Introduction
In 1530, Charles V, Emperor of the
The confession was
presented to Charles V in both Latin and German. Minor differences between the
two texts exist. Some editions published today print English translations from
both. Our texts come from an edition published in 1930s by the
Most Invincible Emperor,
Caesar Augustus, Most Clement Lord: Inasmuch as Your Imperial Majesty has
summoned a Diet of the Empire here at Augsburg to deliberate concerning
measures against the Turk, that most atrocious, hereditary, and ancient enemy
of the Christian name and religion, in what way, namely, effectually to
withstand his furor and assaults by strong and lasting military provision; and
then also concerning dissensions in the matter of our holy religion and
Christian Faith, that in this matter of religion the opinions and judgments of
the parties might be heard in each other's presence; and considered and
weighed among ourselves in mutual charity, leniency, and kindness, in order
that, after the removal and correction of such things as have been treated and
understood in a different manner in the writings on either side, these matters
may be settled and brought back to one simple truth and Christian concord,
that for the future one pure and true religion may be embraced and maintained
by us, that as we all are under one Christ and do battle under Him, so we may
be able also to live in unity and concord in the one Christian Church.
And inasmuch as we, the undersigned
Elector and Princes, with others joined with us, have been called to the
aforesaid Diet the same as the other Electors, Princes, and Estates, in
obedient compliance with the Imperial mandate, we have promptly come to
Augsburg, and -- what we do not mean to say as boasting -- we were among the
first to be here.
Accordingly, since even here at Augsburg at
the very beginning of the Diet, Your Imperial Majesty caused to be proposed to
the Electors, Princes, and other Estates of the Empire, amongst other things,
that the several Estates of the Empire, on the strength of the Imperial edict,
should set forth and submit their opinions and judgments in the German and the
Latin language, and since on the ensuing Wednesday, answer was given to Your
Imperial Majesty, after due deliberation, that we would submit the Articles of
our Confession for our side on next Wednesday, therefore, in obedience to Your
Imperial Majesty's wishes, we offer, in this matter of religion, the
Confession of our preachers and of ourselves, showing what manner of doctrine
from the Holy Scriptures and the pure Word of God has been up to this time set
forth in our lands, dukedoms, dominions, and cities, and taught in our
churches.
And if the other Electors,
Princes, and Estates. of the Empire
will, according to the said Imperial proposition, present similar writings, to
wit, in Latin and German, giving their opinions in this matter of religion,
we, with the Princes and friends aforesaid, here before Your Imperial Majesty,
our most clement Lord are prepared to confer amicably concerning all possible
ways and means, in order that we may come together, as far as this may be
honorably done, and, the matter between us on both sides being peacefully
discussed without offensive strife, the dissension, by God's help, may be done
away and brought back to one true accordant religion; for as we all are under
one Christ and do battle under Him, we ought to confess the one Christ, after
the tenor of Your Imperial Majesty's edict, and everything ought to be
conducted according to the truth of God; and this it is what, with most
fervent prayers, we entreat of God.
However, as regards the rest of the
Electors, Princes, and Estates, who constitute the other part, if no progress
should be made, nor some result be attained by this treatment of the cause of
religion after the manner in which Your Imperial Majesty has wisely held that
it should be dealt with and treated namely, by such mutual presentation of
writings and calm conferring together among ourselves, we at least leave with
you a clear testimony, that we here in no wise are holding back from anything
that could bring about Christian concord, -- such as could be effected with
God and a good conscience, -- as also Your Imperial Majesty and, next, the
other Electors and Estates of the Empire, and all who are moved by sincere
love and zeal for religion, and who will give an impartial hearing to this
matter, will graciously deign to take notice and to understand this from this
Confession of ours and of our associates.
Your Imperial Majesty also, not only once
but often, graciously signified to the Electors Princes, and Estates of the
Empire, and at the Diet of Spires held A. D. 1526, according to the form of
Your Imperial instruction and commission given and prescribed, caused it to be
stated and publicly proclaimed that Your Majesty, in dealing with this matter
of religion, for certain reasons which were alleged in Your Majesty's name,
was not willing to decide and could not determine anything, but that Your
Majesty would diligently use Your Majesty's office with the Roman Pontiff for
the convening of a General Council. The same matter was thus publicly set
forth at greater length a year ago at the last Diet which met at
If the outcome, therefore, should be such
that the differences between us and the other parties in the matter of
religion should not be amicably and in charity settled, then here, before Your
Imperial Majesty we make the offer in all obedience, in addition to what we
have already done, that we will all appear and defend our cause in such a
general, free Christian Council, for the convening of which there has always
been accordant action and agreement of votes in all the Imperial Diets held
during Your Majesty's reign, on the part of the Electors, Princes, and other
Estates of the Empire. To the assembly of this General Council, and at the
same time to Your Imperial Majesty, we have, even before this, in due manner
and form of law, addressed ourselves and made appeal in this matter, by far
the greatest and gravest. To this appeal, both to Your Imperial Majesty and to
a Council, we still adhere; neither do we intend nor would it be possible for
us, to relinquish it by this or any other document, unless the matter between
us and the other side, according to the tenor of the latest Imperial citation
should be amicably and charitably settled, allayed, and brought to Christian
concord; and regarding this we even here solemnly and publicly testify.
Our Churches, with common
consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea
concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons,
is true and to be believed without any doubting; that is to say, there is one
Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body,
without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and
Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and yet there are three
Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father the
Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person" they use as the
Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that
which subsists of itself.
They condemn all heresies which have sprung
up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who
assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil- also the Valentinians,
Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such. They
condemn also the Samosatenes, old and new, who,
contending that there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue
that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that
"Word" signifies a spoken word, and "Spirit" signifies
motion created in things.
Also they teach that
since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin,
that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with
concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even
now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through
Baptism and the Holy Ghost.
They Condemn the Pelagians
and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the
glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before
God by his own strength and reason.
Also they teach that the
Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the human nature in the womb of the
blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human,
inseparably enjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man, who was
born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, that
He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for
original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men
He also descended into hell, and truly rose
again the third day; afterward He ascended into heaven that He might sit on
the right hand of the Father, and forever reign and have dominion over all
creatures, and sanctify them that believe in Him, by sending the Holy Ghost
into their hearts, to rule, comfort, and quicken them, and to defend them
against the devil and the power of sin.
The same Christ shall openly come again to
judge the quick and the dead, etc., according to the Apostles' Creed.
Also they teach that men
cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but
are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that
they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's
sake, Who, by His death, has made satisfaction for
our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom.
3 and 4.
That we may obtain this
faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments
was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments,
the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in
them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for
Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace
for Christ's sake.
They condemn the Anabaptists and others who
think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word, through
their own preparations and works.
Also they teach that this
faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good
works commanded by God, because of God's will, but that we should not rely on
those works to merit justification before God. For remission of sins and
justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of Christ attests:
When ye shall have done all these things, say: We are unprofitable servants. Luke
17, 10. The same is also taught by the Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is
ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving
remission of sins, without works, by faith alone.
