Augsburg reader

THE UNALTERED AUGSBURG CONFESSION

ADDRESS TO THE EMPEROR, CHARLES V.

Illustrious Emperor, most powerful, invincible, and gracious Sire; Inasmuch as your Imperial Majesty proclaimed a diet of the Empire at Augsburg, to consult about the best means of defence against the Turk, that ancient, inveterate, and most bitter enemy of the Christian name and religion, – in what way most completely and permanently to repress him; – and then to consult also about the dissensions in reference to our holy religion and Christian faith, – how the opinions and sentiments of contending parties on the subject of religion, might be mutually expressed, explained, and considered among themselves in your presence, with moderation, mildness, and affection; so that what has been considered or acknowledged by each party in its writings, being abandoned or corrected, those opinions might be settled and reduced to one plain standard of truth and Christian harmony; that one pure and true religion being cherished and preserved among us, we may be able to live in harmony and concord in one Christian church, in the same manner as we live and serve under one Christ; and since we, the undersigned Elector and Princes, with others who have adhered to us, and other electors, princes, and estates besides, were summoned to the appointed diet, we therefore have come without delay to Augsburg, that we might obediently observe your Majesty’s order, and, we wish it to be said without boasting, have appeared here among the first.

When, therefore, your Imperial Majesty, among other things, caused it to be proposed to the electors, princes, and other estates of the empire, at the very commencement of the Diet here at Augsburg, that the several estates, in conformity with your Imperial Edict, should prepare and submit their opinions and sentiments in the German and Latin language, – having held a consultation on Wednesday, we returned our answer, that we on our part would present the articles of our Confession to your Imperial Majesty on the succeeding Friday. In obedience to your Majesty’s demand, we now offer in defence of our religion, the Confession of our adherents and ourselves, the doctrine of which, drawn from the holy Scriptures and the pure Word of God, they deliver in our provinces, dukedoms, principalities, and cities, and discuss in our churches.

For if the other electors, princes, and estates of the empire, in similar writings in Latin and German, according to the above-mentioned proposition of your Majesty, shall produce their opinions on the subject of religion, we, here in the presence of your Imperial Majesty, as our most gracious lord, present ourselves ready to consult on friendly terms with those princes and our adherents, about the possible methods and means by which we may come to an agreement, so far as it can be honorably done; and, having peaceably discussed the subjects of difference among ourselves, to consult how the dissensions may be suppressed, through the grace of God, and how one true, harmonious religion may be preserved; that, as we all live and serve under one Christ, and ought to acknowledge one Christ, according to the tenor of your Majesty’s Edict, all opinions likewise may be conformed to the standard of divine truth, – an event which we implore from God in our most fervent supplications.

But relative to the other electors, princes, and estates, as the opposite party, if this conference on the subject of religion, conducted after the manner in which your Majesty wisely required it to be, – by a mutual exhibition and deliberate comparison of written opinions among ourselves, – shall not conduce to a reconciliation, nor be attended with any other beneficial result, we at least shall leave the clearest evidence, and your Imperial Majesty, the electors, and estates of the empire, and all, - whoever are influenced by a pure love and zeal for religion, whoever may have heard this discussion with an impartial spirit, – will not fail to perceive, and gladly acknowledge, from our Confession, that we have withheld no effort which might contribute to the restoration of Christian harmony, consistent with the will of God and the dictates of conscience.

Your Imperial Majesty graciously intimated, not on a single occasion, but frequently, to the electors, princes, and estates of the empire, and caused it to be publicly read and recited from a copy of your Majesty’s Instructions, written and communicated to them at the Diet of Speyer, held in the year 1526, that your Imperial Majesty, for certain reasons there specified, was neither willing nor able to make any decision or determination as to these religious difficulties; but that your Majesty desired, as a matter of duty, to use your best exertions with the Roman Pontiff for convening a general council. The same likewise was more fully declared, a year ago, in the last public diet which was held at Speyer. At that time your Imperial Majesty, through Ferdinand, king of Bohemia and Hungary, our friend and gracious lord, and also through your Majesty’s speaker and commissaries, caused this to be declared among other things, that your Majesty had considered the resolution of the deputy, counselors, and officers of the imperial government, and of those delegated by other estates, who had assembled at Ratisbon, and that your Majesty deemed it expedient to convene a diet; and because the subjects then under negotiation between your Majesty and the Roman Pontiff, were near an amicable adjustment, your Majesty did not doubt that the Pope might be induced to convoke a general diet. Thus earnestly did your Majesty strive that the chief Pontiff above-mentioned might agree with your Majesty to assemble such a diet, to be convoked by a missive, at an early period.

In the event, therefore, that the discussion between the parties, shall not be settled in a friendly and affectionate manner, we propose in all obedience, that we appear before your Imperial Majesty, abundantly prepared, and plead our cause in such a general, free, and Christian council, the convocation of which has always been solicited with one consent, and voted for with unanimous voices, by the electors, princes, and estates of the empire, in all the imperial diets which have been held during your Majesty’s reign. Long ago in a becoming manner and in legal form, have we challenged them to a general conference of this kind, and appealed at the same time to your Imperial Majesty, in this great and momentous cause.

In this appeal to your Majesty for a general diet we continue to persist; nor do we intend nor are we able to abandon it, in this or any other address, unless the difficulty between the parties, according to your Majesty’s last Proclamation, shall be settled, allayed, and adjusted to Christian harmony. And here we solemnly and publicly attest the truth of this declaration.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2006-11-05T14:19:00.000-08:00

ARTICLES OF FAITH AND DOCTRINE

ARTICLE I. – OF GOD.

Our churches unanimously hold and teach, agreeably to the Decree of the Council of Nice, that there is only one Divine Essence, which is called, and truly is, God; but that there are three persons in this one Divine Essence, equally powerful, equally eternal, – God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, – who are one Divine Essence, eternal, incorporeal, indivisible, infinite in power, wisdom, and goodness, the Creator and Preserver of all things visible and invisible. And the word person is not intended to express a part or quality of another, but that which subsists of itself, precisely as the Fathers have employed this term on this subject.

Every heresy opposed to this Article is therefore condemned: as that of the Manichaeans, who assume two principles, the one good, the other evil. Likewise the heresies of the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mahometans, and the like; also that of the ancient and modern Samosatenians, who admit but one person, and sophistically explain away these two, – the WORD and the Holy Spirit, – asserting, that they must not be viewed as distinct persons, but that the WORD signifies the oral word or voice, and that the Holy Ghost is the principle of motion in things.

2006-11-05T14:18:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE II. – OF ORIGINAL SIN.

We teach, that since the fall of Adam all men who are naturally engendered, are conceived and born in sin; that is, that they all are from their mother’s womb, full of evil desires and propensities, and can have by nature no true fear of God, no true faith in God; and that this innate disease, or original sin, is truly sin, which brings all those under the eternal wrath of God, who are not born again by Baptism and the Holy Spirit.

Hence, we condemn the Pelagians and others, who deny that original corruption is sin, whereby they assert, to the disparagement of the merits and sufferings of Christ, that piety is the result of our natural powers.

2006-11-05T14:16:00.000-08:00

Articles III - V

ARTICLE III. – OF THE SON OF GOD.

It is taught likewise, that God the Son became man, and was born of the blessed Virgin Mary; and that the two natures, human and divine, inseparably united in one person, are one Christ, who is true God and man, who was really born, who truly suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried, that he might be a sacrifice, not only for original sin, but also for all other sins, and might appease the wrath of God. Further, that this same Christ descended into hell, and truly arose from the dead on the third day, ascended to heaven, and sits at the right hand of God, that he may perpetually reign over all creatures, and govern them, through the Holy Spirit sanctify, purify, strengthen, and console all those who believe in him, and give unto them life and various gifts and blessings, and protect and defend them against the devil and the power of sin.

Also, that finally this same Christ will return visibly, to judge the living and the dead, &c., according to the Apostles’ Creed.

ARTICLE IV. – OF JUSTIFICATION.

It is taught further, that we cannot obtain righteousness and the forgiveness of sin before God by our own merits, works, and atonement; but that we obtain the remission of sins, and are justified before God, by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith, if we believe that Christ suffered for us, and that for his sake our sins are remitted unto us, and righteousness and eternal life are bestowed on us. For, God regards this faith and imputes it as righteousness in his sight, as Paul says, Rom. Chap. 3 and 4.

ARTICLE V. – OF THE MINISTRY.

