Article I: Of God. (1530)

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.

I. (1540)

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. (1530)

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.

II. (1540)

Also they teach that since the fall of Adam, all men begotten in the natural way are born having original sin. We understand, moreover, original sin as that which the holy fathers, and all the orthodox and piously learned in the Church, call it, namely, the guilt, whereby those who are born on account of the fall of Adam, are subject to the wrath of God and eternal death, and the very corruption of human nature propagated from Adam. And this corruption of human nature embraces the defect of righteousness or integrity, or original obedience, and concupiscence. 

And this defect, horrible blindness, and disobedience—namely, to lack that light and knowledge of God which would have been present in an uncorrupted nature; likewise, to lack that righteousness, that is, perpetual obedience, true, pure, and supreme love of God, and similar gifts of an uncorrupted nature. Wherefore these defects and concupiscence are condemned things, and worthy of death in their nature. And this vice of origin is truly sin, now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

They condemn the Pelagians, who deny that original sin is truly sin, and who feel that these defects or concupiscence are things morally indifferent, or penalties only, and are not things worthy of condemnation in their nature, and dream that man can satisfy the law of God, and on account of his own obedience be pronounced righteous before God.

Article III: Of the Son of God. (1530)

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 conjoined 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.

III. (1540)

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 conjoined 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, and to those being sanctified give eternal life. 

The same Christ shall openly come again to judge the quick and the dead, resurrected, according to the Apostles' Creed

Article IV: Of Justification. (1530)

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.

IV. (1540)

That we may obtain these benefits of Christ, namely, remission of sins, justification, and eternal life, Christ has given the Gospel, in which these benefits are offered to us, just as it is written in the last chapter of Luke: that repentance and remission of sins must be preached in His name among all nations. For since all men naturally propagated have sin, nor can truly satisfy the law of God, the Gospel convicts of sins, and shows us Christ the Mediator, and thus teaches us concerning the remission of sins. 

Since the Gospel convicts our sins, terrified hearts ought to determine that remission of sins, and justification, are freely given to us on account of Christ, through faith, by which we ought to believe and confess that these are given to us on account of Christ, who was made a sacrifice for us, and appeased the Father. Although, therefore, the Gospel requires repentance, yet, that remission of sins may be certain, it teaches that it is freely given, that is, does not depend on the condition of our worthiness, nor is given on account of any preceding works, or worthiness of the following ones. For remission would become uncertain if it were to be felt thus, that remission of sins only then happens to us, after we had merited it with preceding works, or repentance were sufficiently worthy. For conscience in true terrors finds no work, which it can oppose to the wrath of God, and Christ has been given and set before us, to be a propitiator. This honor of Christ ought not to be transferred to our works. Therefore Paul says, "By grace you have been saved." Again, "Therefore by faith freely, that the promise may be firm," that is, Remission will certainly be so firm, since we will know it not to depend on the condition of our worthiness, but to be given on account of Christ. This is firm and necessary consolation, to pious and terrified minds. And thus the Holy Fathers also teach. And there is an extant memorable and distinguished sentence with Ambrose, in these words: "This has been ordained by God, that he who believes in Christ is saved, without work, by faith alone, freely receiving remission of sins." 

And the term "faith" does not only signify knowledge of the history concerning Christ, but also to believe and assent to this promise, which is the Gospel's own, in which on account of Christ remission of sins, justification, and eternal life are promised to us. For this promise also pertains to the history concerning Christ, just as in the Creed this article has been added to the history: "I believe in the remission of sins." And to this article the remaining ones concerning the history of Christ ought to be referred. For this benefit is the end of history. Therefore Christ suffered and rose again, that on account of Him remission of sins and eternal life may be given to us.

Article V: Of the Ministry. (1530)

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.

V. (1540)

Therefore Christ instituted the ministry of teaching the Gospel, which preaches repentance and remission of sins. And both are a universal preaching: it convicts the sins of all, and promises remission of sins to all who believe, so that remission may not be uncertain, but so that all terrified minds may know they ought to believe that remission of sins is certainly given to us on account of Christ, not on account of our merits, or worthiness. And when we thus console ourselves with a promise or the Gospel, and lift ourselves up with faith, we certainly obtain remission of sins, and at the same time the Holy Spirit is given to us. For the Holy Spirit is given and is efficacious through the Word of God and through the Sacraments. When we hear or think on the Gospel, or treat the Sacraments, and console ourselves with faith, at the same time the Holy Spirit is efficacious, according to that of Paul to the Galatians: "That the promise by faith of Jesus Christ may be given to those who believe." And to the Corinthians: "The Gospel is the ministry of the Spirit." And to the Romans: "Faith is from hearing." When, therefore, we console ourselves with faith, and are freed from the terrors of sin through the Holy Spirit, hearts conceive other virtues, truly recognize the mercy of God, conceive true love, true fear of God, trust, hope of divine aid, invocation, and similar fruits of the Spirit. 

Those are condemned who teach nothing concerning this faith, by which remission of sins is received, but bid consciences doubt whether they obtain remission. And they add that this doubting is not sin. Likewise, they teach that men obtain remission of sins on account of their own worthiness; they do not teach that it must be believed that remission of sins is given freely on account of Christ. 

Likewise, those fanatics of the Spirit are condemned who feign that the Holy Spirit is given, or is efficacious, without the Word of God. And on that account, they contemn the ministry of the Gospel and of the Sacraments, and seek illuminations without the Word of God and outside of the Gospel, and thus they lead minds away from the Word of God to their own opinions, which is most pernicious. Such of old were the Manichaeans, Enthusiasts, and now are the Anabaptists. Such madnesses we constantly condemn. For they abolish the true use of the Word of God, and falsely dream that the Holy Spirit is received without the Word of God, and relying on their opinions, they fabricate impious dogmas, and effect infinite dissipation.

Article VI: Of New Obedience. (1530)

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.

VI. (1540)

Also they teach that, since we are reconciled by faith, the righteousness of good works should necessarily follow, which God commanded us, just as Christ also ordered: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." But because so great is the weakness of human nature that no one is able to satisfy the law, it is necessary to teach men, not only that the law must be obeyed, but also how this obedience pleases, lest consciences fall into despair, when they understand that they do not satisfy the law. This obedience, therefore, pleases, not because it satisfies the law, but because the person has in Christ been reconciled by faith, and believes that the remains of sin are pardoned to him. Therefore it must always be felt that we obtain remission of sins, and the person is pronounced righteous, that is, accepted freely on account of Christ, through faith. Afterwards, however, obedience to the law also pleases, and is reckoned as a certain righteousness, and merits rewards. For conscience cannot oppose to the judgment of God its own cleanness or works, just as the Psalm testifies, "Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified." And John says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." And Christ says, "When you have done all things, say: 'We are unprofitable servants.'" After, however, the person has been reconciled and is righteous by faith, that is, has been accepted, then obedience also pleases, and is reckoned as a certain righteousness, just as John says: "Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not." And 1 Corinthians: "Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience." 

And this obedience ought to resist wicked desires, and to become purer by spiritual exercises in turn, and to beware lest we commit anything against conscience, according to that: "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned." But those who obey wicked desires, and act against conscience, are engaged in mortal sins, nor do they retain the righteousness of faith, nor the righteousness of good works. According to that of Paul, "They who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

Article VII: Of the Church. (1530)

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.

VII. (1540)

Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church of Christ properly, however, is the congregation of the members of Christ, that is, of the saints, who truly believe and obey Christ, even if in this life many wicked and hypocrites are mingled with this congregation until the last judgment. However, the Church properly so called, has its signs, namely, pure and sound doctrine of the Gospel, and the right use of the Sacraments. 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 instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul also teaches, when he says: "One Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all," etc.

Article VIII: What the Church Is. (1530)

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 Seribes 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.

VIII. (1540)

Although, however, in this life many wicked and hypocrites are mingled with the Church, who, nevertheless, have fellowship of the external signs with the Church, it is lawful to use Sacraments which are administered by wicked men, according to the voice of Christ: "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat," etc. And the Sacraments and Word of God, on account of the ordination and commandment of Christ, are efficacious, even if they are offered by wicked men. 

They condemn the Donatists and the like, who denied that it was lawful for the people to use the ministry of wicked men in the Church, and felt that the ministry of wicked men was useless and inefficacious.

Article IX: Of Baptism. (1530)

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.

IX. (1540)

Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, as a ceremony instituted by Christ. And that through Baptism the grace of God is offered, and that infants are to be baptized, and that infants commended to God through baptism, are received into the grace of God, and become sons of God, as Christ testifies, speaking of little ones in the Church in Matthew 18: "It is not the will of your Father who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." 

They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of infants, and say that infants without baptism and outside the Church of Christ are saved.

Article X: Of the Lord's Supper. (1530)

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 in the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

X. (1540)

Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that, with bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ are truly exhibited to those eating in the Supper of the Lord.

Article XI: Of Confession. (1530)

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.

XII. (1540)

Of Confession of sins 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 to recount all sins, according to the Psalm: Who can understand his errors?

Article XII: Of Repentance. (1530)

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, comforta 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.

XI. (1540)

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, that is, conversion of an impious person, consists properly of these two parts: One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin, in which also we acknowledge the wrath of God, and grieve that we have sinned, and detest and flee from sins, as Joel preaches: "Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God," etc. 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, concerning which faith Paul speaks, when he says: "Being justified by faith, we have peace." Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance, that is, obedience toward God, according to that: "We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." 

They condemn the Novatians, who would not absolve such as had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance. 

They condemn also those who do not teach that remission of sins comes through faith freely for Christ's sake, but contend that remission of sins comes through the worthiness of contrition, love, or other works, and bid consciences doubt in repentance whether they obtain remission, and affirm that this doubting is not sin. 

They condemn also those who teach that canonical satisfactions are necessary to redeem eternal punishments, or punishments of purgatory (although we confess that present calamities are mitigated by good works, as Isaiah teaches, Cap. 58: "Deal thy bread to the hungry," etc.: "And the Lord shall give thee rest continually"). Indulgences also are rejected; these are condonations of fabricated satisfactions. 

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.

Article XIII: Of the Use of the Sacraments. (1530)

Of the Use of the Sacraments they teach that the Sacraments were ordained, not only to be marks of profession among men, but Tather 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.

XIII. (1540)

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. By this faith we receive the promised grace, which the Sacraments signify, and the Holy Ghost. 

They therefore condemn the Pharisaical opinion which obscures the doctrine concerning faith, and does not teach that in the use of the Sacraments, faith which believes that grace is given to us for Christ's sake, is required. But it imagines that men are righteous on account of the use of the Sacraments ex opere operato, and indeed without a good disposition on the part of those using them.

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.

XIIII. (1540)

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called, as also Paul commands Titus to appoint elders in the cities.

Article XV: Of Ecclesiastical Usages. (1530)

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.

XV. (1540)

Of Usages in the Church they teach that those rites which have been instituted by human authority, 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, particular pious chants, and the like. 