Also they teach that one
holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints,
in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly
administered.
And to the true unity of the Church it is
enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration
of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites
or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says:
One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph.
4, 5. 6.
Although the Church
properly is the congregation of saints and true believers, nevertheless, since
in this life many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled therewith, it is
lawful to use Sacraments administered by evil men, according to the saying of
Christ: The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, etc. Matt.
23, 2. Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the
institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by
evil men.
They condemn the Donatists,
and such like, who denied it to be lawful to use the ministry of evil men in
the Church, and who thought the ministry of evil men to be unprofitable and of
none effect.
Of Baptism they teach
that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the
grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God
through Baptism are received into God's grace.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject
the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.
Of the Supper of the Lord
they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are
distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those
that teach otherwise.
Of Confession they teach
that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in
confession an enumeration of all sins is not necessary. For it is impossible
according to the Psalm: Who can understand his errors? Ps.
19, 12.
Of Repentance they teach
that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins
whenever they are converted and that the Church ought to impart absolution to
those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these
two parts: One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through
the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of
absolution, and believes that for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts
the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to
follow, which are the fruits of repentance.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that
those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those
who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they
cannot sin.
The Novatians
also are condemned, who would not absolve such as
had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance.
They also are rejected who do not teach
that remission of sins comes through faith but command us to merit grace
through satisfactions of our own.
Of the Use of the
Sacraments they teach that the Sacraments were ordained, not only to be marks
of profession among men, but rather to be signs and testimonies of the will of
God toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them.
Wherefore we must so use the Sacraments that faith be added to believe the
promises which are offered and set forth through the Sacraments.
They therefore condemn those who teach that
the Sacraments justify by the outward act, and who do not teach that, in the
use of the Sacraments, faith which believes that sins are forgiven, is
required.
Of Ecclesiastical Order
they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the
Sacraments unless he be regularly called.
Of Usages in the Church
they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without sin,
and which are profitable unto tranquillity and
good order in the Church, as particular holy-days, festivals, and the like.
Nevertheless, concerning such things men
are admonished that consciences are not to be burdened, as though such
observance was necessary to salvation.
They are admonished also that human
traditions instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and to make
satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith.
Wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and days, etc., instituted to
merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the
Gospel.
Of Civil Affairs they
teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that it is right
for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the
Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just
wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make
oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in
marriage.
They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid
these civil offices to Christians.
They condemn also those who do not place
evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil
offices, for the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart.
Meanwhile, it does not destroy the State or the family, but very much requires
that they be preserved as ordinances of God, and that charity be practiced in
such ordinances. Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own
magistrates and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to
obey God rather than men. Acts 5, 29.
Also they teach that at
the Consummation of the World, Christ will appear for judgment and will raise
up all the dead; He will give to the godly and elect eternal life and
everlasting joys, but ungodly men and the devils He will condemn to be
tormented without end.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who think
that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils.
They condemn also others who are now
spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead
the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being
everywhere suppressed.
Of Free Will they teach
that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work
things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work
the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural
man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor.
2,14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is
received through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine
in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all
men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not
that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to
complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life,
whether good or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from
the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink,
to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to
raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good pertains to this
life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of
God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being.
"Evil" I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit
murder, etc.
They condemn the Pelagians
and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature
alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments
of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature
is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands
from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the
fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.
Of the Cause of Sin they
teach that, although God does create and preserve nature, yet the cause of sin
is the will of the wicked, that is, of the devil and ungodly men; which will,
unaided of God, turns itself from God, as Christ says John 8, 44: When he speaketh
a lie, he speaketh of his own.
Our teachers are falsely
accused of forbidding good Works. For their published writings on the Ten
Commandments, and others of like import, bear witness that they have taught to
good purpose concerning all estates and duties of life, as to what estates of
life and what works in every calling be pleasing to God. Concerning these
things preachers heretofore taught but little, and urged only childish and
needless works, as particular holy-days, particular fasts, brotherhoods,
pilgrimages, services in honor of saints, the use of rosaries, monasticism,
and such like. Since our adversaries have been admonished of these things,
they are now unlearning them, and do not preach these unprofitable works as
heretofore. Besides, they begin to mention faith, of which there was
heretofore marvelous silence. They teach that we are justified not by works
only, but they conjoin faith and works, and say that we are justified by faith
and works. This doctrine is more tolerable than the former one, and can afford
more consolation than their old doctrine.
Forasmuch, therefore, as the doctrine
concerning faith, which ought to be the chief one in the Church, has lain so
long unknown, as all must needs grant that there was the deepest silence in
their sermons concerning the righteousness of faith, while only the doctrine
of works was treated in the churches, our teachers have instructed the
churches concerning faith as follows: --
First, that our works cannot
reconcile God or merit forgiveness of sins, grace, and justification, but that
we obtain this only by faith when we believe that we are received into favor
for Christs sake, who alone has been set forth the
Mediator and Propitiation, 1 Tim. 2, 6, in order that the Father may be
reconciled through Him. Whoever, therefore, trusts that by works he merits
grace, despises the merit and grace of Christ, and seeks a way to God without
Christ, by human strength, although Christ has said of Himself: I am the Way,
the Truth, and the Life. John 14, 6.
This doctrine concerning faith is
everywhere treated by Paul, Eph. 2, 8: By grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, etc.
And lest any one should craftily say
that a new interpretation of Paul has been devised by us, this entire matter
is supported by the testimonies of the Fathers. For Augustine, in many
volumes, defends grace and the righteousness of faith, over against the merits
of works. And Ambrose, in his De Vocatione Gentium,
and elsewhere, teaches to like effect. For in his De Vocatione
Gentium he says as follows: Redemption by the
blood of Christ would become of little value, neither would the preeminence of
man's works be superseded by the mercy of God, if justification, which is
wrought through grace, were due to the merits going before, so as to be, not
the free gift of a donor, but the reward due to the laborer.
But, although this doctrine is despised by
the inexperienced, nevertheless God- fearing and anxious consciences find by
experience that it brings the greatest consolation, because consciences cannot
be set at rest through any works, but only by faith, when they take the sure
ground that for Christ's sake they have a reconciled God. As Paul teaches Rom.
5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have peace with God. This whole doctrine is
to be referred to that conflict of the terrified conscience,
neither can it be understood apart from that conflict. Therefore inexperienced
and profane men judge ill concerning this matter, who dream
that Christian righteousness is nothing but civil and philosophical
righteousness.
Heretofore consciences were plagued with
the doctrine of works, they did not hear the
consolation from the Gospel. Some persons were driven by conscience into the
desert, into monasteries hoping there to merit grace by a monastic life. Some
also devised other works whereby to merit grace and make satisfaction for
sins. Hence there was very great need to treat of, and renew, this doctrine of
faith in Christ, to the end that anxious consciences should not be without
consolation but that they might know that grace and forgiveness of sins and
justification are apprehended by faith in Christ.