For the purpose of obtaining this faith, God has instituted the ministry, and given the Gospel and the Sacraments, through which, as means, he imparts the Holy Spirit, who in his own time and place, works faith in those that hear the Gospel, which teaches that through the merits of Christ, and not through our own merits, we have a merciful God, if we believe these things.

By this are condemned the Anabaptists and others, who teach that we receive the Holy Spirit in consequence of our own preparation, our thoughts and works, without the external word of the Gospel.

2006-11-05T14:12:00.001-08:00

ARTICLES VI - VIII

ARTICLE VI. – OF NEW OBEDIENCE.

It is also taught, that such faith must bring forth good fruits and good works, and that we must do all manner of good works, because of God’s requirement and command; yet we must not put any confidence in these works, as meriting favor in the sight of God: for we receive forgiveness of sins and justification through faith in Christ, as Christ himself says, Luke 17,10: “When ye shall have done all those things, say, we are unprofitable servants.” Thus also the Fathers teach. For Ambrose says: “Thus it has been ordained of God, that whosoever believes in Christ shall be saved; not through works, but without merit through faith alone, he has forgiveness of sins.”

ARTICLE VII. – OF THE CHURCH.

It is taught likewise, that one holy Christian church shall ever continue to exist, which is the congregation of all believers, among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity, and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel. For this is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian church, that the Gospel is preached therein, according to its pure intent and meaning, and that the sacraments are administered in conformity with the Word of God. And for the true unity of the Christian church it is not necessary, that uniform ceremonies instituted by men, should be every where observed. As Paul says, Ephes. 4, 4, 5: “There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

ARTICLE VIII. – WHAT THE CHURCH IS.

Further: although the Christian church is properly nothing else than the congregation of all believers and saints, yet, as in this life there are many hypocrites and false Christians, – open sinners remaining even among the pious, – the sacraments, nevertheless, are effectual, even if the preachers by whom they are administered, be not pious, as Christ himself says, Matt. 23, 2: “The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat,” &c.

On this account the Donatists are condemned, and all such as teach contrary to this Article.

2006-11-05T14:12:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE IX. – OF BAPTISM.

Respecting Baptism it is taught, that it is necessary; that grace is offered through it; and that children ought to be baptized, who through such baptism are presented to God, and become acceptable to him.

Therefore the Anabaptists are condemned, who teach that Infant Baptism is improper.

2006-11-05T14:11:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE X. – OF THE LORD’S SUPPER.

Concerning the holy Supper of the Lord it is taught, that the true body and blood of Christ are truly present, under the form of bread and wine, in the Lord’s Supper, and are there administered and received. The opposite doctrine is therefore rejected.

2006-11-05T14:10:00.000-08:00

Articles XI-XII

ARTICLE XI. – OF CONFESSION.

In reference to confession it is taught, that private absolution ought to be retained in the church, and should not be discontinued; in confession, however, it is unnecessary to enumerate all transgressions and sins, which indeed is not possible. Psalm 19, 12: “Who can discern his errors?”

ARTICLE XII. – OF REPENTANCE.

Concerning repentance it is taught, that those who have sinned after baptism, may at all times obtain forgiveness of their sins, if they repent; and that the church should not refuse to grant absolution unto them. Genuine and true repentance properly consists in contrition and sorrow, or terror on account of sin; besides, it consists in faith in the Gospel or absolution, – namely that sins are forgiven and grace is obtained through Christ, – a faith which consoles and imparts peace to the heart.

Afterwards amendment of conduct also should follow, and abstinence from sin; for these should be the fruits of repentance, as John says, Matt. 3, 8: “Bring forth fruits meet for repentance.”

Here are condemned such as teach, that those who have once been justified can never fall.

On the other hand, the Novatians also are here condemned, who refused absolution to those who had sinned after baptism.

Those in like manner are condemned who teach, that forgiveness of sin is obtained, not through faith, but through our own merits.

2006-11-05T14:05:00.000-08:00

Articles XIII - XVI

ARTICLE XIII. – OF THE USE OF THE SACRAMENTS.

Concerning the use of the sacraments it is taught, that the sacraments have been instituted, not only as tokens by which Christians may be known externally, but as signs and evidences of the Divine will towards us, for the purpose of exciting and strengthening our faith; hence they also require faith, and they are properly used then only, when received in faith, and when faith is strengthened by them.

ARTICLE XIV. – OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

Concerning church government it is taught, that no one should teach or preach publicly in the church, or administer the sacraments, without a regular call.

ARTICLE XV. – OF CHURCH RITES AND ORDINANCES.

Concerning ecclesiastical rites instituted by men it is taught, that those should be observed which can be so observed without sin, and which promote peace and good order in the church: as, certain holidays, festivals, and the like. Respecting these, however, our instruction is designed to release the consciences of men from the idea, that such observances are essential to salvation. It is taught on this point, that all ordinances and traditions of men, for the purpose of reconciling God and meriting grace, are contrary to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith in Christ; wherefore, monastic vows, and traditions concerning the difference of meats, days, &c., intended for the purpose of meriting grace and making satisfaction for sins, are impotent and contrary to the Gospel.

ARTICLE XVI. – OF CIVIL POLITY AND GOVERNMENT.

Concerning civil polity and government it is taught, that all authority in the world, established governments and laws, are good and divine; that Christians may hold either legislative, judicial, or executive offices, without sin; and may decide cases, pronounce judgments, and punish transgressors, agreeably to imperial or other established laws; may wage just wars, and serve in them; make lawful contracts; take oaths, when required; may hold property, marry, and be married, &c.

The Anabaptists are here condemned, who teach, that none of these things now mentioned, are consistent with Christianity.

Those likewise are condemned, who teach, that Christian perfection consists in literally deserting house and home, wife and children, and relinquishing them; when at the same time true perfection consists only in true fear of God, and in true faith in God. For the Gospel does not teach an external, temporary, but an internal, lasting habit and righteousness of heart; nor does it invalidate civil government, polity, and matrimony, but it requires the observance of all these, as true ordinances of God. And in such stations, each one according to his vocation, should manifest Christian love and genuine good works. Christians are therefore under obligation to submit to government, and to obey its command in all things that may be performed without sin; but if government should enjoin any thing which cannot be obeyed without sin, “we ought to obey God rather than men,” Acts 4, 19, and 5, 29.

2006-11-05T14:04:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE XVII. – OF CHRIST’S RETURN TO JUDGMENT.

It is also taught, that on the last day our Lord Jesus Christ will come to raise and to judge all the dead, to give unto the believing and elect eternal life and endless joys; and that he will come to condemn impious men and devils to hell and everlasting punishment.

The Anabaptists are rejected, who teach that devils and condemned men shall not suffer everlasting pain and torment.

Here, in like manner, certain Jewish doctrines are condemned, which are circulated even now, that prior to the resurrection of the dead, the holy and pious alone will occupy a temporal kingdom, and that all the wicked will be exterminated.

2006-11-05T14:02:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE XVIII. – OF FREEWILL.

Concerning freewill it is taught, that to some extent man has freedom of will, to lead a life outwardly honest, and to choose between things which reason comprehends; but without the grace, assistance, and operation of the Holy Spirit, that he is unable to become pleasing to God, or to fear God in heart, or to believe in him, or to cast out of his heart innate evil; and that these things are effected through the Holy Spirit, who is given through the Word of God; for Paul says, 1 Cor. 2, 14: “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.”

And in order that it may be known, that nothing new is taught in this Article, the expressive words of Augustine, concerning freewill, are introduced here, as transcribed from the Hypognosticon, lib. III.: “We acknowledge, that in all men there is a freewill; for they all, indeed, have natural, connate understanding and reason; not that they are able to act in things pertaining to God, such as to love and fear God from the heart; but only in external works of this life have they freedom to choose good or evil. By good I mean, that which nature is able to perform, as to labor in the field, or not; to eat, to drink, to visit a friend, or not; to clothe or unclothe, to build, to take a wife, to carry on a trade, and to do any similar act that is useful and good; none of which, however, either occurs or takes place without God, but each takes place of Him and through Him. On the contrary, from his own choice, man may also engage in evil, as to bow down before an idol, to commit murder,” &c.

2006-11-05T14:01:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE XIX. – OF THE CAUSE OF SIN.