Nevertheless, concerning this very kind, they teach consciences are not to be burdened with superstitious opinions; that is, these human ordinances are not to be thought to be righteousness before God, or to merit forgiveness of sins, or to be necessary services for the righteousness of the Gospel, but that they should be considered as things indifferent, that can be omitted outside of a case of scandal. But those sin who violate them with offense, as those who rashly disturb the tranquility of their churches, etc. 

Rejected, therefore, are traditions which cannot be observed without sin, as the tradition concerning celibacy. Rejected also is the impious opinion concerning traditions and vows, in which it is imagined that services devised by human authority merit forgiveness of sins, are satisfactions for sins, etc., of which sort are the false persuasions concerning vows, concerning certain fasts, etc., which have been scattered in the Church by the unlearned.

Article XVI: Of Civil Affairs. (1530)

Of Civil Affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that it is right for Christians to hear 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 practised 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.

XVI. (1540)

Of Civil Affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works and ordinances of God, as Paul testifies: "The powers that be are ordained of God." They teach, therefore, that it is right for Christians to hold civil office, to exercise judgment, 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 contract legitimate marriages, to exercise such arts as are approved by the laws. 

They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to Christians. 

They condemn also those who place evangelical perfection in the forsaking civil offices, since evangelical perfection is spiritual, that is, it consists in the movements of the heart, in the fear of God, faith, love, obedience. For the Gospel preaches a certain eternal righteousness of the heart. Meanwhile, it does not destroy the State or the family, but very much requires that they be preserved in this bodily life 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 4.

Article XVII: Of Christ's Return to Judgment. (1530)

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.

XVII. (1540)

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 eternal life and everlasting joys, but ungodly men and the devils He will condemn to be tormented without end. 

They condemn the Anabaptists, who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdoms of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed. For we know that the godly must obey the existing magistrates, not wrest government from them, not disrupt political order through sedition, because Paul commands: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." We know also that the Church in this life is subject to the cross, and will first be glorified after this life, as Paul says: "It is necessary that we be conformed to the image of the Son of God." Wherefore we utterly condemn and execrate the madness and devilish fury of the Anabaptists. 

We condemn also the Origenists, who have imagined that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils.

Article XVIII: Of Free Will. (1530)

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, will. ing 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 beginning. "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.

XVIII. (1540)

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 Paul says, the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, and Christ says: "Without Me ye can do nothing." But this righteousness is wrought in us when we are aided by the Holy Ghost. Moreover, we receive the Holy Ghost when we assent to the Word of God, so that we may be consoled in terrors by faith, as Paul teaches when he says: "That ye might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Augustine says these things in just so many words in Book III of his Hypognosticon: 

"We confess that there is a free will in all men; for all possess judgment and reason whereby they are able to consider and know what should be done in this life, what is not to be done; without which reason it would not be possible for a man to live in a political order; and accordingly, he should be held responsible for nothing if he did not have a free choice in life. But we consider that the will has no power to accomplish anything in divine things without the Holy Spirit. It is for this reason that we say that the will is free because it is able to make a choice in this life but is insufficient for those things which pertain to God; unless the leaders of souls were able to do this, they would not be judged, as the Lord says in the Gospel: 'Blessed are those servants whom the Lord shall find watching.' "Augustine's statement clearly teaches what must be assigned to free will, and clearly distinguishes civil discipline or the exercises of human reason from spiritual impulses, true fear, patience, steadfastness, faith, invocation, in the harshest trials among the snares of the Devil, in the terrors of sin. Certainly, in these it is necessary to be ruled and aided by the Holy Ghost, as Paul says: "The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities." 

We condemn the Pelagians and the like, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the powers 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." These dreams we censure frankly and necessarily, for they obscure the benefits of Christ. For it is for this reason that Christ the Mediator is set forth in the Gospel, and mercy is promised, because human nature cannot satisfy the Law, as Paul testifies when he says in Romans 8: "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be." Although, however, human nature is able in some way to do outward works by itself (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder), yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as true fear, true trust, patience, chastity, unless the Holy Ghost govern and aid our hearts. And yet in this place we also teach this, that it is God's command that even carnal men be restrained by diligence of reason and by that civil discipline, as Paul says: "The Law is a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." Also: "Law is made for the lawless."

Article XIX: Of the Cause of Sin. (1530)

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.

XIX. (1540)

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 turns itself from God, to other things against the commandments of God. Therefore Christ says of the Devil: "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own.

Article XX: Of Good Works. (1530)

Our teachers are falsely accused of forbid. ding 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 unkown, 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 Christ's sake, who alone has been set forth the Mediator and Propitiation, 1 Tim. 2, 5, 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 worka, ete.

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 expoet 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 15, 5: 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.

XX. (1540)

That our adversaries accuse us of neglecting the doctrine of good works is a manifest calumny. For there exist books of our theologians, in which they teach piously and usefully about good works, which works in any vocation please God. And whereas in the churches there was formerly a great silence concerning the chief works, namely, concerning the exercises of faith, and concerning the praise of political works, and for the most part all sermons were consumed in praising human traditions, in celebrating feast days, fasts, monasticism, fraternities, pilgrimages, the worship of saints, rosaries, and other useless devotions, now, by God's grace, the Church is recalled to true and useful devotions, which God approves and requires. The prophets deplore this calamity of the Church with most grave sermons, that with true devotions extinguished, human ceremonies and impious trust in ceremonies will reign in the Church. And from this error, they recall the Church to true devotions, to truly good works. What can be said more gravely than that sermon of Psalm 49: "The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth"? This God preaches to the whole human race, condemns the trust in ceremonies, and proposes other devotions, and signifies that He is greatly angered with those who so preach ceremonies in the Church that they overwhelm true devotions. Many similar sermons exist in the prophets, as in Isaiah 58, and Zechariah 7, and Micah 6, and Hosea cries out, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." Nor is it obscure that many good and learned men, even before this age, desired a better doctrine concerning the consolation of consciences and the discernment of works. For both doctrines ought to exist in the Church, namely, the Gospel concerning faith, to instruct and console consciences, and also it ought to be proposed what are truly good works, what are the true devotions of God. But our adversaries, because they corrupt the doctrine of faith, first cannot propose firm consolation to consciences; for they gladly doubt the remission of sins. And yet afterwards, they order one to seek remission through his own works, feigning monasticism and other works. Then, too, they abolish true devotions. For invocation and other spiritual exercises are driven from minds not confirmed in trust in Christ. Moreover, the works of the second table do not please God, unless faith is added, that this begun and imperfect obedience pleases on account of Christ. Thirdly, they obscure the works commanded by God, and far prefer human traditions. These they adorn with the most specious titles; they call them "Evangelical perfection." Meanwhile, concerning the duties of vocation, magistracy, marriage, they taught so coldly that many grave men have doubted whether these kinds of life please God. Therefore, our preachers, with good zeal, have illustrated both kinds of doctrine. They propose the Gospel concerning faith and add pious doctrine concerning works.

Of Faith.

First, therefore, concerning faith and justification they thus teach: Christ aptly comprehended the sum of the Gospel, when, in the last chapter of Luke, he commands that repentance and remission of sins be preached in his name. For the Gospel convicts of sins, and requires repentance, and at the same time offers remission of sins on account of Christ, freely, not on account of our worthiness. And as the preaching of repentance is universal, so also is the promise of grace universal, and it commands all to believe and to accept the benefit of Christ, as Christ says, "Come to me, all who are weary and burdened." And Paul says, "He is rich to all," etc. Although, therefore, some contrition, or repentance, is necessary, nevertheless it must be understood that remission of sins is granted to us, and that we are made just from unjust, that is, reconciled, or accepted, and children of God freely, on account of Christ, not on account of the worthiness of contrition or of other preceding or subsequent works. But this benefit must be received by faith, by which we must believe that remission of sins and justification are given to us on account of Christ. This sentence brings firm consolation to terrified minds. And how necessary it is to the Church, experienced consciences can easily judge. And it has nothing absurd, nothing perplexing, nothing sophistical. There is no need here for disputations about predestination or similar things. For the promise is universal, and detracts nothing from works; rather, it rouses to faith, and to truly good works. For the remission of sins is transferred from our works to mercy, so that it may be a certain benefit, not so that we should do nothing, but much more, so that we may know how our obedience pleases God in our so great infirmity. To scorn and condemn this sentence, by which both the honor of Christ is illustrated, and the sweetest and firmest consolation is proposed to pious minds, which contains a true knowledge of divine mercy, and produces true devotions and eternal life, is more than Pharisaical blindness. Formerly, when this consolation was not proposed, many anxious consciences tried to heal themselves with works; some fled to the monastic life, others chose other works by which they might merit remission of sins and justification. But there is no firm consolation except this doctrine of the Gospel, which commands one to believe that remission of sins and justification are given to us freely on account of Christ. And this whole doctrine is compared to that true struggle of the terrified conscience. 3. We are justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation, through faith in his blood.

But let us add some testimonies. Paul in Romans 3: Justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

Romans 4: And to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

Ephesians 2: By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. In these sentences and similar ones, Paul clearly teaches that remission of sins and justification are given to us freely, not on account of the worthiness of our works. And in the fourth chapter to the Romans, he copiously disputes why we need this consolation. For if the promise depended on the worthiness of our works, it would become uncertain. Therefore, in order that we may have a certain and firm consolation against the terrors of sin and death, and that faith may be able to stand, it is necessary that it rely on mercy alone, and not on our worthiness. Therefore, Paul says, "That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring" Nor can our works be opposed to the judgment of God, according to that saying, "If you, Lord, kept a record of sins, who could stand?" Therefore, Christ, the mediator, has been given to us, nor is his honor to be transferred to our works.

When, therefore, we say that we are justified by faith, we do not understand this, that we are just on account of the worthiness of that virtue itself. But this is the meaning: that we obtain remission of sins and the imputation of righteousness through mercy on account of Christ. Truly, this mercy cannot be received except by faith. And faith here does not signify only knowledge of history, but signifies believing the promise of mercy which comes to us on account of Christ the mediator. And when faith is understood in this way, as trust in mercy, James and Paul do not disagree with each other. For when James says, "Even the demons believe—and shudder!" he understands faith as knowledge of history; this does not justify. For even the ungodly and the demons know the history. But Paul, when he says, "Faith is reckoned as righteousness," etc., speaks of trust in the mercy promised on account of Christ. And the meaning is, that men are pronounced just, that is, reconciled, through mercy, not on account of their own worthiness. But this mercy, promised on account of Christ, must be received by faith. Now good minds will not be offended by the novelty of this Pauline figure, "We are justified by faith," if they understand that it is properly said of mercy, and that it is adorned with true and necessary praises. For what can be more pleasing to an afflicted and anxious conscience, in true sorrows, than to hear that this is the command of God, that this is the voice of the bridegroom of Christ, that they should resolve with certainty that remission of sins or reconciliation is given, not on account of our worthiness, but freely through mercy, on account of Christ, so that the benefit may be certain. Justification, however, signifies in these sentences of Paul, remission of sins, or reconciliation, or the imputation of righteousness, that is, acceptance of the person.