Men are also admonished that here the term
"faith" does not signify merely the knowledge of the history, such
as is in the ungodly and in the devil, but signifies a faith which believes,
not merely the history, but also the effect of the history -- namely, this
Article: the forgiveness of sins, to wit, that we have grace, righteousness,
and forgiveness of sins through Christ.
Now he that knows that he has a Father
gracious to him through Christ, truly knows God; he
knows also that God cares for him, and calls upon God; in a word, he is not
without God, as the heathen. For devils and the ungodly are not able to
believe this Article: the forgiveness of sins. Hence, they hate God as an
enemy, call not upon Him, and expect no good from Him. Augustine also
admonishes his readers concerning the word "faith," and teaches that
the term "faith" is accepted in the Scriptures not for knowledge
such as is in the ungodly but for confidence which consoles and encourages the
terrified mind.
Furthermore, it is taught on our part that
it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by
them, but because it is the will of God. It is only by faith that forgiveness
of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. And because through faith the
Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so
as to be able to bring forth good works. For Ambrose says: Faith is the mother
of a good will and right doing. For man's powers without the Holy Ghost are
full of ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works which are good in
God's sight. Besides, they are in the power of the devil who
impels men to divers sins, to ungodly opinions, to open crimes. This we may
see in the philosophers, who, although they endeavored to live an honest life
could not succeed, but were defiled with many open crimes. Such is the
feebleness of man when he is without faith and without the Holy Ghost, and
governs himself only by human strength.
Hence it may be readily seen that this
doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more
to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. For
without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the
Second Commandment. Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect
anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man's help.
And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of lusts and
human devices rule in the heart. Wherefore Christ said, John 16,6:
Without Me ye can do nothing; and the Church sings: Lacking Thy divine favor,
There is nothing found in man, Naught in him is harmless.
Of the Worship of Saints
they teach that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow
their faith and good works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may
follow the example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his
country; For both are kings. But the Scripture
teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets
before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest, and
Intercessor. He is to be prayed to, and has promised that He will hear our
prayer; and this worship He approves above all, to wit, that in all
afflictions He be called upon, 1 John 2, 1: If any man sin, we have an
Advocate with the Father, etc.
This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in
which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or
from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its
writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers
be regarded as heretics. There is, however, disagreement on certain Abuses,
which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in
these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the
part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now
reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same
rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been
the same; although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently
observed. For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all
the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. But it has been a
common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites.
These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have
been to some extent corrected.
Inasmuch, then, as our
churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only
omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by
the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, we pray
that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed,
and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those
abuses against their conscience. Nor should Your Imperial
Majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our
part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. Having thus
excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this
controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. For
Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of
ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these
ungodly and malicious men represent. Besides, the truth cannot be gathered
from common rumors or the revilings of enemies.
But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the
dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the
people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches.
To the laity are given
Both Kinds in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, because this usage has the
commandment of the Lord in Matt. 26, 27: Drink ye
all of it, where Christ has manifestly commanded concerning the cup that all
should drink.
And lest any man should craftily say that
this refers only to priests, Paul in 1 Cor. 11,27
recites an example from which it appears that the whole congregation did use
both kinds. And this usage has long remained in the
Church, nor is it known when, or by whose authority, it was changed; although
Cardinal Cusanus mentions the time when it was
approved. Cyprian in some places testifies that the blood was given to the
people. The same is testified by Jerome, who says: The priests administer the
Eucharist, and distribute the blood of Christ to the people. Indeed, Pope Gelasius
commands that the Sacrament be not divided (dist. II.,
De Consecratione, cap. Comperimus).
Only custom, not so ancient, has it otherwise. But it is evident that any
custom introduced against the commandments of God is not to be allowed, as the
Canons witness (dist. III., cap. Veritate,
and the following chapters). But this custom has been received, not only
against the Scripture, but also against the old Canons and the example of the
Church. Therefore, if any preferred to use both kinds of the Sacrament, they
ought not to have been compelled with offense to their consciences to do
otherwise. And because the division of the Sacrament does not agree with the
ordinance of Christ, we are accustomed to omit the procession, which hitherto
has been in use.
There has been common
complaint concerning the examples of priests who were not chaste. For that
reason also Pope Pius is reported to have said that there were certain causes
why marriage was taken away from priests, but that there were far weightier
ones why it ought to be given back; for so Platina
writes. Since, therefore, our priests were desirous to avoid these open scandals,
they married wives, and taught that it was lawful for them to contract
matrimony. First, because Paul says, 1 Cor.
7, 2. 9: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. Also:
It is better to marry than to burn. Secondly Christ says, Matt. 19,11:
All men cannot receive this saying, where He teaches that not all men are fit
to lead a single life; for God created man for procreation, Gen. 1, 28. Nor is
it in man's power, without a singular gift and work of God, to alter this
creation. [For it is manifest, and many have confessed that no good, honest,
chaste life, no Christian, sincere, upright conduct has resulted (from the
attempt), but a horrible, fearful unrest and torment of conscience has been
felt by many until the end.] Therefore, those who are not fit to lead a single
life ought to contract matrimony. For no man's law, no vow,
can annul the commandment and ordinance of God. For these reasons the priests
teach that it is lawful for them to marry wives.
It is also evident that in the
ancient Church priests were married men. For Paul says, 1 Tim. 3, 2, that a
bishop should be chosen who is the husband of one wife.
And in
Seeing also that, as the world is aging,
man's nature is gradually growing weaker, it is
well to guard that no more vices steal into
Furthermore, God ordained marriage to be a
help against human infirmity. The Canons themselves say that the old rigor
ought now and then, in the latter times, to be relaxed because of the weakness
of men; which it is to be wished were done also in this matter. And it is to
be expected that the churches shall at some time lack pastors if marriage is
any longer forbidden.
But while the commandment of God is in
force, while the custom of the Church is well known, while impure celibacy
causes many scandals, adulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments
of just magistrates, yet it is a marvelous thing that in nothing is more
cruelty exercised than against the marriage of priests. God has given
commandment to honor marriage. By the laws of all well-ordered commonwealths,
even among the heathen, marriage is most highly honored. But now men, and
that, priests, are cruelly put to death, contrary to the intent of the Canons,
for no other cause than marriage. Paul, in 1 Tim. 4,3,
calls that a doctrine of devils which forbids marriage. This may now be
readily understood when the law against marriage is maintained by such
penalties.
But as no law of man can annul the
commandment of God, so neither can it be done by any vow. Accordingly, Cyprian
also advises that women who do not keep the chastity they have promised should
marry. His words are these (Book I, Epistle XI ):
But if they be unwilling or unable to persevere, it is better for them to
marry than to fall into the fire by their lusts; they should certainly give no
offense to their brethren and sisters.
And even the Canons show some leniency
toward those who have taken vows before the proper age, as heretofore has
generally been the case.
