is not condemned." They inject this irrelevant idea in order

to divert us from the topic at hand. We are now discussing the

Word of God. What Christendom is or does belongs somewhere

else. The question here is: "What is or is not the Word of God?

What is not the Word of God does not make Christendom."

We read that in the days of Elijah the prophet there was

apparently no word from God and no worship of God in Israel. For

Elijah says, "Lord, they have killed your prophets and destroyed

your altars, and I am left totally alone" [I Kings 19]. Here King

Ahab and others could have said, "Elijah, with talk like that you

are condemning all the people of God." However God had at the

same time kept seven thousand [I Kings 19]. How? Do you not also

think that God could now, under the papacy, have preserved his

own, even though the priests and monks of Christendom have been

teachers of the devil and gone to hell? Many children and young

people have died in Christ. For even under the anti-Christ,

Christ has strongly sustained baptism, the bare text of the gospel

in the pulpit, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed. By this means he

sustained many of his Christians, and therefore also his

Christendom, and said nothing about it to these devil's teachers.

Now even though Christians have done some parts of the papal

blasphemy, the papal asses have not yet proved that they did it

gladly. Still less does it prove that they even did the right

thing. All Christians can err and sin, but God has taught them to

pray in the Lord's Prayer for the forgiveness of sins. God could

very well forgive the sins they had to unwillingly, unknowingly,

and under the coercion of the Antichrist commit, without saying

anything about it to the priests and monks! It can, however, be

easily proven that there has always been a great deal of secret

murmuring and complaining against the clergy throughout the world,

and that they are not treating Christendom properly. And the

papal asses have courageously withstood such complaining with fire

and sword, even to the present day. This murmuring proves how

happy Christians have been over these blasphemies, and how right

they have been in doing them!

So out with it, you papal asses! Say that this is the teaching of

Christendom: these stinking lies which you villains and traitors

have forced upon Christendom and for the sake of which you

murderers have killed many Christians. Why each letter of every

papal law gives testimony to the fact that nothing has ever been

taught by the counsel and the consent of Christendom. There is

nothing there but "districte precipiendo mandamus" ["we teach and

strictly command"]. That has been your Holy Spirit. Christendom

has had to suffer this tyranny. This tyranny has robbed it of the

sacrament and, not by its own fault, has been held in captivity.

And still the asses would pawn off on us this intolerable tyranny

of their own wickedness as a willing act and example of

Christendom--and thereby acquit themselves!

But this is getting too long. Let this be enough of an answer to

your questions for now. More another time. Excuse this long

letter. Christ our Lord be with us all. Amen.

Martin Luther,

Your good friend.

The Wilderness, September 8, 1530

* * * * *

This text was translated for Project Wittenberg by Dr. Gary Mann

in 1995 and was placed by him in the public domain. You may

freely distribute, copy or print this text, providing the

information in this statement remains attached. Please direct any

comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther

Library at Concordia Theological Seminary.

E-mail: CFWLibrary@CRF.CUIS.EDU

Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA

Phone: (219) 481-2123

Fax: (219) 481-2126

End of Project Gutenberg's An Open Letter on Translating, by Gary Mann