Nor do we bring a new dogma into the Church. For Scripture copiously hands down this doctrine concerning faith. And Paul treats this topic especially in several Epistles. And the Holy Fathers teach the same. For thus says Ambrose, On the Calling of the Gentiles: The redemption of the blood of Christ would be cheapened, nor would the prerogative of human works succumb to the mercy of God, if the justification which is made by grace were owed to preceding merits, so that it would not be the gift of the giver, but the reward of the worker. And there are many complete discussions on this matter in Augustine. These are his words: Since through the law he shows man his weakness, so that fleeing to his mercy through faith, he might be healed, for it was said that he bears law and mercy in his tongue, law, of course, by which he makes the proud guilty, but mercy, by which he justifies the humbled. Therefore, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe, etc.

And the Synod of Milevum writes: Is it not sufficiently shown that this was done through the law, so that sin might be known, and thus against the victory of sin one might flee to divine grace, which is proposed in the promises, so that one might seek the promises of God for liberation, that is, the grace of God, and justice might begin to be in man, not his own, but God's.

Of Good Works.

Since we propose to the Churches the necessary doctrine and consolation concerning faith, there is added also the doctrine concerning good works, namely, that obedience toward the law of God is necessary in those who are reconciled. For the Gospel preaches concerning new life, according to that saying, "I will put my law in their hearts." Therefore, this new life ought to be obedience toward God. And the Gospel preaches repentance. Nor can faith exist except in those who do repentance, because faith consoles hearts in contrition and terrors of sin, as Paul teaches, "Having been justified by faith, we have peace." And concerning repentance he says, Rom. 6, "Our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin." And Isaiah says, "Where will the Lord dwell? In a contrite and humbled spirit," etc.

Secondly, Among good works, the chief and highest worship of God is faith itself, and it produces many other virtues which cannot exist unless hearts have first conceived faith. For Paul says, "How will they call on him in whom they have not believed?" As long as minds doubt whether they are heard by God, as long as they feel themselves rejected by God, they do not truly call upon God. But with faith, we acknowledge mercy, we flee to God, we love, we call upon, we hope, we expect help, we obey in afflictions, because we already know that we are sons and that our sacrifice, our afflictions, please God. Faith produces these devotions. Therefore, Ambrose says excellently, "Faith is the mother of good will and just action." The adversaries want to appear to magnificently adorn the doctrine of good works. And yet they say nothing about these spiritual works, about faith, about the exercises of faith in invocation, in all the affairs, counsels, and dangers of life. Nor can one even rightly speak of these exercises if consciences are left in doubt, if they do not know that God requires faith as the chief devotion. And when that huge appearance of external works is thrust before the eyes, minds, especially those not sufficiently instructed, are led away from the sight of these interior exercises. But it is necessary in the Church that men be taught about these interior works and fruits of the Spirit. For these works make a distinction between the pious and the hypocrites. Even hypocrites can perform external devotions, external ceremonies, and other external works. But these devotions belong only to the true Church: repentance, fear, faith, invocation, etc. These devotions are especially required and praised in the Scriptures, as in Psalm 49, "Offer to God a sacrifice of praise, call upon me in the day of trouble," etc.

Thirdly, And by this faith, which consoles hearts in repentance, we receive the Holy Spirit, who is given to govern and help us, so that we may resist sin and the devil, and more and more acknowledge our weakness, and in us may grow the knowledge of God, fear, faith. Therefore, obedience toward God and new life ought to grow in us, as Paul teaches that we ought to be renewed, to the knowledge of God, so that a new light and the image of him who created us may be made in us, etc.

Fourthly, We also teach when this begun obedience pleases God. For in this so great weakness and uncleanness of nature, the saints do not satisfy the law; therefore, the pious need consolation, so that they may know how this small and imperfect obedience pleases God. For it does not please because it satisfies the law, but because the persons are reconciled and just on account of Christ, and believe that their weakness is forgiven them. Thus Paul teaches, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ," etc. Although, therefore, this new obedience is far from the perfection of the law, nevertheless it is justice, and merits rewards, because the persons are reconciled. And so it must be judged concerning works, which indeed must be adorned with the amplest praises, that they are necessary, that they are devotions of God and spiritual sacrifices and merit rewards. But yet this consolation must first be held concerning the person, necessary in the struggle of conscience, that by faith we have remission of sins freely, and the person is just, that is, reconciled, and an heir of eternal life, on account of Christ; but afterwards, obedience pleases, according to that saying, "For you are not under law but under grace." For our works cannot be opposed to the wrath and judgment of God, but the terrors of sin and death must be overcome by trust in Christ the mediator, as it is written, "O death, I will be your death," and John 6, Christ says, "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life," And Paul, "Having been justified by faith, we have peace." And the Church always prays, "Forgive us our debts." And so the Holy Fathers also teach concerning the weakness of the saints and concerning faith, Augustine in his exposition of Psalm 30, says: "Deliver me in your righteousness, for if you pay attention to my righteousness, you condemn me. Deliver me in your righteousness, for there is the righteousness of God, which also becomes ours, when it is given to us. Therefore, it is called the righteousness of God, lest man think that he has righteousness from himself, as the Apostle Paul says. To the one who believes in him who justifies the ungodly, that is, who makes the unjust just, if he acts as from the proposed rule of law, the sinner must be condemned. If he acted by this rule, whom would he deliver? For he finds all sinners. This the Apostle says, All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. What is it, they fall short of the glory of God? That he himself may deliver, not you. Because you cannot deliver, you need a deliverer. What is it that you boast of? What is it that you presume concerning law and justice? Do you not see what is fighting within you? Do you not hear the one struggling, confessing, and desiring help in the fight. Wretched man that I am!" But it can easily be judged that this doctrine is necessary to the Church, so that men may know that they do not satisfy the law, and yet may have consolation, how this imperfect obedience pleases. Certain absurd persuasions horribly overwhelmed this doctrine of old, in which the unlearned, against the authority of Scripture and the ancient Church, feigned that men satisfy the law of God, also, that the just are just because of the fulfillment of the law, etc. And that monks are perfect, and perform works greater and more excellent than the law of God demands, meanwhile there was the deepest silence as to how Christ the mediator is to be apprehended by faith, but they ordered people to doubt or to trust in their own works.

Moreover, concerning this obedience we also teach that those who commit mortal sins are not just, because God requires this obedience, that we resist vicious affections. But those who do not resist, but obey them against the command of God, and commit actions against conscience, these are unjust, and retain neither the Holy Spirit nor faith, that is, trust in mercy. For in those who delight in sins and do not do penance, trust, which seeks remission of sins, cannot even exist.

Fifthly, It is also necessary to teach this, how men can do good works. It has just been said how they please God; here we add also how they can be done. For although men can somehow perform external honest works by their own strength, and ought to provide this discipline, nevertheless men without faith are in the power of the devil, who impels them to manifest wickedness, occupies their minds with impious and blasphemous opinions, for that is the kingdom and tyranny of the devil. And this nature is weak by itself, and cannot raise itself without the help of God, and cannot perform spiritual works. Therefore, men are taught that the Holy Spirit is promised in the Gospel, who may help and govern the minds of those who do repentance and assent to the Gospel. Therefore, in all life, in so great weakness of nature, among these snares of the devil, in the greatest dangers, faith must be exercised in invocation, so that we may persevere in faith and obedience toward God. Therefore, Zechariah says, "I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication," for he calls it the spirit of grace, because the Holy Spirit raises up and consoles terrified minds, and testifies that we have a reconciled God, and he calls it the spirit of supplications, so that we may assiduously exercise faith in invocation, so that by these exercises faith may be confirmed and new life may grow.

And true virtues without any doubt are gifts of God: faith, perspicacity of judgment in discerning dogmas, greatness of soul, such as is necessary in those who teach and confess the Gospel, true diligence in ruling Churches, true humility, not to desire power, not to be broken by popular favor or hatred, true chastity, etc. Paul calls these heroic virtues gifts of God, Rom. 12, "Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us." And concerning these he says to the Corinthians, "All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, distributing to each one individually as he wills." But our exercise must be added to these gifts, which both preserves them and merits increase, according to that saying, "To the one who has, more will be given." And Augustine said excellently, "Love merits an increase of love," when it is exercised. For good works have rewards, both in this life and after this life in eternal life. Because the Church in this life is subject to the cross and bodily death, most rewards are deferred to the future life, which, even if it certainly happens through mercy on account of Christ to those who are justified by trust in Christ, yet it is also a compensation for good works, according to that saying, "Your reward is great in heaven."

From these things it is clear enough that the doctrine of good works, by God's grace, is taught piously and rightly in our Churches. Good minds know well enough how great was the obscurity formerly, how great the confusion of the doctrine concerning good works. No one warned about the distinction between human traditions and the divine law. No one taught how good works might please, in our so great weakness. Finally, there was the deepest silence about faith, which is needed in the remission of sins. But with these things now explained, pious consciences hold consolation and certain hope of salvation, and understand true devotions, and know how they please God, and how they are meritorious.

Article XXI: Of the Worship of the Saints. (1530)

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 he 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.

XXI. (1540)

Invocation is an honor which is to be rendered only to God Almighty, namely, to the eternal Father, and to His Son our Savior Jesus Christ, and to the Holy Spirit. And God has proposed to us His Son Jesus Christ as Mediator and High Priest interceding for us. On account of Him alone He testifies that our prayers are heard and accepted, according to that saying, "Whatever you ask the Father in my name, He will give it to you." Likewise, "There is one mediator between God and men." Therefore, those invoking God should offer their prayers through the Son of God, as is accustomed to be said at the end of prayers in the Church, "Through Jesus Christ," etc. It is necessary to teach these things concerning Invocation, as our theologians have written more fully elsewhere concerning Invocation. On the other hand, however, the custom of invoking holy men who have departed from this life must be censured and completely ejected from the Church, because this custom transfers glory due to God alone to men, attributes omnipotence to the dead (that the saints look upon the movements of hearts), likewise attributes to the dead the office of Christ the Mediator, and undoubtedly obscures the glory of Christ. Therefore, we condemn the entire custom of invoking holy men who have departed from this life and consider it to be shunned. But it is profitable to recite true histories of the pious, because examples teach usefully if they are proposed rightly. When we hear that David was forgiven his lapse, faith is strengthened in us; likewise, the constancy of the ancient martyrs now also strengthens the minds of the pious. To this benefit it is useful to recite histories, but prudence is needed in adapting the examples.

This is the sum of the doctrine which is handed down in our Churches. And we judge it to be consistent both with Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture and with the Catholic Church, and finally also with the Roman Church, insofar as it is known from approved writers. And we hope that all good and learned men will judge the same. For we do not spurn the consensus of the Catholic Church. Nor is it our intention to introduce any new dogma and unknown to the holy Church into the Church. Nor do we wish to patronize impious or seditious opinions which the Catholic Church has condemned. For not driven by depraved desire, but compelled by the authority of the Word of God and the ancient Church, we have embraced this doctrine, so that the glory of God may become more illustrious and the pious minds in the universal Church may be served. For it is evident that many abuses have crept into the Church, which need amendment. And both for the glory of Christ and for the salvation of all nations, we especially desire that, with these controversies diligently known, the Church may be cleansed and freed from those abuses which cannot be dissembled. On account of which cause, all good men in all nations have long sought a Synod, of which indeed His Most Clement Emperor has shown some hope to all nations. Therefore, the Emperor will do a thing most worthy of his greatness and felicity, and longed for by the universal Church, if in the Synod he permits judgment concerning such great matters, not to those who bring private affections to the council, but to chosen pious and learned men, who desire to serve the glory of Christ and the salvation of the universal Church. This is the customary and legitimate way in the Church of settling dissensions, namely, to refer ecclesiastical controversies to Synods.