Falsely are our churches
accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and
celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all
the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in Latin are
interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been added to teach
the people. For ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned be
taught [what they need to know of Christ]. And not only has Paul commanded to
use in the church a language understood by the people 1 Cor.
14,2. 9, but it has also been so ordained by man's
law. The people are accustomed to partake of the Sacrament together, if any be
fit for it, and this also increases the reverence and devotion of public
worship. For none are admitted except they be first
examined. The people are also advised concerning the dignity and use of
the Sacrament, how great consolation it brings anxious consciences, that they
may learn to believe God, and to expect and ask of Him all that is good. [In
this connection they are also instructed regarding other and false teachings
on the Sacrament.] This worship pleases God; such use of the Sacrament
nourishes true devotion toward God. It does not, therefore, appear that the
Mass is more devoutly celebrated among our adversaries than among us.
But it is evident that for a long time this
also has been the public and most grievous complaint of all good men that
Masses have been basely profaned and applied to purposes of lucre. For it is
not unknown how far this abuse obtains in all the churches by what manner of
men Masses are said only for fees or stipends, and how many celebrate them
contrary to the Canons. But Paul severely threatens those who deal unworthily
with the Eucharist when he says, 1 Cor.11,27:
Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. When, therefore our priests
were admonished concerning this sin, Private Masses were discontinued among
us, as scarcely any Private Masses were celebrated except for lucre's sake.
Neither were the
bishops ignorant of these abuses, and if they had corrected them in time,
there would now be less dissension. Heretofore, by their own connivance, they
suffered many corruptions to creep into the Church. Now, when it is too late,
they begin to complain of the troubles of the Church, while this disturbance
has been occasioned simply by those abuses which were so manifest that they
could be borne no longer. There have been great dissensions concerning the
Mass, concerning the Sacrament. Perhaps the world is being punished for such
long-continued profanations of the Mass as have been tolerated in the churches
for so many centuries by the very men who were both able and in duty bound to
correct them. For in the Ten Commandments it is written, Ex. 20, 7: The Lord
will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name
in vain. But since the world began, nothing that God ever ordained seems to
have been so abused for filthy lucre as the
There was also added the opinion which
infinitely increased Private Masses, namely that Christ, by His passion, had
made satisfaction for original sin, and instituted the Mass wherein an
offering should be made for daily sins, venial and mortal. From this has
arisen the common opinion that the Mass takes away the sins of the living and
the dead by the outward act. Then they began to dispute whether one Mass said
for many were worth as much as special Masses for individuals, and this
brought forth that infinite multitude of Masses. [With this work men wished to
obtain from God all that they needed, and in the mean time faith in Christ and
the true worship were forgotten.]
Concerning these opinions our teachers have
given warning that they depart from the Holy Scriptures and diminish the glory
of the passion of Christ. For Christ's passion was an oblation and
satisfaction, not for original guilt only, but also for all other sins, as it
is written to the Hebrews, 10, 10: We are sanctified through the offering of
Jesus Christ once for all. Also, 10, 14: By one offering He hath perfected
forever them that are sanctified. [It is an unheard-of innovation in the
Church to teach that Christ by His death made satisfaction only for original
sin and not likewise for all other sin. Accordingly it is hoped that everybody
will understand that this error has not been reproved without due reason.]
Scripture also teaches that we are
justified before God through faith in Christ, when we believe that our sins
are forgiven for Christ's sake. Now if the Mass take
away the sins of the living and the dead by the outward act justification
comes of the work of Masses, and not of faith, which Scripture does not allow.
But Christ commands us, Luke 22, 19: This
do in remembrance of Me; therefore the Mass was instituted that the faith of
those who use the Sacrament should remember what benefits it receives through
Christ, and cheer and comfort the anxious conscience. For to remember Christ
is to remember His benefits, and to realize that they are truly offered unto
us. Nor is it enough only to remember the history; for this also the Jews and
the ungodly can remember. Wherefore the Mass is to be used to this end, that
there the Sacrament [Communion] may be administered to them that have need of
consolation; as Ambrose says: Because I always sin, I am always bound to take
the medicine. [Therefore this Sacrament requires faith, and is used in vain
without faith.]
Now, forasmuch as the Mass is such a giving
of the Sacrament, we hold one communion every holy-day, and, if any desire the
Sacrament, also on other days, when it is given to such as ask for it. And
this custom is not new in the Church; for the Fathers before Gregory make no
mention of any private Mass, but of the common Mass [the Communion] they speak
very much. Chrysostom says that the priest stands
daily at he altar, inviting some to the Communion
and keeping back others. And it appears from the ancient Canons that some one
celebrated the Mass from whom all the other presbyters and deacons received
the body of he Lord; for thus the words of the
Nicene Canon say: Let the deacons, according to their order, receive the Holy
Communion after the presbyters, from the bishop or from a presbyter. And Paul,
1 Cor. 11, 33, commands concerning the Communion:
Tarry one for another, so that there may be a common participation.
Forasmuch, therefore, as the Mass with us
has the example of the Church, taken from the Scripture and the Fathers, we
are confident that it cannot be disapproved, especially since public
ceremonies, for the most part like those hitherto in use, are retained; only
the number of Masses differs, which, because of very great and manifest abuses
doubtless might be profitably reduced. For in olden times, even in churches
most frequented, the Mass was not celebrated every day, as the Tripartite
History (Book 9, chap. 33) testifies: Again in
Confession in the
churches is not abolished among us; for it is not usual to give the body of
the Lord, except to them that have been previously examined and absolved. And
the people are most carefully taught concerning faith in the absolution, about
which formerly there was profound silence. Our people are taught that they
should highly prize the absolution, as being the voice of God, and pronounced
by God's command. The power of the Keys is set forth in its beauty and they
are reminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, also,
that God requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding from
heaven, and that such faith in Christ truly obtains and receives the
forgiveness of sins. Aforetime satisfactions were immoderately extolled; of
faith and the merit of Christ and the righteousness of faith no mention was
made; wherefore, on this point, our churches are by no means to be blamed. For
this even our adversaries must needs concede to us
that the doctrine concerning repentance has been most diligently treated and
laid open by our teachers.
But of Confession they teach that an
enumeration of sins is not necessary, and that consciences be not burdened
with anxiety to enumerate all sins, for it is impossible to recount all sins,
as the Psalm testifies, 19,13: Who can understand
his errors? Also Jeremiah, 17 9: The heart is deceitful; who can know it; But
if no sins were forgiven, except those that are recounted, consciences could
never find peace; for very many sins they neither see nor can remember. The
ancient writers also testify that an enumeration is not necessary. For in the
Decrees, Chrysostom is quoted, who says thus: I
say not to you that you should disclose yourself in public, nor that you
accuse yourself before others, but I would have you obey the prophet who says:
"Disclose thy self before God." Therefore confess your sins before
God, the true Judge, with prayer. Tell your errors, not with the tongue, but
with the memory of your conscience, etc. And the Gloss (Of
Repentance, Distinct. V, Cap. Consideret)
admits that Confession is of human right only [not commanded by Scripture, but
ordained by the Church]. Nevertheless, on account of the great benefit of
absolution, and because it is otherwise useful to the conscience, Confession
is retained among us.