As to the cause of sin, it is taught among us, that, although Almighty God has created and preserves all nature, yet the perverted will works sin in all evil-doers and despisers of God, even as the will of the devil and of all wicked men, which, as soon as God withdraws his aid, turns itself from God unto evil, as Christ says, John 8, 44: “When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own.”

2006-11-05T13:58:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE XX. – OF FAITH AND GOOD WORKS.

We are falsely accused of having prohibited good works; but our writings on the Ten Commandments and other subjects, show that we have given good and useful instructions and admonitions in respect to various Christian relations, duties, and works; respecting which, prior to this time, little had been taught, but almost every sermon urged continually the necessity of puerile and needless works, – as rosaries, worship of saints, monastic vows, pilgrimages, stated fasts, holidays, fraternities, &c. Works so needless, even our opponents do not extol so highly now as formerly; besides, they have also learned to treat of faith now, concerning which in former times they preached nothing at all; they teach now, however, that we are not justified before God by works alone, but add faith in Christ, saying faith and works justify us before God, – a doctrine which may afford more consolation than one teaching confidence in works alone.

Now the doctrine concerning faith, which is the principle article in the Christian Creed, not having been inculcated for so long a time, as all must confess, but the doctrine concerning works alone having been preached every where, the following instructions on this subject are offered by our divines:

First, that our works cannot reconcile us to God and merit grace, but these things are effected through faith alone, if we believe that our sins are forgiven us for Christ’s sake, who alone is the Mediator reconciling the Father. He, therefore, that expects to effect this reconciliation by works, and to merit grace, contemns Christ and seeks a way of his own to God, contrary to the Gospel.

This doctrine of faith is clearly and explicitly inculcated by Paul in many places, especially in Ephes. 2, 8, 9: “By grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast,” &c. And that a new signification is not introduced here, may be shown from Augustine, who has treated this subject carefully, and who in like manner teaches, that we obtain grace and are justified before God, through faith in Christ, and not by works, as his whole book, “De Spiritu et Litera,” clearly shows. Although this doctrine is despised very much by the thoughtless, yet it will be found that it is very consoling and salutary to timid and alarmed consciences; for our consciences cannot secure tranquility and peace by works, but through faith alone, when they feel in themselves an assurance, that for Christ’s sake they have a merciful God, as Paul says, Rom. 5, 1: “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.” Heretofore this consolation was not administered in sermons, but the wretched consciences of men were driven upon works of their own, and various works were taken in hand; for conscience drove some into monasteries, with the hope of acquiring grace there by a monastic life; others devised works of another kind, for the purpose of meriting grace and of making satisfaction for sins. Many of these have experienced, that peace could not be secured by these things. It was, for this reason, necessary to preach and enforce with diligence this doctrine of faith in Christ, that it might be known that through faith alone, without merit, the grace of God is secured.

It is also inculcated, that the faith here spoken of, is not the faith which devils and the ungodly possess, who believe the historical fact, that Christ has suffered and risen from the dead; but it is the true faith, – the faith which believes that we obtain grace and the forgiveness of sins through Christ. And hence, whoever knows that he has a merciful God through Christ, knows God, calls upon him, and is not without God, like the Gentiles. For the devil and the ungodly do not believe the article concerning the remission of sins; for this reason they are enemies to God, unable to call upon him, or to hope for any thing good from him; and, as just now shown, the Scripture speaking of faith, does not style faith such a knowledge as devils and wicked men possess; for it is taught concerning faith, in Hebrews 11, 1, that to have merely a knowledge of the facts of history is not faith, but to have confidence in God that we shall receive his promises. And Augustine also reminds us, that we should understand the word faith in Scripture, to mean a confidence in God that he is merciful to us, and not a mere knowledge of the fact, – a knowledge which devils also possess.

It is taught further, that good works should and must be performed, not with a view of placing confidence in them as meriting grace, but in accordance with his will, and for the glory of God. Faith alone constantly secures grace and forgiveness of sins. And because the Holy Spirit is given through faith, the heart becomes qualified to perform good works. For before this, while it is without the Holy Spirit, it is too weak; besides it is in the power of Satan, who urges frail human nature to many sins: as we see among the philosophers, who resolving to live honorably and unblamably, were unable to effect it, and fell into many great and open sins. So it happens with all men who attempt, without true faith and without the Holy Spirit, to govern themselves by their own strength alone. Wherefore, the doctrine concerning faith does not deserve censure as discouraging good works, but should much rather be applauded as teaching the performance of good works, and as offering assistance by which good works may be performed. For without faith, and out of Christ, the nature and ability of man are much too weak to do good works, to call upon God, to have patience in sufferings, to love his neighbor, faithfully to execute commissions, to be obedient, to avoid evil lusts. Such exalted and righteous works cannot be performed without the assistance of Christ, as he himself says, John 15, 5: “Without me, ye can do nothing.”

2006-11-05T13:57:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE XXI. – OF THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS.

Concerning the worship of saints it is taught by us, that we should remember the saints, in order to strengthen our faith when we see how grace was conferred on them, and how assistance was afforded them through faith; and also to derive examples from their good works for every vocation; even as your Imperial Majesty in waging war against the Turks, may follow successfully and devoutly the example of David; for both hold royal offices, the shelter and protection of which subjects require. But from Scripture it cannot be shown, that we should invoke the saints, or seek help from them. For there is but one Reconciler and Mediator appointed between God and man, Jesus Christ, 1 Tim. 2, 5, who is the only Savior, High Priest, Propitiator, and Intercessor before God, Rom. 3, 25, and 8, 34. He alone has promised to hear our prayers; and the highest worship according to the Scripture is to seek and call on Jesus Christ from the heart, in every necessity and affliction; 1 John 2, 1: “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”

2006-11-05T13:56:00.000-08:00

This is about the substance of the doctrine which is preached and taught in our churches, for the due instruction, Christian edification, peace of conscience, and improvement of believers. For, as we did not feel willing to place in the greatest and most imminent danger before God our own souls and consciences, by the abuse of the Divine Name and Word, or transmit to our children and descendants, and entail upon them, any other doctrine than that of the pure Divine Word and Christian truth; and as these doctrines are clearly taught in the holy Scripture, and besides, are neither contrary nor in opposition to the universal Christian, or to the Roman church, so far as may be observed from the writings of the Fathers, we think that our adversaries cannot disagree with us in the foregoing Articles. Those therefore act altogether unkindly, hastily, and contrary to all Christian unity and love, who resolve in themselves, without any authority of divine command or of Scripture, to exclude, reject, and avoid us all as heretics. For the controversy and contention principally refer to traditions and abuses. If, then, there is no real error or deficiency in the principal articles, and if this our Confession is scriptural and Christian, even were there error among us on account of traditions, the bishops should demean themselves more gently; but we hope to assign indisputable grounds and reasons, why some traditions and abuses have been corrected among us.

2006-11-05T13:54:00.000-08:00

ARTICLES

CONCERNING WHICH THERE IS DISSENSION, AND IN WHICH ARE RELATED THE ABUSES WHICH HAVE BEEN CORRECTED.

Since, then, with respect to these Articles of faith, there is nothing taught in our churches contrary to the holy Scripture, or the universal church, but merely some abuses have been corrected, – a part of which in the course of time, have crept in of themselves, – and others have been established by force, – necessity requires us to state these, and to allege reasons why alterations in them were permitted, in order that your Imperial Majesty may know, that in this matter we have not acted in a manner unchristian or presumptuous, but that we have been urged to make such alterations by the command of God, whose commands should justly be esteemed higher than all customs.

2006-11-05T13:52:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE XXII. – OF BOTH ELEMENTS IN THE EUCHARIST.

Among us, both elements in the Eucharist are administered to the laity, because this is a clear command and precept of Christ, Matt. 26, 27: “Drink ye all of it.” Here Christ commands in express words concerning the cup, that they all should drink of it.

And in order that no one shall be able to cavil at these words, and explain them as pertaining to the priests alone, Paul informs us, 1 Cor. 11, 25, that the whole congregation of the Corinthian church used both elements. And this custom continued in the church for a long time, as can be shown from history and the writings of the Fathers. Cyprian mentions in many places, that in his time the cup was administered to the laity. Thus says St. Jerome: “The priests who administer the Sacrament, distribute the blood of Christ to the people.” And pope Gelasius himself commands, that the Sacrament should not be divided, Distinct.2, de Consecrat. Cap. Comperimus. Nor can any canon be found, which commands that one element alone should be received. And no one can ascertain, when or by whom the custom of receiving one element was introduced, although cardinal Cusanus mentions the time when this method was approved. Now it is evident that a custom, introduced contrary to the command of God, and in opposition to the ancient canons, is wrong. Wherefore, it was improper to oppress the consciences of those who wished to use the holy Sacrament according to the institution of Christ, by compelling them to act contrary to the order of Christ our Lord.