The Church has observed this custom from the Apostles onward. And the most excellent Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, even in matters not very obscure and in absurd dogmas, nevertheless did not want to decree anything without a Synod, so that they might preserve the liberty of the Church in judgments of dogmas. And it is most honorable for Caesar to imitate the example of those best princes, especially since we have changed nothing without the example of the ancient Church. And we hope that this so great felicity has been given to the Emperor from God for the amendment and salvation of the Church. Certainly, God requires this grace from him, that he may confer his power to adorn the glory of Christ, to the peace of the Church, to prohibiting the inhuman and most unjust cruelty which is exercised everywhere with a wonderful rage against the members of Christ, against pious and innocent men. God has entrusted the care of these greatest matters to the highest princes. Therefore, He arouses Monarchs, so that they may prohibit unjust commands, just as He aroused Cyrus to liberate the people of the Jews from captivity, Constantine to drive away that infinite cruelty which was then exercised against Christians. Thus, we desire that Caesar both undertake the care of amending the Church and prohibit unjust cruelty. For our articles which we have recounted testify clearly enough that we teach or approve no dogma against the Catholic Church, no impious or seditious opinion. Indeed, certain notable articles of Christian doctrine have been piously and usefully illustrated by our theologians. In external traditions certain abuses have been changed, of which, even if there is some dissimilarity, if nevertheless the doctrine and faith are pure, no one should be held as a heretic or a deserter of the Catholic Church on account of that dissimilarity of human traditions. For the unity of the Catholic Church consists in the consensus of doctrine and faith, not in human traditions, of which there has always been great dissimilarity in the Churches throughout the whole world. Nor indeed should His Caesarean Majesty give credence to those who, in order to inflame hatred against us, spread wonderful calumnies. They proclaim that all ceremonies, all good customs in the Churches are being destroyed by us. These accusations are openly false. For we preserve even divinely instituted ceremonies with the greatest piety, and in order that we might increase their reverence, we have only removed certain new abuses, which, against Scripture, against the ancient canons, against the examples of the ancient Church, have been received by the vice of the times without any certain authority. And for the most part, the ancient rites are diligently preserved among us. Therefore, we ask that His Caesarean Majesty may clemently hear what is preserved in external rites, what has been changed and for what reason.

(1530)

Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholie, 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 heen 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.

(1540)

(no introductory text)

Article XXII: Of Both Kinds in the Sacrament. (1530)

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.

Of Both Kinds in the Sacrament. (1540)

And because the common Mass is celebrated among us, so that the people may understand that they also are sanctified by Christ's blood, and may learn the true use of the ceremony, both parts of the Sacrament are given to the laity in the Lord's Supper. For the sacrament was instituted not only for a part of the Church, namely for the priests, but also for the rest of the Church. Therefore Christ instituted the sacrament to be used by all. And indeed, Christ says in Matthew: "Drink from this, all of you," where he says manifestly about the cup, that all should drink. And lest anyone quibble that this pertains only to priests, Paul's instruction to the Corinthians testifies that the whole Church commonly used both parts. This custom lasted for a long time, even in the Latin Churches, nor is it known when, or by what authority it was changed. Cyprian testifies in several places that the blood was given to the people. Thus he writes somewhere to Cornelius the Pope: "How do we teach or provoke them to shed their blood in the confession of His name if we deny the blood of Christ to those who are about to do battle? Or how do we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them by right of communion to drink in the Church the cup of the Lord?" And Jerome says, "The priests administer the Eucharist, and divide the blood of Christ to the people." There exists in the Decrees a canon of Pope Gelasius, who prohibits dividing the sacrament, in these words: "We have found out that certain persons, having taken only a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the cup of the sacred blood; who, without doubt, since they are taught to be bound by some superstition, either should receive the entire sacraments, or should be kept from the entire sacraments, because the division of one and the same mystery cannot happen without great sacrilege."

In the Tripartite History, it is written in the rebuke of the Emperor Theodosius, whom Ambrose did not want to admit to communion without penance, because he had avenged too bitterly the death of a few soldiers who had been killed in Thessalonica during a riot, and had slaughtered seven thousand citizens. Here Ambrose says: "How will you receive the holy body of the Lord with these hands? With what temerity will you receive the cup of the precious blood with your mouth?" Therefore, it is agreed that it was the custom of the ancient Church to give both parts of the sacrament to the people. Only a custom that is not so old takes away one part from the people. We will not discuss, however, what ought to be thought about a custom received against the authority of Apostolic Scripture, against the Canons, against the example of the ancient Church. For all pious people understand that consciences ought to consult the Word of God concerning Christian doctrine, and that a custom against the Word of God is not to be approved. However, although custom has changed the ancient practice in the Latin Church, nevertheless it does not disapprove or prohibit it. Nor indeed ought human authority to prohibit Christ's ordinance and the most widely received practice of the ancient Church. Therefore, we have not considered that the use of the complete sacrament should be prohibited. And in that ceremony which ought to be a covenant of mutual love in the Church, we have not wanted to be harsh against the consciences of others, who have preferred to use the complete sacrament, nor have we thought that any cruelty ought to be exercised in that matter. But as much as we can, together with the ceremony itself, we have restored the pious doctrine about the fruit of the ceremony, so that the people may understand how the sacrament has been set forth to console the consciences of those who are doing penance. This doctrine invites the pious to the use and reverence of the sacrament. For indeed not only was the ceremony mutilated before, but also the principal doctrine about the fruit was neglected. And perhaps the mutilation of the ceremony signified that the Gospel about the blood of Christ, that is, about the benefit of Christ's death, had been obscured. Now, by God's benefit, the pure doctrine about faith is being renewed and restored, together with the ceremony.

Article XXIII: Of the Marriage of Priests. (1530)

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 de sirous 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 giftand 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 ahall 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.

Of the Marriage of Priests. (1540)

Since Christian doctrine honorably proclaims marriage and orders it to be used, not only for the sake of procreation, but also for restraining and avoiding lusts, now, not only by pontifical law, but also by a new and unusual cruelty, marriages are forbidden to priests, and those already contracted are dissolved. And this is all the more unworthy, because these things are done in the Church, which ought especially to abhor turpitude, and thus ought to guard marriage with the utmost zeal, so as to avoid many enormous crimes. Besides, since in all moderately well-established ethnic republics, marriage has been in great honor because of the most serious reasons, what is less fitting in the Church, than both to tear apart the most holy bond of marriage, or to punish marriage with capital penalties, as if it were the highest crime? Whence has this inhumanity, in which mutual affection ought to excel, pervaded the Church? Moreover, the matter itself speaks, how much turpitude and how many crimes, the pontifical law about celibacy begets. Nor can it be said by any human voice, how many vices have overflowed into the Church from this source. For, so as not to speak about the Epicureans, whom nothing shames, how many pious and good men have struggled unhappily with the weakness of nature, and finally have fallen into horrible despair? What does this new cruelty aim at, except that those infinite crimes in the Church may be confirmed, and that the wicked may sin with greater impunity? This cause has no need of a dispute. For this new law, which is now being defended by our adversaries, which both prohibits marriages to priests, and tears apart those that have been contracted, conflicts with natural law, divine law, with the Gospel, with the constitutions of the ancient synods, with the examples of the ancient Church. We need only the piety and equity of the excellent Emperor, whom we ask, that he may study to heal the Church, according to his piety, and according to his office, with the tyrannical law abolished. Since all unjust cruelty displeases God, then especially that which is exercised against pious and learned priests, who merit well of the Church. And not only do divine oracles threaten the most atrocious penalties to those who exercise cruelty against priests, but examples also exist from all ages, which prove that those threats are not empty. For, so that we may omit other innumerable examples, almost the entire tribe of Benjamin was destroyed, because of the raped wife of a visiting priest. For when the cadaver of the little woman, who had been afflicted with rapes, had been extinguished, cut up, it had been sent to the leaders of Israel, the whole people judged that so great an inhumanity must be punished most severely. And since the authors of the crime were not given up for punishment, the whole tribe of Benjamin, having received a great defeat, paid the penalties. But at this time, priests are being afflicted with multiple injuries. They themselves, since indeed no crime is objected to them, except marriage, are being killed, tortured with horrible punishments, the wretched wives and small children, ejected from their little nests, wander as exiles, without a certain seat, without a roof, without a hearth. Paul calls the prohibition of marriage, a doctrine of demons. Not only do the most shameful vices, which celibacy has brought into the Church, testify to this, but also this very harshness itself, which because of this law is being exercised against priests, and their wives and children. For the devil is a murderer, and especially delights in the calamities of the pious. But the authors of such counsels will give penalties to God hereafter. We have judged that this savagery is neither worthy of Christians, nor useful to the Church.

But as for the authority of the Pontifical law which is objected, why do they not allege the authority of the Canons against the shameful examples of impure celibacy, and crimes worthy of punishment? There ought to be no authority to a Pontifical decree, conflicting with the law of nature, and with the divine command. Men are so constituted by nature, that they may be fertile, wherefore the Jurisconsults say that the union of male and female is a law of nature. And Genesis teaches this in the first and second chapters. Then, when Paul says, “Let each one have a wife, so as to avoid fornication,” he certainly commands all, who are not fit for celibacy, that they contract marriages. And Christ warns that not all are fit for celibacy, when he says, "Not all grasp this saying."

Furthermore, neither human laws, nor vows, are valid that conflict with the divine command. And the outcome itself testifies that nature cannot be changed by human laws. We see how much turpitude that celibacy begets. And if there are any good men, who study to be chaste, these understand the magnitude of the burden and danger, and especially deplore this servitude of their order. In the Nicene Synod, some tried to carry a law, so that priests would be prohibited from the custom of wives. This law was rejected by the entire Synod. And the Latin Church was once milder. For it only dismissed those from the ministries, who, when they were performing an Ecclesiastical task, were leading wives, it did not prohibit marriage. This new law is from the Pontiffs, unknown to the ancient Church and Synods, which prohibits marriages entirely, and tears apart those contracted.

But it is agreed that each part of this decree fights with the Gospel. The authority of the Church and of the Synods is alleged against us, which the Pontiffs themselves, the authors of this decree, have shamelessly despised. Nor did pious priests object obscurely to this new law. For Ecclesiastical histories testify that it was imposed on the Churches not without the bitterest struggles. The Bishop of Tarragona writes to Pope Siricius that the Spanish Priests could not be induced, to accept the law, by which they were prohibited from the custom of wives. What tragedies does Siricius enact there, how harshly does he write back?