It has been the general
persuasion, not of the people alone, but also of those teaching in the
churches, that making Distinctions of Meats, and like traditions of men, are
works profitable to merit grace, and able to make satisfactions for sins. And
that the world so thought, appears from this, that
new ceremonies, new orders, new holy-days, and new fastings
were daily instituted, and the teachers in the churches did exact these works
as a service necessary to merit grace, and did greatly terrify men's
consciences, if they should omit any of these things. From this persuasion
concerning traditions much detriment has resulted in the Church.
First, the doctrine of grace and of the
righteousness of faith has been obscured by it, which is the chief part of the
Gospel, and ought to stand out as the most prominent in the Church, in order
that the merit of Christ may be well known, and faith, which believes that
sins are forgiven for Christ's sake be exalted far above works. Wherefore Paul
also lays the greatest stress on this article, putting aside the Law and human
traditions, in order to show that Christian righteousness is something else
than such works, to wit, the faith which believes that sins are freely
forgiven for Christ's sake. But this doctrine of Paul has been almost wholly
smothered by traditions, which have produced an opinion that, by making
distinctions in meats and like services, we must merit grace and
righteousness. In treating of repentance, there was no mention made of faith;
only those works of satisfaction were set forth; in these the entire
repentance seemed to consist.
Secondly, these traditions have obscured
the commandments of God, because traditions were placed far above the
commandments of God. Christianity was thought to consist wholly in the
observance of certain holy-days, rites, fasts, and vestures. These observances
had won for themselves the exalted title of being the spiritual life and the
perfect life. Meanwhile the commandments of God, according to each one's
calling, were without honor namely, that the father brought up his offspring,
that the mother bore children, that the prince governed the commonwealth, --
these were accounted works that were worldly and imperfect, and far below
those glittering observances. And this error greatly tormented devout
consciences, which grieved that they were held in an imperfect state of life,
as in marriage, in the office of magistrate; or in other civil ministrations;
on the other hand, they admired the monks and such like, and falsely imagined
that the observances of such men were more acceptable to God.
Thirdly, traditions brought great danger to
consciences; for it was impossible to keep all traditions, and yet men judged
these observances to be necessary acts of worship. Gerson
writes that many fell into despair, and that some even took their own lives,
because they felt that they were not able to satisfy the traditions, and they
had all the while not heard any consolation of the righteousness of faith and
grace. We see that the summists and theologians
gather the traditions, and seek mitigations whereby to ease consciences, and
yet they do not sufficiently unfetter, but sometimes entangle, consciences
even more. And with the gathering of these traditions, the schools and sermons
have been so much occupied that they have had no leisure to touch upon
Scripture, and to seek the more profitable doctrine of faith, of the cross, of
hope, of the dignity of civil affairs of consolation of sorely tried
consciences. Hence Gerson and some other
theologians have grievously complained that by these strivings concerning
traditions they were prevented from giving attention to a better kind of
doctrine. Augustine also forbids that men's consciences should be burdened
with such observances, and prudently advises Januarius
that he must know that they are to be observed as things indifferent; for such
are his words.
Wherefore our teachers must not be
looked upon as having taken up this matter rashly or from hatred of the
bishops, as some falsely suspect. There was great need to warn the churches of
these errors, which had arisen from misunderstanding the traditions. For
the Gospel compels us to insist in the churches upon the doctrine of grace,
and of the righteousness of faith; which, however, cannot be understood, if
men think that they merit grace by observances of their own choice.
Thus, therefore, they have taught that by
the observance of human traditions we cannot merit grace or be justified, and
hence we must not think such observances necessary acts of worship. They add
hereunto testimonies of Scripture. Christ, Matt. 15, 3, defends the Apostles
who had not observed the usual tradition, which, however, evidently pertains
to a matter not unlawful, but indifferent, and to have a certain affinity with
the purifications of the Law, and says, 9: In vain do they worship Me
with the commandments of men. He, therefore, does not exact an unprofitable
service. Shortly after He adds: Not that which goeth
into the mouth defileth a man. So also
Here our adversaries object that our
teachers are opposed to discipline and mortification of the flesh, as Jovinian.
But the contrary may be learned from the writings of our teachers. For they
have always taught concerning the cross that it behooves Christians to bear
afflictions. This is the true, earnest, and unfeigned mortification, to wit,
to be exercised with divers afflictions, and to be
crucified with Christ.
Moreover, they teach that every Christian
ought to train and subdue himself with bodily restraints, or bodily exercises
and labors that neither satiety nor slothfulness tempt him to sin, but not
that we may merit grace or make satisfaction for sins by such exercises. And
such external discipline ought to be urged at all times, not only on a few and
set days. So Christ commands, Luke 21, 34: Take heed lest your hearts be
overcharged with surfeiting; also Matt. 17, 21: This kind goeth
not out but by prayer and fasting. Paul also says, 1 Cor.
9, 27: I keep under my body and bring it into subjection. Here he clearly
shows that he was keeping under his body, not to merit forgiveness of sins by
that discipline, but to have his body in subjection and fitted for spiritual
things, and for the discharge of duty according to his calling. Therefore, we
do not condemn fasting in itself, but the
traditions which prescribe certain days and certain meats, with peril of
conscience, as though such works were a necessary service.
Nevertheless, very many traditions are kept
on our part, which conduce to good order in the Church, as the Order of
Lessons in the Mass and the chief holy-days. But, at the same time, men are
warned that such observances do not justify before God, and that in such
things it should not be made sin if they be omitted without offense. Such
liberty in human rites was not unknown to the Fathers. For in the East they
kept Easter at another time than at Rome, and when, on account of this
diversity, the Romans accused the Eastern Church of schism, they were
admonished by others that such usages need not be alike everywhere. And Irenaeus
says: Diversity concerning fasting does not destroy the harmony of faith; as
also Pope Gregory intimates in Dist. XII, that such diversity does not violate
the unity of the Church. And in the Tripartite History, Book 9, many examples
of dissimilar rites are gathered, and the following statement is made: It was
not the mind of the Apostles to enact rules concerning holy-days, but to
preach godliness and a holy life [, to teach faith and love].
What is taught on our
part concerning Monastic Vows, will be better understood if it be remembered
what has been the state of the monasteries, and how many things were daily
done in those very monasteries, contrary to the Canons. In Augustine's time
they were free associations. Afterward, when discipline was corrupted, vows
were everywhere added for the purpose of restoring discipline, as in a
carefully planned prison.
Gradually, many other observances were
added besides vows. And these fetters were laid upon many before the lawful
age, contrary to the Canons.