And since this practice of dividing the Sacrament is contrary to the institution of Christ, the usual procession* with the Sacrament is discontinued among us.

* This expression has reference to the processions with the host, on the festival of the Holy Body. – [Trans.

2006-11-05T13:49:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE XXIII. – OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS.

There have been very great complaints in the world, among individuals both of high and of low rank, concerning the excessive lasciviousness, the dissolute life and conduct of the priests, who were unable to observe continence, and who had proceeded to the greatest excess in vice. For the purpose of avoiding such gross and detestable offences, – adultery, and others acts of sensuality, – some priests among us have entered a state of matrimony. These allege, that in taking this step, they have been urged and actuated by the dictates of conscience, since the Scripture expressly declares that marriage was instituted of the Lord God to prevent fornication, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 7, 2: “To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife.” Again, “It is better to marry than to burn,” 1 Cor. 7, 9. Christ declares: “All men cannot receive this saying,” Matt. 19, 11. In this passage Christ himself, who well knew the constitution of man, declares that few persons have the gift to live continent; “for God created them male and female,” Gen. 1, 27. Now experience has abundantly shown, whether it is within human power or ability, without a special gift or grace of God, to improve or change the creatures of God the Most High, by human purposes or vows. For it is evident, what good, what decent, chaste lives, what Christian, honest, or blameless conduct, have followed from this in many individuals! Ah! what abominable, hideous disquietudes and torments of their consciences, many have experienced in the close of their lives! Many of them have confessed it themselves. Since, then, the word and law of God cannot be altered by any human vows or enactments, the priests and other ecclesiastics, for these and other reasons and authorities, have entered into a state of matrimony.

So it may be shown likewise from history and the writings of the Fathers, that formerly in the Christian churches, it was customary for priests and deacons to have wives; wherefore Paul says, 1 Tim. 3, 2, “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife.” It is but four hundred years since the priests in Germany were driven by force from a state of matrimony to vows of continence, and they opposed that measure so generally, with so much earnestness and rigor, that the archbishop of Mayence, who published this new Papal Edict, was well nigh being murdered in a mob excited by the priests. And directly in the beginning, in a manner so precipitate and arbitrary was that decree enforced, that the Pope at that time did not only forbid priests to marry in future, but he also dissolved the marriage of those who had already been in that state for a long time, – an action which was not only contrary to all divine, natural, and civil rights, but in opposition also to the canons of the popes themselves, and to the most celebrated councils.

In like manner, among individuals of high standing, piety, and intelligence, have similar opinions and sentiments been heard frequently, – that this compulsory celibacy, this prohibition of matrimony, which God himself instituted and left optional, has never been productive of any good, but the source of many great and pernicious vices and excesses. And even one of the popes, Pius II., himself, as his history shows, often used these words, and permitted them to be written: “There may be some reasons, indeed, why marriage should be forbidden to the ecclesiastics; but there are much higher, greater, and weightier reasons why marriage should be left optional with them.” And doubtless, pope Pius, as an intelligent and wise man, spoke these words from mature consideration.

Wherefore we would in submission to your Imperial Majesty, comfort ourselves with the hope that your Majesty, as a Christian and highly esteemed Emperor, will reflect that now in these latter days, of which the Scripture makes mention, the world becomes still more degenerate, and mankind more sinful and weak.

For these reasons it is a highly necessary and Christian consideration, that we should be mindful, lest, by the prohibition of marriage, lasciviousness and other crimes more wicked and shameful, be promoted in the German states. For no one is able to encourage or regulate these matters better or more wisely than God himself, who has instituted marriage for the purpose of assisting human weakness, and of restraining licentiousness. Thus say the ancient canons too, that severity and rigor must on some occasions be mitigated and relaxed, on account of human weakness, and for the purpose of guarding against, and of avoiding greater evils.

Now such a course would in this case be Christian and very necessary. For what injury could result to the Christian church in general, – especially to the ministers and others, who are to serve in the church, – from the marriage of priests and ecclesiastics? There will indeed be a want of priests and ministers hereafter, should this rigorous prohibition of marriage be continued longer.

Now, since the authority is founded upon the divine Word and commandment, for priests and ecclesiastics to enter into a state of matrimony; besides, since history shows that the priests did live in a state of matrimony; since also, the vows of continence have produced a very great number of offences so detestable and unchristian, adultery so excessive, licentiousness so terrible and unheard of, and vices so abominable, that even some of the courtiers among the dignitaries at Rome, have often confessed these things, and admitted with sorrow that, as these vices in the clergy were so abominable and predominant, the wrath of God would be excited, – it is indeed lamentable that the Christian state of matrimony has not only been forbidden, but even subjected, in some places, to the most severe punishment, as if it were a heinous crime.

Matrimony is moreover commended highly in imperial governments, and in every monarchy in which justice and law prevail. But in the present time innocent people are beginning to be tortured on account of their marriage, priests likewise who should be spared in preference to others, – a thing which is not only contrary to divine laws, but also to the canons. That doctrine which forbids marriage, the apostle Paul denominates a doctrine of devils, 1 Tim. 4, 1, 3. And Christ himself says, John 8, 44: “The devil is a murderer from the beginning.” All these things concur well to prove that to be a doctrine of devils, which forbids marriage, and attempts to enforce the prohibition by the shedding of blood.

But as no human law can abrogate or change a command of God, so a vow is not able to change his command. Wherefore Cyprian advises those women to marry who do not keep their chastity according to their vow, and he says, lib. I. epist. II.: “But if they will not preserve their chastity, or if they are unable, it is better to marry, than to fall into the fire through their lust: and they should be very careful not to occasion offence to the brethren and sisters.”

In addition to these considerations, all the canons extend more lenity and justice to those who have taken vows in youth, the priests and monks for the most part having through ignorance entered into this state in their youth.

2006-11-05T13:44:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE XXIV– OF THE MASS.

It is alleged unjustly against us, that we have abolished the mass. For it is well known that the mass is, without boasting, celebrated with greater devotion and sincerity among us, than among our adversaries. So the people also are repeatedly instructed with diligence concerning the holy Eucharist, with regard to the purpose for which it was instituted, and the manner in which it is to be used, namely, to comfort alarmed consciences, by means of which the people are drawn to communion and mass. Besides, instruction is also given against wrong doctrines concerning the Sacrament. Nor has any perceptible change taken place in the public ceremonies of the mass, except that at several places German hymns, for the instruction and exercise of the people, are sung with the Latin hymns; especially as all ceremonies should serve the purpose of teaching the people what is necessary for them to know concerning Christ.

But as the mass, prior to this time, was abused in various ways; as it is clear, that an annual traffic was made out of it, that it was bought and sold, and that it was celebrated for the most part in all churches for the sake of money, such abuse had been repeatedly censured, even before this time, by individuals of learning and piety. Now, as the ministers among us have preached concerning this thing, and the priests have been reminded of the terrible menaces which should justly move every Christian, that whoever partakes of the Sacrament unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, 1 Cor. 11, 27, in consequence of this, these sordid and solitary masses, which hitherto have been celebrated out of compulsion, for the sake of money and preferments, have ceased in our churches.

Besides, the abominable error that Christ our Lord by his death has atoned for original sin only, and that he has instituted the mass as a propitiation for other sins, is also censured. And thus the mass was converted into an oblation for the living and the dead, in order to take away sins, and to reconcile God. From this it followed as a further consequence, that it was made a question whether a mass held for many, merits as much as if a particular one is held for each individual. Thence originated a great diversity of masses as men wished by that work to obtain from God all that they needed, and consequently faith in Christ and the true divine service were neglected.

Wherefore instruction is given on this subject, as necessity undoubtedly requires, in order that it may be known how the Sacrament should be rightly used. And first, the Scripture testifies in many places, that there is no sacrifice for original sin or for other sins, but the death of Christ. For thus it is written, Heb. 9, 26-28, and chap. 10, 10-14: “For by one offering Christ hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” It is an unparalleled innovation, to teach in the church that the death of Christ atoned only for original sin, and not for other sins also; hope is therefore entertained, that it will be generally perceived that such error was not unjustly censured.