For these are the words of Siricius, unworthy of a pontiff. "Let that one now tell me, whoever he is, a follower of lusts, and a teacher of vices," and then he twists to his cause Paul's saying, which is most foreign [to it]: Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. It is certainly doubtful, whether ignorance or impudence ought to be ascribed to this, because he speaks so contumeliously about marriage. For nothing else was being done, except that priests would be prohibited from the use of the wives, whom they then had. Then later Pontiffs were also much harsher, when the Archbishop of Mainz recited the Pontifical decree about rejecting wives in the Synod in Germany. The Priests flared up with such anger, that they threatened that they would make an attack upon the Archbishop himself. And to reject the present wives, was a matter both unworthy, and bitter, but at length either force or superstition prevailed. How much gentler was Cyprian to women, who were not keeping the promised chastity! For he writes in book one, letter eleven: "If they do not wish, or cannot persevere, it is better, that they marry, than that they fall into the fire of their lusts, certainly let them offer no scandal to the brothers or sisters."

Furthermore, unjust laws are not accustomed to be perpetual. Therefore, we ask the excellent Emperor, that among the other disadvantages of the Church, he may consider also the vices of this law, in which matter that also must be considered. The nature of men itself, as it were, grows old and becomes weaker. Therefore, provision must be made, lest vices grow. Nor ought the laws themselves to be seeds of vices. Plato says most seriously that laws must be carried for the sake of virtue. But whether the tradition about celibacy is defended for the sake of piety, or for some other plan, it is not difficult to judge. Finally, since Christ has especially commended to the pious care for the ministers of the Gospel, we ask, that the excellent Emperor may prohibit the savagery, which has long been exercised against pious men, Priests, and may deliberate with the Church rather than with our adversaries. Affection and mercy ought to excel in the Church. Therefore the true Church especially abhors unnecessary cruelty, nor does it want Priests to be killed because of a tyrannical tradition, it also wants to spare the wretched women and children of priests. The Church commends to you, most clement Emperor, the life and safety of all of these. All pious men everywhere are being affected by the calamities of these, and silently desire Christian leniency in this matter, and with common tears commend to you good men, useful to the Church, led by love, and their wives and children, whom they see to be possessed by nature of an exceptional and heroic goodness, and to have used a singular moderation in this cause hitherto, which indeed signifies that you are deliberating about rightly healing the republic. The Church does not want you to become a minister of another's cruelty. That is the greatest honor for Kings, which Isaiah gives to them, when he says that they ought to be nursing fathers for the Church, that is, that Empires, the defense of peace, and human society, ought to serve not only bodily utility, but also to aid the Gospel, when of course they both protect Priests, and grant tranquility to cities, so that the youth may be instructed unto religion, and men may be taught. Therefore, the Church asks, that you may remember that pious Priests must be protected by you, as if they were wards. It is your duty to be a defense to innocence, to repel injuries, especially from the weak, who cannot defend themselves, from pious women, from childhood, from orphans. In these things also, you may judge that the wives and children of Priests, who truly are orphans, have been divinely committed to you.

The Church is very much φιλόστοργος [loving of offspring], and not only approves the love of spouses toward each other, the love of parents toward their children, but it is also itself affected by the hardships of those deserted and orphaned. And truly in so great goodness, your nature judges that nothing is ἄστοργον [without natural affection], wherefore it hopes that the slaughters and punishments of Priests, and the exiles of wives and children, bring pain also to you. The Church also warns that you provide, lest several places of Christian doctrine, whose explanation is necessary, may at the same time be oppressed, while piously learned men are killed, while the study of Christian doctrine is shaken out of men. What else are our adversaries doing, except that, with all letters deleted and doctrine oppressed, men depend only on the authority of those who dominate, that they may judge the dreams of the unlearned, however impious, however absurd, to be oracles. The adversaries judge that this barbaric servitude benefits their domination, nor do they obscurely hate the Church, which is oppressed by many. But although we also embrace the ancient Synods agreeing with Apostolic doctrine, nevertheless it is not fitting to pretext the authority of the Church for all the abuses and vices which a more recent and worse age has brought into the Church. Men flatter themselves too much, if they think that no vice has been derived into the Church from the affections of greedy men, from those labyrinths and darkness of scholastic doctrine and of traditions. Nor indeed are good men endangered at this time so much because of marriage, as because of the zeal of cleansing and illuminating Christian doctrine, which the Bishops ought to rule and aid. For the care of adorning and defending doctrine has especially been commended to these, they ought to be the governors and encouragers of this most holy and useful study.

But it pertains not only to the Bishops, but also to pious Princes, and especially to the Emperor, to understand the Gospel purely, to judge dogmas, to be watchful lest impious opinions be received or confirmed, to abolish idolatry with all zeal. Many great Heroes have deserved excellently in these offices, from the pious, Gideon, Hezekiah, Josiah, Constantine, and most others. Wherefore you may judge also that it is your office, to beware lest those things which have been piously and usefully disclosed and emended, by good and learned men, be overwhelmed, lest impious abuses be established by your authority. The Psalm says, "Because of your temple in Jerusalem, Kings will offer gifts to you."

Now these are the proper gifts of Kings to be conferred to the Church: to inquire for true doctrine, and to take care, that good Doctors be placed over the Churches, to give effort, so that Ecclesiastical controversies may be rightly judged, not to delete pious doctrine, but rather to excite and propagate it, and to defend it, to rightly constitute and defend concord in the Church. With these true gifts, now most excellent Emperor, you can adorn the Church of Christ, which indeed both Christ himself requires from you especially, and the Churches, torn in horrible ways, ask. Finally, since human traditions ought to yield to the times, especially in the Church, in which the salvation of the pious, affection, and public peace, ought to be of much greater value, than any human traditions, it is much better to dissemble the abrogation of this little tradition about celibacy, than to confirm lusts, to scatter marriages, to undertake savagery against priests and their wives and children, to oppress pious doctrine, to cause devastation in the Churches.

Even though the world has given signal penalties for lusts in all ages, as the histories testify, about the deluge, about Sodom, about David, finally innumerable ethnic histories, nevertheless, profane men lightly care about the judgment of God, they laugh at lusts. Therefore, they tolerate polluted and contaminated sacrificers. To this is added, that the celibate can more easily guard the Ecclesiastical riches, and that splendor, which now is of Ecclesiastical magnates, which, because kings think is an ornament to themselves, they defend celibacy with greater study. But the Gospel orders us to prefer the command of God to profane judgments and utilities, it shows the penalties of lusts to roam widely throughout all the nations, and the polluted to be punished with blindness and eternal torments, it pleases [God] that marriage be used and that obedience be given to the ordinance of God, who has so constituted the nature of men, that there may be a perpetual society of two spouses, male and female. It warns that it is a devotion of God, to obey the ordinance and voice of God, and that superstitions conflicting with the divine ordinance must be fled. Therefore, we have removed the prohibition of marriage, and we feel that it ought to be abolished in the whole Church. And because we do not doubt that all who defend that prohibition sin, we concede to priests legitimate and pious matrimonies. Nor is there need of a longer disputation in this cause, there is need of a judge who does not laugh at lusts, but fears the wrath of God, and studies to understand the true duties of piety, then who hates unjust cruelty, which is being exercised at this time against married priests and their wives and children. Therefore we ask the Emperor, that he may not defend the pontifical law about celibacy, fighting with the commands of God, and with the ancient Synods, nor be the author or helper of unjust cruelty, nor pollute himself with parricides, with pious priests being butchered. For as God punishes other unjust slaughters atrociously, so then he is especially angered at those, who exercise savagery against pious priests, as he says in 4 Kings 9. "I will avenge the blood of my servants the Prophets etc." What is more unworthy, than that Empires, which have been divinely instituted, so that they may protect the true doctrine about God, the true devotions of God, honorable marriages, good morals, be transferred to destroy true doctrine, to scatter marriages, to confirm and increase the scandalous lusts of Pontiffs, priests, and Monks? How miserable a spectacle is it, when Kings, who ought to be the image of God on earth, do not serve God, but the madness of the devil, confirming horrible sins, Idolomania, lusts, and unjust cruelty? Moreover, since it has been written about the defense of the Church and of the pious, "Blessed is he who has mercy upon the needy and poor, in the bad day the Lord will free him," we desire that all Kings and Princes may be affected by this voice from heaven, and may protect pious priests, and their wives and children, whom indeed we do not doubt are a care to God.

Article XXIV: Of the Mass. (1530)

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 he 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, hnw 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 hound 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 meantime 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. Chrys ostom says that the priest stands daily at the altar, inviting some to the Communion and keeping back others. And it appеaгв from the ancient Canons that some one celebrated the Mass from whom all the other presbyters and deacons received the body of the Lord; for thus the words of the Nicene Canon say: Let the deacons, according to their order, receive the Holy Communion after the presbyters, from the bishop or from a presbyter. And Paul, 1 Cor. 11, 33, commands concerning the Communion: Tarry one for another, so that there may be a common participation.

Forasmuch, therefore, as the Mass with us has the example of the Church, taken from the Scripture and the Fathers, we are con fident 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.

Of the Mass. (1540)

Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. For the Mass is retained among us and celebrated with the greatest reverence. Nearly all the customary ceremonies are also observed, except that German hymns are intermingled in places with the Latin ones, which have been added to teach the people. For ceremonies are necessary to instruct the unlearned, and the treatment of God's Word stirs some to true fear, faith, and invocation. And not only did Paul command the use of a language understood by the people, but it has also been thus established by human law. The people are accustomed to use the sacrament together if there are any who are fit. This also increases the reverence and devotion of public ceremonies. For no one is admitted unless they have first been examined. Moreover, people are admonished concerning the dignity and use of the sacrament, how much consolation it offers to those who are doing penance, so that people may learn both to fear God and to believe, and may practice invocation, and ask and expect good things from God. These are the true devotions of Christians. God approves these devotions: fear, faith, invocation, hope, etc. And so, when these devotions are practiced in the use of ceremonies, the use of the sacrament pleases God. Therefore, since the people are accustomed to the ceremony and are admonished about its use, Masses are done rightly and piously among us. And all things are carried out in the main church with greater gravity and reverence than formerly.

However, it is well known that for many centuries there has been a public complaint by good men about the abuse and profanation of Masses. For it is not obscure how widely this abuse extends, in all the churches, by what sort of people Masses are celebrated, against the prohibition of the Canons. Then, how shamefully they are applied to sacrilegious gain. For very many celebrate Masses, both without repentance, and only for the sake of their bellies. These things are more notorious than that they can be concealed. Nor does it seem that any divine thing from the beginning of the world has been so commonly applied to gain as the Mass. But Paul threatens those who treat the sacrament unworthily in a horrible way, when he says, "Whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord's cup unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." And it is written in the Decalogue: "He who misuses God's name will not be unpunished." Therefore, just as the world has often paid penalties for idolatry, so undoubtedly this great profanation of Masses will be punished with the most atrocious penalties. And perhaps for that reason especially the Church is being afflicted in these latter times with blindness, discords, wars, and many other plagues. And the Bishops, up to now, although they were not ignorant of these manifest abuses, have not only tolerated them but have even laughed at them sweetly. Now, late in the day, they begin to complain about the calamities of the Church, when nothing else has provided the occasion for the tumults of these times except the abuses themselves, which were already so manifest that they could no longer be tolerated by moderate people. If only the Bishops, according to their office, had restrained the avarice and impudence of either monks or others, who, having changed the custom of the ancient Church, have applied Masses to gain, before these times.