Many also entered into this kind of life
through ignorance, being unable to judge their own strength, though they were
of sufficient age. Being thus ensnared, they were compelled to remain, even
though some could have been freed by the kind provision of the Canons. And
this was more the case in convents of women than of monks, although more
consideration should have been shown the weaker sex. This rigor displeased
many good men before this time, who saw that young
men and maidens were thrown into convents for a living. They saw what
unfortunate results came of this procedure, and what scandals were created,
what snares were cast upon consciences! They were grieved that the authority
of the Canons in so momentous a matter was utterly set aside and despised. To
these evils was added such a persuasion concerning vows as, it is well known,
in former times displeased even those monks who were more considerate. They
taught that vows were equal to Baptism; they taught that by this kind of life
they merited forgiveness of sins and justification before God. Yea, they added
that the monastic life not only merited righteousness before God but even
greater things, because it kept not only the precepts, but also the so-called
"evangelical counsels."
Thus they made men believe that the
profession of monasticism was far better than Baptism, and that the monastic
life was more meritorious than that of magistrates, than the life of pastors,
and such like, who serve their calling in accordance with God's commands,
without any man-made services. None of these things can be denied; for they
appear in their own books. [Moreover, a person who has been thus ensnared and
has entered a monastery learns little of Christ.]
What, then, came to pass in the
monasteries? Aforetime they were schools of theology and other branches,
profitable to the Church; and thence pastors and bishops were obtained. Now it
is another thing. It is needless to rehearse what is known to all. Aforetime
they came together to learn; now they feign that it is a kind of life
instituted to merit grace and righteousness; yea, they preach that it is a
state of perfection, and they put it far above all other kinds of life
ordained of God. These things we have rehearsed without odious exaggeration,
to the end that the doctrine of our teachers on this point might be better
understood.
First, concerning such as contract
matrimony, they teach on our part that it is lawful for all men who are not
fitted for single life to contract matrimony, because vows cannot annul the
ordinance and commandment of God. But the commandment of God is 1 Cor.
7, 2: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. Nor is it the
commandment only, but also the creation and ordinance of God, which forces
those to marry who are not excepted by a singular
work of God, according to the text Gen. 2, 18: It is not good that the man
should be alone. Therefore they do not sin who obey this commandment and
ordinance of God.
What objection can be raised to this? Let
men extol the obligation of a vow as much as they list, yet shall they not
bring to pass that the vow annuls the commandment of God. The Canons teach
that the right of the superior is excepted in every
vow; [that vows are not binding against the decision of the Pope;] much less,
therefore, are these vows of force which are against the commandments of God.
Now, if the obligation of vows could not be
changed for any cause whatever, the Roman Pontiffs could never have given
dispensation for it is not lawful for man to annul an obligation which is
simply divine. But the Roman Pontiffs have prudently judged that leniency is
to be observed in this obligation, and therefore we read that many times they
have dispensed from vows. The case of the King of Aragon who was called back
from the monastery is well known, and there are also examples in our own
times. [Now, if dispensations have been granted for the sake of securing
temporal interests, it is much more proper that they be granted on account of
the distress of souls.]
In the second place, why do our adversaries
exaggerate the obligation or effect of a vow when, at the same time, they have
not a word to say of the nature of the vow itself, that it ought to be in a
thing possible, that it ought to be free, and chosen spontaneously and
deliberately? But it is not unknown to what extent perpetual chastity is in
the power of man. And how few are there who have taken the vow spontaneously
and deliberately! Young maidens and men, before they are able to judge, are
persuaded, and sometimes even compelled, to take the vow. Wherefore it is not
fair to insist so rigorously on the obligation, since it is granted by all
that it is against the nature of a vow to take it without spontaneous and
deliberate action.
Most canonical laws rescind vows made
before the age of fifteen; for before that age there does not seem sufficient
judgment in a person to decide concerning a perpetual life. Another Canon,
granting more to the weakness of man, adds a few years; for it forbids a vow
to be made before the age of eighteen. But which of these two Canons shall we
follow? The most part have an excuse for leaving the monasteries, because most
of them have taken the vows before they reached these ages.
Finally, even though the violation of a vow
might be censured, yet it seems not forthwith to follow that the marriages of
such persons must be dissolved. For Augustine denies that
they ought to be dissolved (XXVII. Quaest.
I, Cap. Nuptiarum), and his authority is not
lightly to be esteemed, although other men afterwards thought otherwise.
But although it appears that God's command
concerning marriage delivers very many from their vows, yet our teachers
introduce also another argument concerning vows to show that they are void.
For every service of God, ordained and chosen of men without the commandment
of God to merit justification and grace, is wicked, as Christ says Matt. 16,
9: In vain do they worship Me with the commandments
of men. And Paul teaches everywhere that righteousness is not to be sought
from our own observances and acts of worship, devised by men, but that it
comes by faith to those who believe that they are received by God into grace
for Christ's sake.
But it is evident that monks have taught that
services of man's making satisfy for sins and merit grace and
justification. What else is this than to detract from the glory of Christ and
to obscure and deny the righteousness of faith? It follows,
therefore, that the vows thus commonly taken have been wicked services, and,
consequently, are void. For a wicked vow, taken against the commandment of
God, is not valid; for (as the Canon says) no vow ought to bind men to
wickedness.
Paul says, Gal. 5, 4: Christ is become of
no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified
by the Law, ye are fallen from grace. To those, therefore, who want to be
justified by their vows Christ is made of no effect, and they fall from grace.
For also these who ascribe justification to vows ascribe to their own works
that which properly belongs to the glory of Christ.
Nor can it be denied, indeed, that the
monks have taught that, by their vows and observances, they were justified,
and merited forgiveness of sins, yea, they invented still greater absurdities,
saying that they could give others a share in their works. If any one should
be inclined to enlarge on these things with evil intent, how many things could
he bring together whereof even the monks are now ashamed! Over and above this,
they persuaded men that services of man's making were a state of Christian
perfection. And is not this assigning justification to works? It is no light
offense in the Church to set forth to the people a service devised by men,
without the commandment of God, and to teach that such service justifies men.
For the righteousness of faith, which chiefly ought to be taught in the
Church, is obscured when these wonderful angelic forms of worship, with their
show of poverty, humility, and celibacy, are cast before the eyes of men.
Furthermore, the precepts of God and the
true service of God are obscured when men hear that only monks are in a state
of perfection. For Christian perfection is to fear God from the heart, and yet
to conceive great faith, and to trust that for Christ's sake we have a God who
has been reconciled, to ask of God, and assuredly to expect His aid in all
things that, according to our calling, are to be done; and meanwhile, to be
diligent in outward good works, and to serve our calling. In these things consist
the true perfection and the true service of God. It does not consist in
celibacy, or in begging, or in vile apparel. But the people conceive many
pernicious opinions from the false commendations of monastic life. They hear
celibacy praised above measure; therefore they lead their married life with
offense to their consciences. They hear that only beggars are perfect;
therefore they keep their possessions and do business with offense to their
consciences. They hear that it is an evangelical counsel not to seek revenge;
therefore some in private life are not afraid to take revenge, for they hear
that it is but a counsel, and not a commandment. Others judge that the
Christian cannot properly hold a civil office or be a magistrate.