Secondly, St. Paul teaches, Rom. 3, 25, that we obtain grace before God, through faith, and not by works. Such abuse of the mass is evidently opposed to this doctrine if by that means we expect to obtain grace; as it is well known that the mass has been used for the purpose of removing sins, and of obtaining grace and favor before God, not only in behalf of the priest for himself, but also for the whole world, for the living and the dead.

Thirdly, this holy sacrament was instituted, not for the purpose of making a sacrifice for sins, (for the sacrifice has already been made,) but for the purpose of exciting our faith, and of consoling the consciences, which are admonished through the Sacrament that grace and the forgiveness of sins are promised to them by Christ. Wherefore this sacrament requires faith, and without faith it is used in vain.

Since, then, the mass is not a sacrifice for others, living or dead, to take away their sins, and since it should be a communion, in which the priest and others receive the Sacrament for themselves, the following custom is observed among us, that on holidays (and also at other seasons when communicants are present) mass is celebrated, and unto those who desire it the Sacrament is administered. Thus the mass continues among us in its proper application, as it was observed originally in the church, as may be shown from St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11, 33, and likewise from many writings of the Fathers. For Chrysostom mentions how the priest stands daily, requesting some to come to communion, and forbidding others to approach. The ancient canons also show, that one officiated, and the other priests and deacons communed. For thus read the words of the canon of Nice: “The deacons in order after the priests, should receive the Sacrament from the bishop or the priest.”

Now, since no innovation has been introduced, inconsistent with the custom of the primitive church, and no perceptible change has taken place in the public ceremonies of the mass, except that the unnecessary masses, celebrated perhaps through abuse, together with the private or priest’s masses, have discontinued, it would therefore be unjust to condemn this manner of holding mass as unchristian and heretical. For in times past, even when great numbers of people had assembled in large churches, the mass was not celebrated every day, as the Historia Tripartita, lib. 9, cap. XXXVIII., testifies. Again, in Alexandria the Scriptures were read and explained, on Wednesdays and Fridays, and all other divine services were held without the mass.

2006-11-05T13:42:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE XXV. – OF CONFESSION.

Confession is not abolished by our ministers. For the custom is retained among us, not to administer the Sacrament unto those who have not been previously examined and absolved. The people, moreover, are diligently instructed with regard to the comfort afforded by the words of absolution, and the high and great estimation in which it is to be held; for it is not the voice or word of the individual present, but it is the word of God, who here forgives sins; for it is spoken in God’s stead, and by his command. Concerning this command and power of the keys, it is taught with the greatest assiduity how comfortable, how useful they are to alarmed consciences, and besides how God requires confidence in this absolution, no less than if the voice of God was heard from heaven; and by this we comfort ourselves, and know that through such faith we obtain the remission of sins. Concerning these useful points, the priests, who taught respecting confession, formerly did not utter a single word, but merely tormented our consciences with long enumerations of sins, with expiations, with indulgences, with pilgrimages, and the like. And many of our adversaries themselves have acknowledged, that we write and treat of true Christian repentance with greater propriety than had been done before for many years.

And thus it is taught respecting confession, that no one should be forced to specify sins; for this would be impossible, as the Psalmist says: “Who can understand his errors?” Psalm 19, 13. And Jeremiah says: “The heart is deceitful above all things: who can know it?” Jer. 17, 9. Poor, frail human nature is plunged so deeply in sin, that it is unable to perceive or to acknowledge every sin; and should those sins alone be pardoned, which we are able to enumerate, it would avail us but little. It is, therefore, unnecessary to urge people to specify their sins. Thus the Fathers also maintained, as may be shown from Distinct. 1, de Pænitentia, in which the words of Chrysostom are quoted: “I say not that thou shouldest betray thyself publicly, or accuse thyself before another one, or present thyself as culpable, but obey the Prophet, who says, ‘Commit thy way unto the Lord,’ Ps. 37, 5. Therefore confess unto God the Lord, the righteous judge, in thy prayer, do not relate thy sins with the tongue, but in thy conscience.” Here it may be seen clearly, that Chrysostom does not insist upon our sins being enumerated by name. The Glossa in Decretis de Pænitentia, Distinct. 5, cap. Consideret, also teaches that confession is not commanded in the Scriptures, but that it was instituted by the church. Yet by our ministers it is taught with diligence, that confession, because of absolution, which is the chief part in it, should be retained for the purpose of consoling alarmed consciences, and for some other reasons.

2006-11-05T13:30:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE XXVI. – OF DIVERSITY OF MEATS.

Formerly it was held, preached, and written, that the diversity of meats and the like ceremonies instituted by men, were useful, in order to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for sin. Hence new fasts, new ceremonies, new orders, and the like, were daily devised, strenuously insisted upon, as if they were necessary services to God, and that grace might be merited if they were observed, while to neglect them would be considered a great sin. From this many scandalous errors originated in the church.

In the first place, the grace of Christ and the doctrine concerning faith were by this means obscured, which doctrine with great solemnity the Gospel inculcates, and it insists with earnestness that the merits of Christ should be highly and dearly esteemed, and that it should be known that faith in Christ is to be placed far above all works. St. Paul, for this reason, inveighs bitterly against the Mosaic law and human traditions, in order to teach us, that we are not justified before God by our works, but alone through faith in Christ, and that we obtain grace for Christ’s sake. This doctrine was almost entirely suppressed, by teaching that grace must be merited by the observance of laws, by fasts, and by diversities of meats and dress.

Secondly, such traditions even obscured the command of God. For men elevated these traditions far above his command. Those alone were believed to live as Christians, who observed these holidays, and prayed, and fasted, and dressed in a peculiar manner, which was styled a spiritual, Christian life.

Moreover, other good works were regarded as worldly and sensuous, namely, those which each one according to his vocation, is under obligation to do: as, a father laboring to support his wife and children, and bringing them up in the fear of God; a mother bearing children and attending to them; a prince and other authorities ruling the country and the people, &c. Such works commanded of God, were considered a mere worldly and imperfect matter; but these traditions were honored with the unmerited title of holy and perfect works. For these reasons there was neither limit nor end of such traditions.

Thirdly, these traditions became exceedingly oppressive to the consciences of men. For it is not possible to observe all traditions, and yet the people were of opinion that they are necessary services to God. And Gerson asserts in his writings that by this many were driven to despair, and some put an end to their own existence, because they did not hear the consolation of the grace of Christ. For, how the consciences of men were entangled is seen from the Summists and the theologians, who attempted to sum up the traditions, and sought in order to assist those consciences. So entirely were they engrossed in this, that in the meantime the salutary Christian doctrines of subjects more important, of faith, of consolation in affliction, and the like, were totally neglected. Accordingly many excellent men of those times complained that these traditions excited much contention in the church, and by that means prevented pious men from attaining the true knowledge of Christ. Gerson and several others have uttered bitter complaints on this subject. And it also met the displeasure of Augustine, that men encumbered their consciences with so many traditions; on this subject therefore he advises that they should not be regarded as necessary things.

*The word Epieikeia properly signifies: equity, moderation, forbearance, reasonable condescension. This word was employed by the monks, to express the mitigation of the rigor of the precepts or traditions. –[ Trans.

Wherefore, we did not treat on these matters, through malice or in contempt of ecclesiastical power, but necessity required instruction concerning the errors aforementioned, which had grown out of the misapprehension of these traditions. For the Gospel insists, that the doctrine concerning faith should and must be inculcated in churches; which cannot, however, be understood where the opinion prevails that men merit grace by works of their own contrivance. And with respect to this subject, it is taught that no one is able, by the observance of such human traditions, to merit grace or to reconcile God, or to atone for sins; and for this reason no necessary service of God should be made out of them. Reasons in addition are produced from Scripture. Christ excuses the Apostles for not observing the usual traditions, saying, Matt. 15, 3-9: “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Now as he calls this a vain service, it cannot be necessary. And immediately afterwards he says, verse 11: “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man.” Again, Paul says, Rom. 14, 17: “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink.” Col. 2, 16-20, “Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy-day,” &c. Peter says, Acts 15, 10, 11: “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 our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved.” Here Peter forbids that the consciences of men should be burdened any further with external ceremonies, either with those of Moses or of others. And 1 Tim. 4, 1-3, those prohibitions which forbid meats and matrimony are called “doctrines of devils.” For it is diametrically opposed to the Gospel, either to institute or perform such works for the purpose of meriting the remission of sins, or to do so under the impression that no one can be a Christian without these services.