But we will say from what source those abuses arose. An opinion has been spread in the Church, that the Lord's Supper is a work which, when celebrated by a priest, merits the remission of sins, of guilt and penalty, for the one doing it and for others, and this from the ex opere operato, without a good disposition on the part of the user. Likewise, that when applied for the dead, it is satisfactory, that is, it merits for them the remission of the penalties of purgatory. Thus they interpret sacrifice, when they call the Mass a sacrifice, namely, a work which, when applied for others, merits for them the remission of guilt and penalties, and this from the ex opere operato without a good disposition on the part of the user. Thus they interpret the offering being made by a priest in the Mass for the living and the dead. With this persuasion having been received, now people have taught to seek remission of sins and goods of every kind, likewise, to free the dead from penalties, by means of the Mass. Nor did it matter by what sort of people the Masses were done, because they taught that they benefited others, without a good disposition on the part of the user. Then it was asked, whether one Mass said for several, would benefit as much as individual Masses for individuals. This discussion increased both the number of Masses and the gain infinitely. But we are not now discussing gain; we accuse impiety. For our teachers teach that this opinion about the merit and application of the Mass is false and impious. This is the state of this controversy. And it is easy for the pious to judge in this cause, if anyone weighs the arguments which follow.

First. We have shown above that people obtain remission of sins freely by faith, that is, trust in mercy because of Christ. Therefore, it is impossible to obtain remission of sins because of another's work, and indeed without a good disposition, that is, without one's own faith. This reason refutes clearly enough that prodigious and impious opinion about the merit and application of the Mass.

Second. Christ's Passion was an offering and satisfaction, not only for the guilt of origin, but also for all the remaining sins, as it is written to the Hebrews, "We have been sanctified through the offering of Jesus Christ once." Also, "With one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." Finally, a good part of the Epistle to the Hebrews is consumed in confirming this idea, that Christ's sacrifice alone merited for others the remission of sins or reconciliation. It says: Therefore the Levitical sacrifices were repeated yearly, because they did not abolish sins. But satisfaction was made once for all for the sins of all by Christ's sacrifice. This honor of Christ's sacrifice must not be transferred to the work of a priest. For it says expressly that the saints have been perfected with one offering. Besides, it is impious to transfer trust, which ought to rely on Christ's own priestly offering and intercession, to the work of a priest.

Third. In the institution of the Lord's Supper, Christ does not command that priests offer for others, living and dead. Therefore, by what authority has this devotion, as an offering for sins, been instituted in the Church without God's command?

It is much more absurd that the Mass is conferred to free the souls of the dead. For the Mass was instituted for remembrance, that is, that those using the Lord's Supper might, by the remembrance of Christ's benefit, raise up and confirm faith and console terrified consciences. Nor is the Mass satisfaction for penalty, but it was instituted for the remission of guilt, namely, not so that it may be satisfaction for guilt, but so that it may be a sacrament by which we who use it may be admonished of Christ's benefit and the remission of guilt. Therefore, since that application of the Lord's Supper for freeing the dead has been received without the authority of Scripture, indeed against Scripture, it must be condemned as a new and impious devotion.

Fourth. A ceremony without faith in the New Testament merits nothing either for the one doing it or for others. For it is a dead work, according to that saying of Christ, "True worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth." The whole 11th chapter to the Hebrews proves the same. By faith Abel offered a better sacrifice than Cain. Likewise, "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Therefore the Mass does not merit remission of guilt or penalty from the ex opere operato. This reason refutes clearly the merit, which they call, ex opere operato.

Fifth. The application of Christ's benefit happens by one's own faith. As Paul testifies in Romans 3: "Whom God put forward as a propitiation through faith, through his blood." And this application happens freely. Therefore, application does not happen by another's work, nor because of another's work. For when we use the sacraments, application happens by our own work and our own faith, not by another's work. Indeed, if remission did not happen for us unless Masses were applied, it would become uncertain, and trust would have to be transferred from Christ to the work of the priest, and that, as is agreed, happens. Moreover, trust placed in the work of man has been condemned.

These arguments, and very many others, testify that the opinion about the merit and application of the Mass for the living and the dead, must necessarily be reproved. Now, if it be considered how widely this error has roamed in the Church, how the number of Masses has increased because of this persuasion, how remission of guilt and penalty has been promised to the living and the dead by this sacrifice, it will appear that the Church has been disfigured by horrible sins because of this profanation. Never has a more serious cause, excellent Emperor, befallen the Church, or one more worthy about which learned and good men should diligently deliberate. All the pious ought to ask God with the most ardent prayers, that the Church be freed from these sins. All Kings and Bishops ought to strive with all zeal, so that, with this whole cause duly explained, the Church may be cleansed.

Sixth. The institution of the sacrament conflicts with that abuse. For nothing is commanded about offering for the sins of the living and the dead, but it is commanded that the body and blood of the Lord be taken. And that this be done in remembrance of Christ's benefit. Moreover, remembrance signifies not just some representation of history as in a show, as those dream who defend merit from the ex opere operato, but it signifies to remember the promise and the benefit by faith, to console the conscience, and to give thanks for so great a benefit. For the principal cause of the institution is that faith may be stirred up and exercised there, when we receive this pledge of grace. Besides, the institution ordains that there be communion, that is, that the ministers of the Church also offer the body and blood of the Lord to others. And Paul to the Corinthians testifies that this custom was observed in the beginning of the Church, who also commands that they wait for one another, so that there may be a common participation.

Therefore, with the abuses of the private Mass having been exposed, because most all of them were being done because of that application for the sins of others, and do not agree with Christ's institution, they have ceased in our Churches. But one common Mass has been instituted, according to Christ's ordinance, in which the pastors of the Churches consecrate, take, and offer the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ to others. And such a Mass is done on each weekday, and also on other days if any wish to use the sacrament. Nor are any admitted to communion unless they have first been examined. Pious sermons are also added, just as Christ commanded that sermons be had when this ceremony is treated. And in these sermons, while people are being carefully taught about the remaining articles and precepts of the Gospel, then also they are admonished for what use the sacrament was instituted, namely, not that this ceremony merits for them remission of sins from the ex opere operato, but that the sacrament is a testimony, a pledge, by which Christ testifies that He performs His promises for us, and that the promises pertain to us, that Christ offers us His body, so that He may testify that He is effective in us as in His members, that He offers blood, so that He may testify that we have been washed in His blood. Therefore the sacrament benefits those who do penance, and seek consolation there, and confirmed by this testimony, believe that remission of sins is truly being performed for them, and give thanks to Christ for so great a benefit. Thus application of Christ's benefit happens, not because of another's work, but by each one's own faith, and by one's own use of the sacrament. For when we ourselves use it, Christ's own ordinance testifies that the benefit of the Gospel pertains to us. Such a use of the sacrament is pious and must be taught in the Churches, which both illuminates the doctrine about faith, and about spiritual exercises, and true devotions, and brings great consolation to pious consciences, and raises up faith. Before these times, the Churches were taught far differently about the use of the sacrament. Nothing was proposed, except that this work had to be done. About faith, about the consolation of consciences, no one gave any warning. And consciences were vexed by immoderate diligence in confession. They thought this was the purity which the Gospel requires, when the Gospel requires true fear, and true trust, and the use of this sacrament consoles us, so that those who are doing penance may believe certainly that they have God propitious because of Christ, even if nature is weak and unclean, even if this our inchoate obedience is far distant from the perfection of the law. From all these things it is clear enough that the Mass among us agrees with Christ's institution, and the rite of the early Church. Besides, it illustrates greatly the true use of the sacrament. Such a common Mass was in the ancient Church, as Chrysostom testifies, who says that the priest stands at the altar, and calls some to communion, but keeps others away. And it appears from the decrees of the Nicene Synod that one celebrated the Liturgy, as the Greeks call it, who offered the body and blood of the Lord to all the rest. For these are the words of the decree. Let the Deacons receive holy communion according to their order after the presbyters from the Bishop or from a presbyter. Here it says expressly that the presbyters themselves receive the sacrament from one who is offering it. Nor is any mention made of private Masses before the times of Gregory, but as often as the ancients speak about the Mass, it appears that they are speaking about one common Mass. Therefore, since the rite of the Mass among us has the authority of Scripture, and the example of the ancient Church, and only certain intolerable abuses have been rejected, we hope that the custom of our Churches cannot be disapproved. The remaining indifferent rites are observed for the most part in the accustomed way, but the number of Masses is different. Nor formerly was Mass done daily in the most crowded Churches, as the Tripartite history testifies, book 9, chapter 38. Moreover, in Alexandria, on Wednesday and Friday the Scriptures are read and the doctors interpret them, and all things are done except the solemn custom of offering.

Article XXV: Of Confession. (1530)

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 rightcousness 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 way 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.

Of Confession (1540)

The theologians and canonists have cast great darkness upon this part of Christian doctrine about repentance. And this is testified not only by their own libraries, but also by the consciences of all the pious, who confess that those inextricable disputations of the theologians, and infinite traditions about repentance, have been a horrible butchery of consciences. For nowhere do they teach anything certain about how remission of sins happens; there is utter silence about faith. Indeed, they order people to doubt perpetually about the remission of sins. Afterwards, they torture consciences with a bitter enumeration of sins, and with satisfactions. For what a snare for conscience was that tradition, which commands the enumeration of all sins?

Truly satisfactions obscured the benefit of Christ, because even learned men feign that eternal death is compensated by them. The unlearned thought that they obtained remission of guilt by these works. What is more, they have generally been devotions not commanded by God, empty repetitions of prayers, invocations of the saints, pilgrimages, and other things of this kind. Thus the simple doctrine of repentance was buried by a huge pile of useless and evil opinions. And it is agreed that for many centuries good men have desired a purer doctrine.

Furthermore, it is especially necessary that the purest and simplest doctrine about repentance exist in the Church. Therefore our teachers have especially striven to bring light to this article, which indeed they have made so clear and illuminated, that even the healthier-minded opponents admit that they have served the Church well in this matter.

For simply, plainly, without any sophistry, we propose the opinion of the Gospel about repentance, so that people may understand how they ought to return to Christ, how they obtain remission of sins, what devotions, what works, please God. First, we teach that contrition is necessary, that is, true terrors and griefs of the soul, which acknowledges the wrath of God, and grieves that it has sinned, and ceases to commit evil. But although these griefs are necessary, nevertheless it must be known that remission of sins is not given because of these, on account of the worth of contrition, but it is given freely because of mercy promised because of Christ, and it must be established that sins are remitted freely because of Christ.

With this faith, we are lifted up in those terrors, we certainly obtain remission of sins, as we have shown above. And minds conceive this faith from the Gospel, and likewise from Absolution, which announces and applies the Gospel to terrified consciences. And so our teachers teach that private Absolution ought to be retained in the Churches, and they adorn its dignity and the power of the keys with true and most ample praises, because the power of the keys administers the Gospel, not only in general to all, but also privately to individuals, just as Christ says, "You will gain your brother," etc. And that the voice of the Gospel, which is administered to us in Absolution by the ministry of the Church, ought to be believed as a voice sounding from heaven.