There are on record examples of men who,
forsaking marriage and the administration of the Commonwealth, have hid
themselves in monasteries. This they called fleeing from the world, and
seeking a kind of life which would be more pleasing to God. Neither did they
see that God ought to be served in those commandments which He Himself has
given and not in commandments devised by men. A good and perfect kind of life
is that which has for it the commandment of God. It is necessary to admonish
men of these things.
And before these times, Gerson
rebukes this error of the monks concerning perfection, and testifies that in
his day it was a new saying that the monastic life is a state of perfection.
So many wicked opinions are inherent in the
vows, namely, that they justify, that they constitute Christian perfection,
that they keep the counsels and commandments, that they have works of
supererogation. All these things, since they are false and empty, make vows
null and void.
There has been great
controversy concerning the Power of Bishops, in which some have awkwardly
confounded the power of the Church and the power of the sword. And from this
confusion very great wars and tumults have resulted, while the Pontiffs,
emboldened by the power of the Keys, not only have instituted new services and
burdened consciences with reservation of cases and ruthless excommunications,
but have also undertaken to transfer the kingdoms of this world, and to take
the Empire from the Emperor. These wrongs have long since been rebuked in the
Church by learned and godly men. Therefore our teachers, for the comforting of
men's consciences, were constrained to show the difference between the power
of the Church and the power of the sword, and taught that both of them,
because of God's commandment, are to be held in reverence and honor, as the
chief blessings of God on earth.
But this is their opinion, that the power
of the Keys, or the power of the bishops, according to the Gospel, is a power
or commandment of God, to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to
administer Sacraments. For with this commandment Christ sends forth His
Apostles, John 20, 21 sqq.: As My Father hath sent
Me, even so send I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins
ye retain, they are retained. Mark 16, 15: Go preach the Gospel to every
creature.
This power is exercised only by teaching or
preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments, according to their
calling either to many or to individuals. For
thereby are granted, not bodily, but eternal things, as eternal righteousness,
the Holy Ghost, eternal life. These things cannot come but by the ministry of
the Word and the Sacraments, as Paul says, Rom. 1, 16: The Gospel is the power
of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Therefore, since the power
of the Church grants eternal things, and is exercised only by the ministry of
the Word, it does not interfere with civil government; no more than the art of
singing interferes with civil government. For civil government deals with
other things than does the Gospel. The civil rulers defend not minds, but
bodies and bodily things against manifest injuries, and restrain men with the
sword and bodily punishments in order to preserve civil justice and peace.
Therefore the power of the Church and the
civil power must not be confounded. The power of the Church has its own
commission to teach the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments. Let it not
break into the office of another; Let it not transfer the kingdoms of this
world; let it not abrogate the laws of civil rulers; let it not abolish lawful
obedience; let it not interfere with judgments concerning civil ordinances or
contracts; let it not prescribe laws to civil rulers concerning the form of
the Commonwealth. As Christ says, John 18, 33: My kingdom is not of this
world; also Luke 12, 14: Who made Me a judge or a
divider over you? Paul also says, Phil. 3, 20: Our citizenship is in heaven; 2
Cor. 10, 4: The weapons of our warfare are not
carnal, but mighty through God to the casting down of imaginations.
After this manner our teachers discriminate
between the duties of both these powers, and command that both be honored and
acknowledged as gifts and blessings of God.
If bishops have any power of the sword,
that power they have, not as bishops, by the commission of the Gospel, but by
human law having received it of kings and emperors for the civil
administration of what is theirs. This, however, is another office than the
ministry of the Gospel.
When, therefore, the question is concerning
the jurisdiction of bishops, civil authority must be distinguished from
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Again, according to the Gospel or, as they say,
by divine right, there belongs to the bishops as bishops, that is, to those to
whom has been committed the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments, no
jurisdiction except to forgive sins, to judge doctrine, to reject doctrines
contrary to the Gospel, and to exclude from the communion of the Church wicked
men, whose wickedness is known, and this without human force, simply by the
Word. Herein the congregations of necessity and by divine right must obey
them, according to Luke 10, 16: He that heareth
you heareth Me. But
when they teach or ordain anything against the Gospel, then the congregations
have a commandment of God prohibiting obedience, Matt. 7, 15: Beware of false
prophets; Gal. 1, 8: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let
him be accursed; 2 Cor. 13, 8: We can do nothing
against the truth, but for the truth. Also: The power which the Lord hath
given me to edification, and not to destruction. So, also, the Canonical Laws
command (II. Q. VII. Cap., Sacerdotes, and Cap. Oves).
And Augustine (Contra Petiliani Epistolam):
Neither must we submit to Catholic bishops if they chance to err, or hold
anything contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God.
If they have any other power or
jurisdiction, in hearing and judging certain cases, as of matrimony or of
tithes, etc., they have it by human right, in which matters princes are bound,
even against their will, when the ordinaries fail, to dispense justice to
their subjects for the maintenance of peace.
Moreover, it is disputed whether bishops or
pastors have the right to introduce ceremonies in the Church, and to make laws
concerning meats, holy-days and grades, that is, orders of ministers, etc.
They that give this right to the bishops refer to this testimony John 16, 12.
13: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all
truth. They also refer to the example of the Apostles, who commanded to
abstain from blood and from things strangled, Acts 15, 29. They refer to the
Sabbath-day as having been changed into the Lord's Day, contrary to the Decalog,
as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they make more than
concerning the changing of the Sabbath-day. Great, say they, is the power of
the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!
But concerning this question it is taught
on our part (as has been shown above) that bishops have no power to decree
anything against the Gospel. The Canonical Laws teach the same thing (Dist. IX)
. Now, it is against Scripture to establish or require the observance
of any traditions, to the end that by such observance we may make satisfaction
for sins, or merit grace and righteousness. For the glory
of Christ's merit suffers injury when, by such observances, we undertake to
merit justification. But it is manifest that, by such belief,
traditions have almost infinitely multiplied in the Church, the doctrine
concerning faith and the righteousness of faith being meanwhile suppressed.
For gradually more holy- days were made, fasts appointed, new ceremonies and
services in honor of saints instituted, because the authors of such things
thought that by these works they were meriting grace. Thus in times past the
Penitential Canons increased, whereof we still see some traces in the
satisfactions.
Again, the authors of traditions do
contrary to the command of God when they find matters of sin in foods, in
days, and like things, and burden the Church with bondage of the law, as if
there ought to be among Christians, in order to merit justification a service
like the Levitical, the arrangement of which God
had committed to the Apostles and bishops. For thus some of them write; and
the Pontiffs in some measure seem to be misled by the example of the law
of Moses. Hence are such burdens, as that they make it mortal sin, even
without offense to others, to do manual labor on holy-days, a mortal sin to
omit the Canonical Hours, that certain foods defile the conscience that fastings
are works which appease God that sin in a reserved case cannot be forgiven but
by the authority of him who reserved it; whereas the Canons themselves speak
only of the reserving of the ecclesiastical penalty, and not of the reserving
of the guilt.
