ST. CATHARINES CONCORDIA - Brock University

Thornay M Winger 4lJGSBlJRG CONFESSION IV & V 29
be understood as an expansion of AC VI, or as a defence of the entire doctrine of
4
justification by faith. These parallel structures suggest that AC V is to be taken as an
"added note", an apology and explanation of AC TV.
(2) An indication that AC IV was not to bc considered complete in itself is given
by its lack of any "condemnalion" paragraph. Perhaps the collde~nnahns given in AC
V were meant to serve for bothIV and V as aunit. If this is the case, it would strengthen
the link between the two, and bear implications for understanding AC IV in relation
to the Anabaptist heresies condemned in V. This structure is paralleled again in AC
V11 and VIII, whcrc condemnations fall only at thc cnd of thc lattcr articl~.~
(3) The strongest connection is made by the introductory phrase "in order to obtain
such faith" [Solchen GInr,~bc~i zu erlungcn; Ut hancf?dem ronseqim~~u~-1. This plxase
indicates that AC V describes the means by which justification through faith (AC IV)
is applied to the individual. The qualification or raith as "suchhhis Saith" poinls 10 an
antcccdcnt in thc prcvious article. The connection might bc cxprcsscd in this way: AC
1V describes the nature of justifying faith and its object; AC V explains how one
obtains rhi\ faith. "Such Saith" provides the bridge belween the articles. and carries
through even to AC VI.
(4) Finally, one inmediately notices the verbal parallels between the articles in
spcakina of justification. In fact, AC V within itself summarizes the entire content of
G :
AC IV. Th~s occurs as it describes what the "Gospel" teaches its hearers: "that not on
account of' our merits but on account of Christ does God justify those who believe
thenxclvcs rcccivcd into gracc on account of Christ" (Lat.). AC V prcsupposes the
fuller exposition of these statements given in AC IV? and teaches that it is this very
justification by faith which it promises to deliver.
These observations raise several questions which we will address. What sort of
"necessiLyW does AC V ascribe to its contents? IT AC V refers Lo the "Orrice of the
Ministry", in what way is this "necessary for salvation"? If it refers only to the Means
of Grace, why the references to the Predigtamt in the title and body of the text? Can
the Means ol' Grace and the Ol'f'ice of the Ministry ever be allematives'! In order 10 go
AC XX is vuken as an appendix to i\C lV-V1 by Nestor Beck, Tl~c Doctrt~w of Fc~itl~ (St. Louis: Concordin,
P~~hlishing House 1987) 106: "hc [Mclanchthon] composcd Art. XX m order to~~fute theallegations concel-nmg
the pemicmi~s ettects of the doctr~ne of justification through faith and tn demonstrate how nzcessary and
benefic~al ~t is for etlhancing Clmst's glo~y, renewlog people's consciences, and promoting 11 ue aelvicz to God.
111 short, .4rl. XX must be regdrded ds a delinite apology UI dehae of he doclrir~e uShilh." Beck (22) iderllifics
arl. V111 and XX as idditions in reaponse to Eck's articles.
However. in both cases the condemn~~tions seem to fit better only with the articles to which they are attached.
Further doubt is rnised by the fact that condcmnntion paragraphs arc frcqucntly ahscnt in the AC. It sccms that
whcrc thc contrary posltion is an ancicnt hcrcsy or aplcscnt ~ad~cal "Anahaptist" group ~t is directly condcmncd;
where the contmry positmn IS pnmanly I