The charge, however, alleged against us, that we forbid discipline and mortification of the flesh, as Jovinian did, is disproved by our writings. For we have ever given instruction concerning the holy cross, which Christians are under obligation to bear; and this is a true, sincere, not a fictitious mortification. Moreover it is taught in like manner, that every Christian is under obligation to restrain himself by bodily exercise, as fasting and other exercises, so that he give no occasion to sin, – not meriting grace however by these works. This bodily exercise should be urged not only on certain fixed days, but continually. On this subject Christ says, Luke 21, 34, “Take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting.” Again, Matt. 17, 21, “The devils are not cast out but by fasting and prayer.” And Paul says, 1 Cor. 9, 27, “I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection.” By this he shows that mortification is designed, not for the purpose of meriting grace, but for the purpose of keeping the body in a suitable condition, that it may not impede what each one according to his calling is commanded to perform; and thus fasting is not rejected, but the making of a necessary service out of it, upon fixed days, and with particular meats, to the confusion of the consciences of men.

Many ceremonies and traditions are likewise observed by us; such as mass, singing of hymns, festivals, &c., which are calculated to promote order in the church. But relative to this subject the people are instructed, that such external service does not make them pious before God, and that it should be observed without encumbering their consciences, so that if any one omit it without giving offence, he does not sin in that case. This freedom in external ceremonies the ancient Fathers likewise retained. For in the East, the festival of Easter was held at a different time from that at Rome; and when some were disposed to consider this want of uniformity as a division in the church, they were reminded by others, that it was not necessary to observe uniformity in such things. And thus says Irenæus: “A difference of fasts does not destroy the agreement in matters of faith.” So also in Distinct. 12, it is written concerning the want of uniformity in human ordinances, that it is not contrary to the unity of Christendom. And Tripartita Historia, lib. 9, sums up many dissimilar church customs, and forms a useful Christian maxim: It was not the intention of the Apostles to institute holidays, but to teach faith and charity.”

2006-11-05T13:24:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE XXVII. – OF MONASTIC VOWS.

When speaking of monastic vows, it is necessary, in the first place, to consider how they have been viewed hitherto; what regulation they had in monasteries, and that very many things were daily done in them, not only contrary to the Word of God, but also in opposition to Papal laws. In the time of St. Augustine monastic life was optional; subsequently, when the right discipline and doctrine were corrupted, monastic vows were devised, and by these, as a species of imprisonment, they wished to re-establish discipline.

In addition to these monastic vows, many other things were introduced, and with these burdens and fetters, many persons were oppressed, even before they had arrived at years of maturity.

Many persons likewise entered into such monastic life through ignorance, who, although they were not of years too immature, did not sufficiently consider and weigh their abilities. All these, thus involved and ensnared, are urged and forced to remain in such bonds, although even the Papal regulations would liberate many of them. And it was more oppressive in nunneries than in monasteries; yet it would seem fit that females, as being weaker, should have been spared. This severity likewise met the displeasure of many pious persons in former times; for they well knew that both boys and girls were often thrust into these monasteries merely for the purpose of being supported. They saw also how evil this course of procedure proved, what offences, what burdens of conscience it produced, and many people complained, that in a matter so perilous the canons were not regarded at all. Besides this, an extravagant opinion obtained concerning monastic vows, which was very prevalent, and which was displeasing even to many monks, who possessed some little reason.

For they allege, that monastic vows are equal to Baptism, and that by monastic life remission of sins and justification may be merited before God; yea, they add still farther, that by monastic life, not only righteousness and holiness are merited, but also that by it the commands and counsels comprehended in the Gospel, are kept: and thus monastic vows were commended more highly than Baptism. Again, that men merit more by monastic life than by all other conditions which God has established; as that of pastor and minister, prince, ruler, and lord, and the like, all of whom according to the command, word, and precept of God, serve in their vocations without pretentions of superior holiness. None of these things can be denied, for they are extant in their own books. Moreover, he that is thus ensnared and enters into a monastery, learns but little concerning Christ.

Formerly, schools were kept in monasteries for the purpose of teaching the holy Scriptures and other things which are useful to the Christian church, so that ministers and bishops could be selected from them. But now there is a different custom. For formerly they assembled in monasteries with a view to learn the Scripture, but now they falsely pretend that monastic life is of such a nature, that men merit the grace of God and holiness before God by it; yea, that it is a state of perfection, and they exalt it far above other states which God has instituted. We cite all these things, without detraction, in order that it may be the better understood and comprehended how, and what we preach and teach.

First, among us we teach concerning those who propose marriage, that all those who are not qualified for a single state, have a perfect right to marry. For vows cannot annul the order and command of God. Thus reads the command of God, 1 Cor. 7, 2: “To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” And not only the command of God, but also his creation and ordination, urge and enforce all those to a state of matrimony, who are not endowed with the gift of continence, by a special gift, agreeably to this declaration of God himself, Gen. 2, 18: “It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him an help meet for him.”

Now, what can be alleged against this? They may applaud vows and duty as highly as they please, and adorn them as much as possible, yet it cannot be maintained that God’s command can thus be annulled. The doctors say, that vows, even in opposition to the authority of the Pope, are not binding; how much less, then, should they bind, and have power and effect against the commands of God?

If the obligation of vows had no reason for their being annulled, the popes would not have granted dispensations against them; for it is not proper for any man to annul obligations which grow out of divine rights. Wherefore the popes have considered well, that in these obligations equity should be employed, and they have often granted dispensations, as with the king of Arragon, and many others. Now, if for the preservation of temporal things, dispensations have been granted, more justly should they be granted on account of the necessity of souls.

Secondly, why do the opposite party so strenuously insist that vows must be kept, and not first consider whether the vow is of a proper nature? For such vows as can be kept, should be made voluntarily, and without constraint. But it is well known how far human power and ability can maintain perpetual chastity. Nor are there many, either of males or of females, that have taken monastic vows of themselves, freely and with due consideration. Before they arrive at a proper understanding, they are persuaded to assume monastic vows. Sometimes they are also urged and forced to them. For this reason it is not just, to insist so obstinately and strenuously upon the obligation of vows, seeing that all must confess, that it is contrary to the nature and essential character of a vow, to make it unwillingly and without due counsel and consideration.

Some canons and Papal regulations rescind the vows which were made previous to the fifteenth year. For they maintain, that before that period no one has knowledge sufficient to enable him to determine upon the order and regulation of a whole life. Another canon allows a still greater number of years on account of human weakness. It forbids the taking of monastic vows under the eighteenth year. From this prohibition the greater part would have excuse and reason to withdraw from monasteries; for the greater part entered them before that age. Finally, if even the breaking of monastic vows might be censured, yet it could, however, not follow from this, that their marriages should be dissolved. For St. Augustine says, 27 Quæst., 1 Cap., Nuptiarum, that “such marriages should not be dissolved.” Now St. Augustine stands in high repute in the Christian church, although some have since maintained otherwise.

Although the command of God concerning marriage, absolves very many from their monastic vows, yet our writers allege many other reasons, why monastic vows are void and ineffectual. For every species of worship, chosen and instituted by men without the precept and command of God, in order to obtain righteousness and divine grace, is repugnant to him, and in opposition to his command and to the Gospel. As Christ himself says, Matt. 15, 9: “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” So St. Paul also teaches every where, that men should not seek righteousness from religious services devised by men, but that righteousness and holiness in the sight of God, come from the faith and confidence that God accepts us graciously for the sake of Christ his own Son. Now, it is clear, that the monks have taught and preached that their assumed piety atones for sin, and obtains righteousness and the grace of God. What else is this, but diminishing the glory and honor of the grace of Christ, and denying the righteousness of faith? Wherefore it follows that the customary vows are a false and an absurd worship of God. For that reason they are also not binding. For an ungodly vow, and on contrary to the command of God, is void, and the canons teach also that an oath shall not be an obligation to sin.

St. 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.” Therefore those also who wish to be justified by vows, are separated from Christ, and fail to obtain the grace of God. For these rob Christ of his honor, who alone justifies, and thus they bestow such honor on their vows and monastic life.