Whence have the bishops the right to lay
these traditions upon the Church for the ensnaring of consciences, when Peter,
Acts 15, 10, forbids to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, and Paul
says, 2 Cor. 13, 10, that the power given him was
to edification not to destruction? Why, therefore, do they increase sins by
these traditions?
But there are clear testimonies which
prohibit the making of such traditions, as though they merited grace or were
necessary to salvation. Paul says, Col. 2, 16- 23: Let no man judge you in
meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or
of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days. If ye be dead with Christ from the
rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to
ordinances (touch not; taste not; handle not, which all are to perish with the
using) after the commandments and doctrines of men! which
things have indeed a show of wisdom. Also in Titus 1, 14 he openly forbids
traditions: Not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men that turn
from the truth.
And Christ, Matt. 15, 14. 13, says of those
who require traditions: Let them alone; they be
blind leaders of the blind; and He rejects such services: Every plant which My
heavenly Father hath not planted shall be plucked up.
If bishops have the right to burden
churches with infinite traditions, and to ensnare consciences, why does
Scripture so often prohibit to make, and to listen to, traditions? Why does it
call them "doctrines of devils"? 1 Tim. 4, 1.
Did the Holy Ghost in vain forewarn of these things?
Since, therefore, ordinances instituted as
things necessary, or with an opinion of meriting grace, are contrary to the
Gospel, it follows that it is not lawful for any bishop to institute or exact
such services. For it is necessary that the doctrine of Christian liberty be
preserved in the churches, namely, that the bondage of the Law is not
necessary to justification, as it is written in the Epistle to the Galatians,
5, 1: Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. It is necessary that
the chief article of the Gospel be preserved, to wit, that we obtain grace
freely by faith in Christ, and not for certain
observances or acts of worship devised by men.
What, then, are we to think of the Sunday
and like rites in the house of God? To this we answer that it is lawful for
bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the
Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins,
or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think
that it is a sin to break them without offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor.
11, 5, that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor.
14, 30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc.
It is proper that the churches should keep
such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquillity,
so far that one do not offend another, that all things be done in the churches
in order, and without confusion, 1 Cor. 14, 40;
comp. Phil. 2, 14; but so that consciences be not burdened to think that they
are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin when they break them
without offense to others; as no one will say that a woman sins who goes out
in public with her head uncovered provided only that no offense be given.
Of this kind is the observance of the
Lord's Day, Easter, Pentecost, and like holy- days and rites. For those who
judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord's Day
instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err.
Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel
has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And yet,
because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know
when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church designated the
Lord's Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have been chosen all the
more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of Christian
liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the Sabbath nor of any
other day is necessary.
There are monstrous disputations concerning
the changing of the law, the ceremonies of the new law, the changing of the
Sabbath-day, which all have sprung from the false belief that there must needs
be in the Church a service like to the Levitical,
and that Christ had given commission to the Apostles and bishops to devise new
ceremonies as necessary to salvation. These errors crept into the Church when
the righteousness of faith was not taught clearly enough. Some
dispute that the keeping of the Lord's Day is not indeed of divine right, but
in a manner so. They prescribe concerning holy-days, how far it is
lawful to work. What else are such disputations than snares of consciences?
For although they endeavor to modify the traditions, yet the mitigation can
never be perceived as long as the opinion remains that they are necessary,
which must needs remain where the righteousness of faith and Christian liberty
are not known.
The Apostles commanded Acts 15, 20 to
abstain from blood. Who does now observe it? And yet they that do it not sin
not; for not even the Apostles themselves wanted to
burden consciences with such bondage; but they forbade it for a time, to avoid
offense. For in this decree we must perpetually consider what the aim of the
Gospel is.
Scarcely any Canons are kept with
exactness, and from day to day many go out of use even among those who are the
most zealous advocates of traditions. Neither can due regard be paid to
consciences unless this mitigation be observed, that we know that the Canons
are kept without holding them to be necessary, and that no harm is done
consciences, even though traditions go out of use.
But the bishops might easily retain the
lawful obedience of the people if they would not insist upon the observance of
such traditions as cannot be kept with a good conscience. Now they command
celibacy; they admit none unless they swear that they will not teach the pure
doctrine of the Gospel. The churches do not ask that the bishops should
restore concord at the expense of their honor; which, nevertheless, it would
be proper for good pastors to do. They ask only that they would release unjust
burdens which are new and have been received contrary to the custom of the
Church Catholic. It may be that in the beginning there were plausible reasons
for some of these ordinances; and yet they are not adapted to later times. It
is also evident that some were adopted through erroneous conceptions.
Therefore it would be befitting the clemency of the Pontiffs to mitigate them
now, because such a modification does not shake the unity of the Church. For
many human traditions have been changed in process of time, as the Canons
themselves show. But if it be impossible to obtain a mitigation of such
observances as cannot be kept without sin, we are bound to follow the
apostolic rule, Acts 5, 29, which commands us to obey God rather than men.
Peter, 1 Pet. 5, 3, forbids bishops to be
lords, and to rule over the churches. It is not our design now to wrest the
government from the bishops, but this one thing is asked, namely, that they
allow the Gospel to be purely taught, and that they relax some few observances
which cannot be kept without sin. But if they make no concession, it is for
them to see how they shall give account to God for furnishing, by their
obstinacy, a cause for schism.
These are the chief
articles which seem to be in controversy. For although we might have spoken of
more abuses, yet, to avoid undue length, we have set forth the chief points,
from which the rest may be readily judged. There have been great complaints
concerning indulgences, pilgrimages, and the abuse of excommunications. The
parishes have been vexed in many ways by the dealers in indulgences. There
were endless contentions between the pastors and the monks concerning the
parochial right, confessions, burials, sermons on extraordinary occasions, and
innumerable other things. Issues of this sort we have passed over so that the
chief points in this matter, having been briefly set forth, might be the more
readily understood. Nor has anything been here said or adduced to the reproach
of any one. Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it
was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine
and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the
Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken
most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our
churches.
The above articles we desire to present in
accordance with the edict of Your Imperial Majesty, in order to exhibit our
Confession and let men see a summary of the doctrine of our teachers. If there
is anything that any one might desire in this Confession, we are ready, God
willing, to present ampler information according to the Scriptures.
Your Imperial Majesty's faithful subjects:
John, Duke of
George, Margrave of
Ernest, Duke of Lueneberg.
Philip, Landgrave of
John Frederick, Duke of
Francis, Duke of Lueneburg.
Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt.
Senate and Magistracy of Nuremburg.
Senate of
This
text was created for Project Wittenberg by Allen Mulvey
and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute,
copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev.
Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary.
E-mail: [email protected]
Snail-Mail: 6600 N.