In 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 off 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.
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 Lutheran
Church -- Missouri Synod, under the title: Concordia Triglotta
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents
Preface
Article 1: God
Article 2: Original Sin
Article 3: The Son of God
Article 4: Justification
Article 5: The Ministry of the Church
Article 6: The New Obedience
Article 7: The Church
Article 8: What The Church Is
Article 9: Baptism
Article 10: The Holy Supper of Our Lord
Article 11: Confession
Article 12: Repentance
Article 13: The Use of the Sacraments
Article 14: Order in the Church
Article 15: Church Usages
Article 16: Civil Government
Article 17: The Return of Christ to Judgment
Article 18: Free Will
Article 19: The Cause of Sin
Article 20: Faith and Good Works
Article 21: Of the Worship of the Saints
Article 22: Of Both Kinds in the Sacrament
Article 23: Of the Marriage of Priests
Article 24: Of the Mass
Article 25: Confession
Article 26: The Distinction of Foods
Article 27: Monastic Vows
Article 28: Ecclesiastical Powers
Conclusion
Preface to the Emperor
Charles V.
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 Spires. There Your Imperial Majesty, through His
Highness Ferdinand, King of Bohemia and Hungary, our friend and
clement Lord, as well as through the Orator and Imperial
Commissioners caused this, among other things, to be submitted:
that Your Imperial Majesty had taken notice of; and pondered, the
resolution of Your Majesty's Representative in the Empire, and of
the President and Imperial Counselors, and the Legates from other
Estates convened at Ratisbon, concerning the calling of a Council,
and that your Imperial Majesty also judged it to be expedient to
convene a Council; and that Your Imperial Majesty did not doubt
the Roman Pontiff could be induced to hold a General Council,
because the matters to be adjusted between Your Imperial Majesty
and the Roman Pontiff were nearing agreement and Christian
reconciliation; therefore Your Imperial Majesty himself signified
that he would endeavor to secure the said Chief Pontiff's consent
for convening, together with your Imperial Majesty such General
Council, to be published as soon as possible by letters that were
to be sent out.
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.
Article I: Of God.
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.
Article II: Of
Original Sin.
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.
Article III: Of the
Son of God.
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.
Article IV: Of
Justification.
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.
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
Obedience.
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.
Article VII: Of the
Church.
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.
Article VIII: What the
Church Is.
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.
Article IX: Of
Baptism.
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.
Article X: Of the
Lord's Supper.
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.
Article XI: Of
Confession.
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.
Article XII: Of
Repentance.
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.
Article XIII: Of the
Use of the Sacraments.
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.
Article XIV: Of
Ecclesiastical Order.
Of 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 Usages.
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.
Article XVI: Of Civil
Affairs.
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.
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 Sin.
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.
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 Sacrament.
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.
Article XXIII: Of the
Marriage of Priests.
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 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
case.
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 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 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 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.
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.