Nor can it be denied, that the monks have taught and preached that by their vows and monastic habits and conduct they are justified, and merit the forgiveness of sins; and, indeed, they have invented things still more absurd, and have asserted, that they impart their good works to others. Now, if some one would press the matter and bring all these charges in array against them, how many things could be collected, of which the monks themselves are now ashamed, and which they would disown! Besides these things they have also persuaded the people, that their self-devised religious orders constitute Christian perfection. This is, indeed, commending works as a source of justification. It is not a small offence in the Christian church, to appoint for the people a species of worship, which men have devised without the command of God, and to teach that such worship makes men pious and just before God. For the righteousness of faith, which should be chiefly inculcated in the church, becomes obscured, when the eyes of the people are blinded with this strange, angelic spirituality and false pretence of poverty, meekness, and chastity.

Moreover, by this means the commandments of God, and the proper and true service of God, are obscured, when the people hear that the monks alone are in a state of perfection. For Christian perfection consists in fearing God from the heart and with earnestness, and also in cherishing sincere reliance, faith, and trust, that for the sake of Christ we have a gracious and merciful God, that we may and should ask and desire of him what is necessary for us, and confidently expect help from him in every tribulation, according to our calling or station in life; that we also should in the meantime perform good works towards others with diligence, and attend to our occupations. In this consist true perfection and the proper service of God, – not in mendicancy, or in a black or gray hood, &c. But the common people are led into many pernicious views by the false commendation of monastic life. If they hear a state of celibacy applauded beyond measure, it follows that they are pained with the sting of conscience in their matrimonial relations. For from this, if the common man hears that the mendicants alone are perfect, he is not able to perceive that he may possess property, and carry on an occupation, without sinning. If the populace hear that it is merely a recommendation not to exercise revenge, it follows that some will think it no sin to exercise private revenge. Others are of opinion that revenge does not at all become a Christian, not even the government. Many examples are on record, of persons who abandoned their wives and children and business, and shut themselves up in monasteries. This they said, was fleeing out of the world, and seeking a life more pleasing to God than their previous one. Nor were they able to understand, that men should serve God in those commandments which He has given, and not in the commandments devised by men. Now this is a good and perfect state of life, which is founded on the command of God, but that is a dangerous state of life, which is not founded on his command.

Concerning these things it was necessary to instruct the people properly. Gerson, in former times, has also censured the error of the monks, concerning perfection, and he intimates that in his day it was a new doctrine that monastic life should be a state of perfection. Many ungodly views and errors attach to monastic vows; as, that they justify and make holy in the sight of God; that they constitute Christian perfection; that by them both the counsels and commands of the Gospel are fulfilled; that they have a superabundance of works which men do not owe to God.

Since, then, all these things are false, vain, and fictitious, monastic vows are void and ineffectual.

2006-11-05T13:13:00.000-08:00

ARTICLE XXVIII. – OF THE POWER OF THE BISHOPS OR CLERGY.

Concerning the power of bishops much has been written in former times, and some have improperly mingled together civil and ecclesiastical power. From this heterogeneous commixture extensive wars, rebellions, and insurrections have been produced, by the pontiffs having, under pretence of their power, given unto them by Christ, not only established new modes of worship, and oppressed the consciences of men with reservations of certain cases and with violent excommunications, but also presumed to dethrone kings and emperors at pleasure, and to place others in their stead. This presumption has long since been censured by learned and pious men. Hence, those who think with us, for the purpose of consoling the consciences of men, have been compelled to point out the lines of distinction between civil and ecclesiastical power. And they have taught, that both civil and ecclesiastical power, on account of God’s commandment, ought to be honored and sustained with all sincerity, as the two greatest blessings of God on earth.

Accordingly they teach, that the power of the keys or of the bishops, according to the Gospel, is a power and commission from God to preach the Gospel, to remit and to retain sins, and to attend to and administer the sacraments. For Christ sent forth the Apostles with the command: “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,” John 20, 21-23. This power of the keys or of the bishops is to be exercised and carried into effect alone by the doctrine and preaching of the Word of God, and by the administration of the sacraments to many or to a few persons, according to the call. For by this means are conferred, not temporal, but eternal blessings and treasures; as, eternal righteousness, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. These blessings cannot be obtained otherwise than by the office of the ministry, and by the administration of the holy sacraments. As St. Paul says, Rom. 1, 16: “The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” Inasmuch then as the power of the church or of the bishops confers eternal gifts, and is exercised and exerted only by the ministry, it cannot by any means interfere with civil polity and government. For the latter relates to matters entirely different from the Gospel, and protects with its power not the souls of men, but their bodies and possessions against external violence, by the sword and bodily penalties.

Therefore these two governments, the civil and ecclesiastical, ought not to be mingled and confounded. For the ecclesiastical power has its command to preach the Gospel and to administer the sacraments, and it ought not to interfere with a foreign office, it ought not to dethrone or make kings, it ought not to make and appoint laws for civil power concerning political matters. As Christ himself also has said, John 18, 36: “My kingdom is not of this world.” Again, Luke 12, 14: “Who made me a judge, or a divider over you?” And St. Paul says to the Philippians, 3, 20: “Our conversation is in heaven.” And in 2 Cor. 10, 4: “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God.”

In this manner we distinguish between the two powers, the civil and ecclesiastical, and recommend both of them to be held in honor as the highest gifts of God on earth. But if bishops have any civil power, they possess it not as bishops from divine right, but from human imperial right, conferred by emperors and kings, for the civil management of their own possessions, and it has nothing at all to do with the office of the Gospel. Wherefore the Episcopal office, according to divine appointment, is to preach the Gospel, to remit sins, to judge of doctrine, to reject the doctrine which is contrary to the Gospel, and to exclude from the Christian community the wicked, whose impious conduct is manifest, without human power, but by the Word of God alone, and in that case the parishioners and churches are under obligation to be obedient to the bishops, agreeably to the declaration of Christ, Luke 10, 16: “He that heareth you, heareth me.” But if they teach, appoint, or establish any thing contrary to the Gospel, we have the command of God in such case, not to be obedient, Matt. 7, 15: “Beware of false prophets.” And St. Paul to the Gal. 1, 8: “Though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” And in 2 Cor. 13, 8: “For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.” Again, verse 10: “According to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction.” Thus the ecclesiastical law commands in like manner, 2 Quest., 7 Cap. Sacerdotes, and in Cap. Oves. And St. Augustine writes in the epistle against Petilian, that, “We should not obey those bishops who have been duly elected, if they commit errors, or teach or ordain any thing contrary to the divine Scripture.”

But, since the bishops have other power and jurisdiction in certain matters, as those relating to marriage or tithes, they derive it from the power of human laws. But if the ordinaries are negligent in such office, the princes, whether they do it willingly or reluctantly, are under obligation in that case, for the sake of peace, to put into execution the law against their subjects, for the prevention of discord and confusion in the community.

Further, it is questionable, whether bishops have power also to establish in the church, ceremonies, such as ordinances concerning meats, holidays, and concerning different orders of ministers. Those who attribute this power to bishops, cite the declaration of Christ, John 16, 12, 13: “I have yet many thinks 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.” In addition they introduce the example, Acts 15, 20, when they have forbidden “things strangled and blood.” So it is alleged also, that the Sabbath was changed into Sunday, contrary to the Ten Commandments, as they regard it, and no example is urged and alleged more strenuously, then the change of the Sabbath; and they wish to maintain by that, that the power of the church is great, since it has dispensed with a precept of the Ten Commandments, and has effected some change in them.

But relative to this question we teach, that the bishops have no power to appoint and establish any thing contrary to the Gospel, as has already been stated, and as the canons teach, Dist. 9. Now it is evidently contrary to the command and Word of God, to enact or enforce laws with a view to atone for sins and to merit grace by them; for if we presume to earn grace by such ordinances, it detracts from the merit and honor of Christ. It is also clear, that on account of this opinion human traditions innumerable have prevailed in Christendom, and by this means the doctrine of faith, and the righteousness of faith, were entirely suppressed – new holidays, new fasts were daily commanded, new ceremonies, and new honors to the saints were instituted, in order to merit grace and all blessings from God, by such works. Again, they who institute human traditions, act contrary to the command of God, by ascribing sins to meats, to days, and the like things, and by thus encumbering Christendom with the servitude of the law, as though there had to be among Christians, to merit the grace of God, such a divine service as the Levitical, and as if he had commanded the Apostles and bishops to establish it, as some writers testify. And there is no doubt, that some of the bishops have been deceived by the example of the law of Moses; hence originated those innumerable traditions: that it is a mortal sin to do any manner of work on holidays, even without offence to others; that it is a mortal sin to neglect the canonical hours; that certain meats pollute the conscience; that fasting is a work by which God may be reconciled; that sin in a case reserved, will not be forgiven, except the reserver of the case be first entreated; notwithstanding, the ecclesiastical laws do not speak of the reservation of sin, but of the reservation of church-penalty.