This whole benefit of Absolution and of this ministry, was formerly completely obscured by the false opinions of those who taught that Absolution is not valid, unless we are sufficiently contrite. And afterwards they ordered people to doubt about absolution, because no one would know that he was sufficiently contrite. What else was this than to snatch the consolation of the Gospel from consciences, and to take away from the Church and completely abolish the ministry of the Gospel, that is, the power of the keys? Who does not see that these so pernicious errors have been deservedly reproved?

But since Confession offers a place for imparting absolution privately, and the rite itself preserves the understanding of the power of the keys, and of the remission of sins, among the people, furthermore since that conversation greatly benefits for admonishing and instructing people, we diligently retain Confession in the Churches, but in such a way that we teach that the enumeration of sins is not necessary by divine law, nor ought consciences to be burdened with that enumeration. For no command about this enumeration exists in the Apostolic scriptures. And the recitation of all sins is impossible, according to that saying of the Psalm, "Who understands offenses?" Likewise Jeremiah says, "The heart of man is perverse and inscrutable." For if no sins were remitted except those recited, consciences could never be at peace, because they neither see nor can remember very many sins. From which it can easily be understood that the ministry of absolution, and remission, does not depend on the condition of enumeration.

And the ancient writers testify that enumeration is not necessary. For Chrysostom says in the Epistle to the Hebrews, "Let us persuade ourselves that we have sinned, and let not only the tongue pronounce this, but also the inmost conscience; and let us not only say that we are sinners, but let us also reckon up sins specifically. I do not say to you, that you should expose yourself in public, or that you accuse yourself before others, but I want you to obey the Prophet. Reveal your way to the Lord, confess your sins before God, pronounce your offenses before the true Judge with prayer, not with the tongue, but with the memory of your conscience, and then at length hope that you can obtain mercy." This sermon of Chrysostom not only teaches what ought to be thought about enumeration, but also most gravely joins contrition and faith. Just as we join them, it bids us first truly acknowledge sins, and detest them from the heart, then it teaches that prayer and faith must be added, which may establish that we are forgiven. And in another place he says, "Say your sins, so that you may blot them out. If you are ashamed to say what you have sinned, say it daily in your soul. I do not say that you confess them to a servant, so that he may reproach you. Say them to God, so that He may cure them."

And the gloss in the Decrees on penance, distinction five, admits that Confession was instituted by the Church, nor is it commanded in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Most doctors have thought the same. Therefore our opinion about Confession is neither new, nor absurd.

Finally, it has been especially necessary to warn pious minds about satisfactions. For satisfactions have had even more disadvantages than that enumeration. For they obscured the benefit of Christ, because the unlearned thought that they obtained remission of guilt because of those own works, then if anything in these had been omitted, consciences were disturbed. Likewise, ceremonies, pilgrimages, and other useless works of this kind, not commanded divinely, were selected. And by these, the doctors themselves feigned that eternal death was compensated.

And so we have thought that pious minds must be freed from these errors, and we teach that satisfactions, namely, those canonical ones, which they themselves call undue works etc., neither benefit for the remission of guilt, nor for the remission of eternal punishment, nor are they necessary. Formerly in the Church the custom was in public penance, not to receive the lapsed returning to the Church, unless some penalty had been added for the sake of example. Satisfactions arose from that custom. But the ancients wanted by that example to deter the people from sinning, they did not feel that that ceremony was compensation for guilt or eternal death or purgatory. Unlearned men later attached these things.

But those old customs have grown old with time, and have been antiquated. Therefore, we do not burden consciences with satisfactions. But we teach this, that the fruits of penance are necessary, that obedience, fear of God, faith, love, chastity, and the whole newness of the spirit, ought to grow in us.

We also warn that sins are often punished even with temporal penalties in this life, as David, Manasseh, and many others were punished. And we teach that these penalties are mitigated by good works, and by the whole of penance, as Paul teaches, "If we judged ourselves, we would not be judged by the Lord." And penance merited that God change the sentence about destroying Nineveh.

Thus, since previously discussions about penance had been inextricable, and full of absurd opinions, now, with the doctrine cleansed, it is so handed down to the people, that it can be understood, and may benefit for piety. We retain and illuminate the true parts of penance, contrition, faith, absolution, remission of sins, emendation of the whole life, mitigation of present penalties.

And we hope that good men will not only find nothing to reprove in this place, but also that they will be grateful to those who have cleansed this part of Christian doctrine, which it is profitable to exist in the Churches explained and illuminated as plainly as possible. Christ says, "The angels in heaven rejoice when they see a sinner repent." And so the Church, and the angels themselves, congratulate the pure doctrine about repentance.

 Article XXVI: Of the Distinction of Meats. (1530)

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, 15:9: “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]. 

Of the Distinction of Foods and Similar Papal Traditions. (1540)

In this bodily life, traditions are necessary, that is, distinctions of places and times, so that things may be managed in order in the Church, just as Paul commands, that all things be done in order, and thus be fitting. Therefore, the Church also has traditions, that is, it establishes at what times and where the people ought to assemble. It is permitted to establish traditions for this civil purpose. But people unskilled in Christian doctrine are not content with this end, but they attach superstitious opinions to traditions, and accumulate them without measure through superstition. Not only more recent people, Gerson and some others, but also Augustine, have complained that this has happened in the Church.

Therefore, it is necessary to admonish the people what ought to be thought about traditions, which have been established in the Church by human authority. For it is not for no reason that Christ and Paul preach so often about traditions, and admonish the Church, that it should judge prudently about traditions.

However, there has been a public persuasion not only of the common people, but also of those teaching in the Churches, that distinctions of foods and similar works, about which ecclesiastical traditions prescribe, are a devotion of God, which merits remission of sins. Likewise, that such devotions are Christian righteousness, and are necessary, just as in the Old Testament the Levitical ceremonies were necessary, and that they cannot be omitted without sin, even outside the case of offense. These persuasions have brought forth many disadvantages.

First, the proper doctrine of the Gospel was obscured, which teaches that sins are remitted freely because of Christ. This benefit of Christ has been transferred to those human works. And traditions have been increased especially because of this opinion, because those works were thought to merit remission of sins, to be satisfactions, to be Christian righteousness. Moreover, it is chiefly for this cause that Paul admonishes us so often, so severely, about avoiding traditions, lest the benefit of Christ be transferred to traditions, lest the glory of Christ be obscured, lest true and firm consolations be snatched away from consciences, finally lest faith, that is, trust in the mercy of Christ, be overwhelmed. Paul wanted these dangers to be avoided. For it is most necessary that pure doctrine about the benefit of Christ, about the righteousness of faith, about the consolation of consciences, exist in the Church.

Secondly. These traditions have obscured the precepts of God, because this instruction was thought to be spiritual and Christian righteousness. Likewise, human traditions were preferred to the precepts of God. All of Christianity was thought to be the observance of certain holidays, rites, fasts, clothing. These πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα [weak and beggarly elements] were in possession of a most honorable title, because they were the spiritual life, likewise Christian perfection. Meanwhile, the commandments of God about one’s calling had no praise. That a father was educating his offspring, that a mother was giving birth, that a prince was governing the republic, these works were despised, they were not judged to be a devotion of God. The minds of very many were in perpetual doubt, whether marriage, magistracy, and similar functions of civil life, pleased God. This doubt greatly tormented many. Many, having deserted their calling, having deserted the republic, hid themselves in Monasteries, so that they might seek a kind of life, which they thought would please God more, indeed which they thought would merit remission of sins.

Thirdly. The opinion of necessity also severely exercised consciences. Traditions were thought to be necessary. And yet no one, however diligent, observed all of them, especially since they are innumerable. Gerson writes that many fell into despair, and some even committed suicide, because they had realized that they could not satisfy the traditions. And meanwhile, they had heard no consolation about grace, about the righteousness of faith. We see the Summists and Theologians collect traditions, and seek ἐπιεικείας [equity, reasonable interpretations] so that they may lighten consciences. But not even they themselves satisfy themselves; they cannot disentangle themselves enough; at times even those interpretations themselves place snares on consciences. And the schools and sermons have been so occupied in collecting traditions, that there has been no time to touch Scripture, and to seek more useful doctrine about faith, about the cross, about hope, about the dignity of civil things, about the consolation of consciences in difficult temptations. And so many good men have often complained that they were hindered by these quarrels about traditions, so that they could not freely devote themselves to a better kind of doctrine.

Therefore, since superstitious opinions of this kind clung to traditions, it was necessary to admonish the Churches what ought to be thought about traditions, to free pious minds from error, to heal timid consciences, to illuminate the benefit of Christ. We do not do this so that the authority of Ecclesiastical power may be weakened, we do not detract from the dignity of the Bishops, we do not destroy the εὐταξίαν [good order] of the Church. Traditions rightly understood are loved more. But only those Jewish opinions are being reproved. Thus, therefore, we teach about ceremonies, established by human authority in the Church. First, about traditions that conflict with the commands of God, or cannot be observed without sin, the rule of the Apostles must be followed. It is necessary to obey God rather than men. Such is the tradition about celibacy. Then, about the remaining ceremonies which are in their nature intermediate or indifferent things, such as fasts, holidays, distinctions of clothing, and similar things, it must be known, that such observances neither merit remission of sins, nor righteousness, nor Christian perfection, but they are indifferent things which can be omitted outside the case of offense.

The testimonies of this sentiment are plain and clear in the Gospel and in the disputations of Paul. For the holy spirit thought it worth the effort that he should admonish the Church diligently about this matter, lest the Gospel be overwhelmed by superstitious opinions.

Romans 14: "The kingdom of God is not food or drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." Here Paul teaches clearly enough that Christian righteousness is spiritual motions of the heart, not external observances of foods, days, etc.

Colossians 2: "Let no one judge you in food, drink, or in a part of a feast day." He forbids consciences to be judged, that is, to be condemned, in the use of such things, but he wants them to be held altogether as indifferent things, and which do not pertain to the righteousness of the Gospel. And then there is a long and serious speech, both about Mosaic rites, and about Ceremonies established by human authority. For Paul speaks about both kinds by name, he denies that that is Christian righteousness, and he forbids consciences to be burdened with such traditions. "If you have died with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as living in the world, do you make decrees: Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle?"

Matthew 15: "Everything that enters into the mouth does not defile a man." And indeed there he excuses the Apostles violating an accustomed tradition, and adds a memorable sentiment, "In vain they worship me with the commandments of men." He denies that they are true and useful devotions for righteousness before God, therefore they are not Christian righteousness, nor are they necessary devotions. And yet it is agreed that human devotions have increased in the Church up to now in a wonderful way. Daily the monks were piling up ceremonies, with new superstitions and contrivances. And these trifles were thought to be the chief devotions of God, the chief piety, while Christ forbids human ceremonies to be held as devotions with so grave an oracle. For he does not prohibit establishing traditions for a political end, that is, for the sake of good order, but he denies that they are devotions, when he says, "In vain they worship me." And he teaches that true devotions are works commanded divinely: fear, faith, love, patience, chastity, obeying a calling, doing one’s duty etc.

