 |
|
Back |
Home |
The Augsburg Confession
Submitted to His Imperial Majesty Charles V
At
the Diet of Augsburg in the Year 1530
by Philip Melancthon
(1497-1560)
Translated by F. Bente and W. H. T. Dau
Published in:
Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the
Ev. Lutheran Church
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921), pp.
37-95.
PrefaceIn 1530, Charles V, Emperor of the
Holy Roman Empire, called together the princes and cities of his german
territories in a Diet at Augsburg. He sought unity among them to fend of the
attacks of Turkish armies in Eastern Austria. He called upon the Lutheran
nobility to explain their religious convictions, with the hope that the
controversy swirling around the challange of the Reformation might be resolved.
To this end, Philip Melanchthon, a close friend of Martin Luther and a
Professor of New Testament at Wittenberg University, was called upon to draft a
common confession for the Lutheran Lords and Free Territories. The resulting
document, the Augsburg Confession was presented to the emperor on June 25,
1530.
Article I - Of GodOur 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.
Article II - Of Original SinAlso 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.
Article III - Of the Son of GodAlso 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.
Article IV - Of JustificationAlso 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.
Article V - Of the Ministry 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.
Article VI - Of New ObedienceAlso 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.
Article VII - Of the ChurchAlso 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.
Article VIII - What the Church IsAlthough 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.
Article IX - Of BaptismOf 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.
Article X - Of the Lord's SupperOf 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.
Article XI - Of ConfessionOf 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.
Article XII - Of RepentanceOf 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.
Article XIII - Of the Use of the SacrementsOf
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.
Article XIV - Of Ecclesiastical OrderOf
Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church
or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.
Article XV - Of Ecclesiastical UsagesOf
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.
Article XVI - Of Civil AffairsOf 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.
Article XVII - Of Christ's Return to Judgment
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.
Article XVIII - Of Free Will 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 receiveth 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.
Article XIX - Of the Cause of SinOf 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.
Article XX - Of Good Works 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.
Article XXI - Of the Worship of the Saints 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.
Articles in which are reviewed the abuses
which have been 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.
Article XXII - Of Both Kinds in the
SacramentTo 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.
Article XXIII - Of the Marriage of
PriestsThere 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 Germany, four hundred years ago for the first time, the
priests were violently compelled to lead a single life, who indeed offered such
resistance that the Archbishop of Mayence, when about to publish the Pope's
decree concerning this matter, was almost killed in the tumult raised by the
enraged priests. And so harsh was the dealing in the matter that not only were
marriages forbidden for the future, but also existing marriages were torn
asunder, contrary to all laws, divine and human, contrary even to the Canons
themselves, made not only by the Popes, but by most celebrated Synods.
[Moreover, many God-fearing and intelligent people in high station are known
frequently to have expressed misgivings that such enforced celibacy and
depriving men of marriage (which God Himself has instituted and left free to
men) has never produced any good results, but has brought on many great and
evil vices and much iniquity.]
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 Germany.
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 ease.
Article XXIV - Of the Mass 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 Mass.
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 the 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 the 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 Alexandria, every Wednesday and Friday
the Scriptures are read, and the doctors expound them, and all things are done,
except the solemn rite of Communion.
Article XXV - Of Confession 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.
Article XXVI - Of the Distinction of Meats 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 Paul, Rom. 14, 17: The kingdom of God is not meat
and drink. Col. 2, 16: Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of an holy-day, or of the Sabbath-day; also: 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! And Peter says,
Acts 15, 10: Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples,
which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through
the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Here Peter
forbids to burden the consciences with many rites, either of Moses or of
others. And in 1 Tim. 4,1.3 Paul calls the prohibition of meats a doctrine of
devils; for it is against the Gospel to institute or to do such works that by
them we may merit grace, or as though Christianity could not exist without such
service of God.
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].
Article XXVII - Of Monastic Vows 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 east 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.
Article XXVIII - Of Ecclesiastical Power
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.
Conclusion 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 Saxony, Elector.
George, Margrave of Brandenburg.
Ernest, Duke of Lueneberg.
Philip, Landgrave of Hesse.
John
Frederick, Duke of Saxony.
Francis, Duke of Lueneburg.
Wolfgang, Prince
of Anhalt.
Senate and Magistracy of Nuremburg.
Senate of
Reutlingen.
|
|