Whence, then, have the bishops power and authority to impose such traditions upon the Christian community to ensnare men’s consciences? For St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, forbids the “yoke to be put upon the neck of the disciples,” Acts 15, 10. And St. Paul says to the Corinthians: “That power was given to him to edification, and not to destruction,” 2 Cor. 13, 10. Why then do they multiply sins by such traditions? We have clear declarations from the divine writings, which forbid the establishment of such traditions, in order to merit the grace of God, or as if they were necessary to salvation. Thus says St. Paul, Col. 2, 16: “Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy-day, or of the new-moon, or of the Sabbath-days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” Again, verse 20: “Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ, from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, which say, (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.” Again, St. Paul to Titus, 1, 14, forbids publicly, the “giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men that turn from the truth.”

So also Christ himself speaks of those who urge the people to observe human commandments, Matt. 15, 14: “Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind;” and rejecting such service, he says: “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up,” verse 13. Now, if the bishops have power to encumber the churches with innumerable traditions, and to ensnare men’s consciences, why then does the holy Scripture so often forbid the making and observing of human traditions? Why does it style them the doctrines of devils? Shall the Holy Ghost have warned us against all these things in vain?

Wherefore, since such ordinances, instituted as necessary in order to reconcile God and to merit grace, are in opposition to the Gospel, it is by no means suitable for the bishops to enforce such services. For the doctrine of Christian liberty must be retained in the church, namely, that the servitude of the law is not necessary to justification, as St. Paul writes to the Galatians: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage,” Gal. 5, 1. For the chief article of the Gospel, that without our merit we obtain the grace of God through faith in Christ, must be maintained, and that we do not merit it in consequence of rites instituted by men.

What, then, should be held concerning Sunday and other similar church ordinances and ceremonies? To this we make the following reply: – That the bishops or pastors may make regulations, so that things may be carried on orderly in the church, – not to obtain the grace of God, nor yet to atone for sins, or to bind the consciences of men to hold these regulations as necessary services of God, and to regard them, as if those commit sin, who break them without offence to others. Thus St. Paul to the Corinthians ordains, that the women in the congregation should cover their heads, 1 Cor. 11, 5. Again, that the preachers should speak in the congregation, not all at the same time, but in order, one after another.

It is proper for a Christian congregation to observe such regulations for the sake of peace and love, and in such cases to be obedient to the bishops and pastors, and to observe these regulations in so far as that one offend not another, that there may be no disorder or unseemly conduct in the church; yet that the consciences of men be not encumbered with the idea that these observances are held as necessary to salvation, and that those commit sin, who violate them even without offence to others: as, so no one says that a woman commits sin in going abroad bareheaded, unless thereby she offend the people. In like manner such is the case with the institution of Sunday, of Easter, of Pentecost, and the like holidays and rites. Those, then, who are of opinion, that such institution of Sunday instead of the Sabbath, was established as a thing necessary, err very much. For the holy Scripture has abolished the Sabbath, and it teaches that all ceremonies of the old law, since the revelation of the Gospel, may be discontinued. And yet as it was necessary to appoint a certain day, so that the people might known when they should assemble, the Christian church ordained Sunday for that purpose, and possessed rather more inclination and willingness for this alteration, in order that the people might have an example of Christian liberty, that they might know that neither the observance of the Sabbath, nor of any other day, is indispensable.

There are many unwarrantable disputations relative to the change of the Law, to the ceremonies of the New Testament, to the alteration of the Sabbath; all of which have sprung from the false and erroneous opinion, that there must be in the Christian church a divine service corresponding with the Levitical or Jewish service of God, and that Christ had commanded the Apostles and bishops to devise new ceremonies, which should be necessary to salvation. These errors obtained in Christendom when the righteousness of faith was not clearly and purely taught and preached. Some also argue, that Sunday must be kept, although not from divine authority, prescribing in what form and to what degree labor may be performed on that day. But what else are such disputations, but snares of conscience? For although they presume to modify and mitigate human traditions, yet no or mitigation can be attained, so long as the opinion exists and continues, that they are necessary. Now this opinion must continue, if men know nothing of the righteousness of faith, and of Christian liberty. The Apostles have given the command, to abstain from blood and things strangled. But who observes this now? Yet those do not sin who do not observe it, because even the Apostles themselves did not wish to burden the conscience with such servitude, but they prohibited it for a time to avoid offence. For we must have regard, in view of this ordinance, to the chief article of the Christian doctrine, which is not abrogated by this decree.

Scarcely any of the ancient canons are observed agreeably to their purport, and many of these ordinances are going out of use daily, even among those who maintain such traditions with the greatest zeal. It would afford no counsel or relief to the conscience, were this modification not observed, – namely, to know, in preserving these traditions, that they are not preserved as being necessary, and that it would not be injurious to the conscience, even if these traditions should cease. But the bishops might easily preserve obedience, if they would not urge the keeping of these traditions which cannot be observed without sin. Now, they forbid the administration of both elements in the Eucharist; they forbid priests to marry; and receive no one, unless he has first taken an oath not to preach this doctrine, though it is without doubt in accordance with the holy Gospel.

Our churches do not desire the bishops to make peace and union at the expense of their honor and dignity, (though this would be proper for the bishops to do in case of necessity,) but they entreat only, that the bishops discontinue certain unjust burdens which did not exist in the church formerly, and which are contrary to the custom of the universal Christian church. There might, perhaps, have been some reasons for these, when they were first established, but they are not suitable for our times. It is likewise undeniable, that some ordinances were received through ignorance. Wherefore, the bishops ought to have the kindness to mitigate these ordinances, since such change would not be injurious to the preservation of the unity of the Christian church; for many ordinances instituted by men, have ceased of themselves in the course of time, and were unnecessary to be observed, as the Papal laws themselves testify. But if it cannot be granted by them, or obtained from them, that these human ordinances may be moderated or abolished, which cannot be observed without sin, we must follow the rule of the Apostles, which commands that “we ought to obey God rather than men,” Acts 5, 29.

St. Peter, 1 Pet. 5, 3, forbids the bishops to rule as if they had power to force the churches into whatever measure they please. Not, it is not our design to deprive the bishops of their power, but we desire and entreat, that they would not force the consciences of men to sin. If however they will not desist, but contemn this entreaty, they may consider that they will, therefore, be under obligation to render an account unto God, since by this obstinacy of theirs, they give occasion for disunion and schisms which they ought properly to assist in preventing.

2006-11-05T12:54:00.000-08:00

CONCLUSION.

These are the principle Articles which are regarded as controverted. It were easy indeed to enumerate many more abuses and errors, but in order to be brief, and to prevent prolixity, we have mentioned only the principle ones, from which the others may easily be perceived. For in former times much complaint existed concerning indulgences, pilgrimages, and the abuse of excommunication. The clergy have also had endless disputes with the monks about hearing confessions, about burials, funeral sermons, and numberless other subjects. All such we have thought proper to pass over gently, so that the more important subjects in this matter, might be the better understood. Nor should it be imagined, that any thing has been said or intimated here against any one out of hatred or disrespect; but we have stated these subjects only, which we have considered as necessary to refer to and to mention, in order that it might be the more clearly perceived, that by us nothing is received either in doctrine or ceremonies, which might be contrary to the holy Scripture, or opposed to the universal Christian church. For it is clear, indeed, and evident, that with the greatest vigilance, by the help of God, (without boasting) we have been careful that no new and ungodly doctrine insinuate itself, spread, and prevail in our churches.

The foregoing Articles we have, in conformity with the Edict, desired to submit, as an evidence of our Confession and of our doctrine. And if any one should be found who has any objection to them, we are ready to give him further information with reasons from Holy Writ.

Your Imperial Majesty’s most humble subjects:

JOHN, Elector of Saxony.
GEORGE, Margrave of Brandenburg.
ERNEST, Duke of Luneburg.
PHILIP, Landgrave of Hesse.
[JOHN FREDERICK, Duke of Saxony.
FRANCIS, Duke of Luneburg.]
WOLFGANG, Prince of Anhalt.
The Imperial City of Nuremburg.
The Imperial City of Reutlingen.