Acts 15, Peter says: "Why do you tempt God, imposing a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers have been able to carry, but we believe that we are saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, just as they also are." Here Peter teaches that remission of sins and salvation happen to us because of Christ, not because of Mosaic or similar rites. And he admonishes that those who burden consciences with such observances sin most gravely. Nor indeed is it a light reproof when he says, "Why do you tempt God?"

And 1 Timothy 4 calls the prohibition of foods, of marriage, and similar traditions, doctrines of demons. But why did he use so atrocious a reproach? He did not want that there should be absolutely no ordinances, that no distinctions of places, times should be observed. But he feels that they are doctrines of demons, when the benefit of Christ is transferred into them, when they are held as righteousness, likewise as necessary devotions, when the opinion of necessity is attached, and consciences are tormented, and faith is shaken from them. Christ and the Apostles want these disadvantages to be avoided. And therefore they preach so often so vehemently against traditions. And it is amazing that those who defend superstitious opinions about traditions are not moved by those thunderbolts.

However, there are two kinds of traditions, some demand works plainly conflicting with the divine law, like the prohibition of marriage. But it is necessary that this rule exist in the Church, It is necessary to obey God rather than men. Therefore it is agreed that human traditions of this kind must not be obeyed at all. Others speak about things which in their nature are adiaphora, such as about food, clothing, and similar things. These traditions become impious, when they are proposed with these opinions, that they merit remission of sins, that they are necessary things, that they are devotions of God, that is, offices whose immediate end is, that God be affected with honor through them. These pestiferous opinions must necessarily be taxed in the Church, and because of these opinions, human rites that are useless must be rejected, like distinctions of foods, monastic clothing, and similar superstitious customs, just as Hezekiah burned the bronze serpent when he saw it being worshiped by many. But because this society of men in this bodily life has need of order, some rites useful for this political end can be retained without superstitious opinions, that is, so that they may not be judged to be devotions, or necessary things, so that the people may know when the assemblies ought to meet in the temples for sermons, and for the use of the sacraments. For that ministry must be public. It is profitable that certain times be established. Thus, among us, the holidays of the Lord’s Day, and most of the others, are observed; the accustomed distinctions of histories in the hymns, of the Nativity of the Lord, of Easter, of the feast of the Ascension, of Pentecost, and others, are retained. And the people love these very ceremonies more after consciences have been freed from danger, and from those unjust burdens, about which the Monks and Canonists used to shout, and in place of which the usefulness has been shown, that these rites serve the ministry of the Gospel. Likewise, men have been admonished, that the end of these ordinances is political. This right interpretation of traditions makes them more pleasing to moderate minds. And although the opinion of necessity and of devotion is taken away, nevertheless they are fortified enough, because we teach that in the emended Churches, useful ceremonies serve the ministry of the Gospel, therefore those who violate these ceremonies wantonly and with scandal, that is, who hinder the ministry of the Gospel, we say that these sin. Certainly a limit must be set to traditions, and consciences must be consulted, so that they may understand that human rites are neither necessary things, nor righteousness.

This liberty, about which we speak here, was not unknown to the fathers, for Augustine says, "All this kind of thing has free observances," and he disputes much to this sentiment. Irenaeus says, "Dissonance in fasting does not dissolve the consonance of faith." The Tripartite history collects many examples of dissimilar rites, and adds a distinguished exclamation. "The mind of the Apostles was, not to sanction laws about feast days, but to preach good conduct and piety." But there is no need to collect many testimonies in a manifest matter. But here the adversaries shout that public discipline is weakened by this doctrine, that anarchy is being produced, likewise, that good works and mortification of the flesh are being abolished, according to the dogma of Jovinian. We have already refuted these calumnies in part. For anarchy does not happen, nor is public discipline weakened, since we teach that traditions, whose end is political, ought to be observed. We also teach that offenses must be avoided. But about mortification of the flesh, we respond thus. True and not feigned mortification is, to endure the cross, to be engaged in dangers, hardships, and afflictions. Obedience of this kind is a devotion of God and a spiritual work, just as the Psalm teaches, "A contrite spirit is a sacrifice to God" etc. Moreover, we teach that another kind of exercises is necessary. Each Christian also ought to coerce the flesh with bodily discipline, labors, temperance, meditation on divine things, and other exercises suited to his age. The proper and closest end of these ought to be, that neither satiety nor idleness may spur on to sinning, and so that the mind may be admonished, and may become more fit for spiritual affections. It must not be thought, that these exercises are a devotion that merits remission of sins, or that they are satisfactions etc. And this discipline ought to be perpetual, nor can certain days be prescribed equally for all. About this discipline, Christ says, "Beware lest your bodies be weighed down with carousing." Likewise, "This kind of demon is not cast out except by fasting and prayer." And Paul says, "I chasten my body and bring it into subjection." Therefore, we do not censure fasts, but superstitious opinions, and snares for consciences in traditions. Furthermore, these exercises, when they are referred to that end, so that we may have bodies liable to spiritual things, and for doing one's duty according to his calling etc., are good works in the pious, as the example of Daniel testifies. For they are works which God requires for this end, that they may coerce the flesh.

Article XXVII: Of Monastic Vows. (1530)

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. 15:9: “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.

Of Monastic Vows. (1540)

What is taught among us concerning Monastic Vows, will be better understood if anyone bears in mind what the condition of the Monasteries has been, how many things against the Canons were daily done in the Monasteries themselves. In Augustine's time they were free associations, afterwards, with discipline corrupted, vows were added everywhere, so that discipline might be restored as by a carefully-planned prison. Besides vows, many other observances were gradually added. And these bonds were imposed contrary to the Canons on many before the lawful age. Many fell into this kind of life through error, who, even if the years were not lacking, still lacked judgment about their own strength. Those who were thus ensnared were forced to remain, even if some could be freed by the kindness of the Canons. And this happened even more in the Monasteries of virgins than of monks, since the weaker sex ought to be spared more. This rigor displeased many good men before these times, who saw girls and young men being thrust into Monasteries for the sake of food, who saw how unhappily this plan succeeded, what scandals it produced, what snares it cast upon consciences. They grieved that the authority of the Canons was being altogether neglected and despised in a most perilous matter.

To these evils was added such a persuasion about vows, which it is agreed also displeased the Monks themselves formerly, if any were somewhat more sensible: they taught that vows were equal to baptism, they taught that by this kind of life they merited remission of sins and justification before God. Indeed, they added that the Monastic life merited not only righteousness before God, but even more, because it kept not only the precepts, but also the Evangelical counsels.

Thus they persuaded men that the Monastic profession was far better than Baptism, that the Monastic life merited more than the life of Magistrates, the life of pastors and of similar men, who serve their calling in the commands of God without factitious religions. None of these things can be denied, for they exist in their books.

What was being done afterward in the Monasteries? Formerly they were schools of sacred letters, and of other disciplines which are useful to the Church, and pastors and Bishops were being taken from them. Now it is another matter, there is no need to recite what is known. Formerly they were assembling for the sake of learning, now they feign that a kind of life has been instituted for meriting remission of sins and justification, indeed they preach that it is a state of perfection, and they prefer it far to all other kinds of life ordained by God.

Therefore, we have recited these things, exaggerating nothing odiously, so that the doctrine of our teachers about this matter may be better understood. First, about those who contract marriages, our teachers teach thus, that it is permitted for all who are not fit for celibacy to contract marriage, because vows cannot take away the ordinance and command of God. But this is the command of God: "Because of fornication, let each one have his own wife." Nor only the command, but also the creation and ordination of God, compels those to marriage, who have not been excepted without a singular work of God, according to that saying, "It is not good for man to be alone." Therefore, those who obey this command and ordination of God, do not sin.

What can be opposed against these things? Let anyone exaggerate the obligation of the vow as much as he wishes, nevertheless he will not be able to effect, that a vow takes away the command of God. The Canons teach that in every vow, the right of the superior is excepted, wherefore these vows against the commands of God are worth much less. But if the obligation of vows had no causes why it could be changed, neither would the Roman Pontiffs have dispensed from them, for it is not permitted for man to rescind an obligation, which is simply of divine law. But the Roman Pontiffs have judged prudently that equity must be applied in this obligation, therefore they are often read to have dispensed from vows. The history of the King of Aragon, called back from the Monastery, is known, and examples exist from our times.

Next, why do the adversaries exaggerate the obligation or effect of the vow, while in the meantime they are silent about the nature of the vow itself, that it ought to be in a thing possible, that it ought to be voluntary, conceived spontaneously and deliberately. But how perpetual chastity is in the power of man, is not unknown. And how many have vowed spontaneously and deliberately? Girls and young men, before they are able to judge, are persuaded to vow, sometimes even compelled. Wherefore it is not right to dispute so rigidly about the obligation, since all admit that it is against the nature of a vow, that it is admitted not spontaneously, not deliberately.

Most Canons rescind vows contracted before the year 15, because before that age there does not seem to be so much judgment, that a decision can be made about a perpetual life. Another Canon, conceding more to human weakness, adds a few years, for it forbids a vow to be made before the year 18. But whichever one we follow, most have an excuse why they are deserting the Monasteries, because very many had vowed before this age. Finally, even if the violation of the vow could be reproved, nevertheless it does not seem to follow immediately, that the marriages of such persons ought to be dissolved. For Augustine denies that they ought to be dissolved, 27, question 1, chapter on Marriages, whose authority is not light, even if others have felt otherwise afterwards.

However, although the command of God about marriage seems to free most from vows, nevertheless our teachers allege also another reason about vows, that they are invalid, because all devotion of God, instituted and chosen by men without the command of God, to merit remission of sins and justification, is impious, just as Christ says, "In vain do they worship me with the commands of men." And Paul teaches everywhere that righteousness must not be sought from our observances and devotions, which have been devised by men, but that it happens through faith, for those believing that they have God appeased and propitious because of Christ, not because of any of our merits.

However, it is agreed that the Monks have taught, that factitious religions merit remission of sins and justification, and that they make satisfaction for sins. What else is this, than to detract and obscure from the glory of Christ, and to deny the righteousness of faith? Therefore, it follows that these customary vows have been impious devotions, wherefore they are invalid. For an impious vow, and made against the commands of God, is not valid, nor indeed ought a vow to be a bond of iniquity, as the Canon says.

Paul says, "You have been emptied from Christ, you who are justified in the law, you have fallen from grace," that is, those who feel that they merit remission of sins by their own works, and that because of their own fulfillment of the Law they please God, nor feel that they freely receive, through Christ, the bestowed remission of sins, through the mercy of God, and that because of Christ they please God, these lose Christ, because they transfer the trust owed to Christ and to the promise of God to works. Likewise, they oppose against the wrath of God, not Christ the propitiator, but their own works, wherefore they transfer to our works the honor owed to Christ. However, it is agreed that Monks teach this, that they merit remission of sins by their own observances, that they have God propitious because of these observances. Wherefore they teach to trust in their works, not in the propitiation of Christ. This trust is impious, and fights with the Gospel, and will be found to be vain in the judgment of God. For our works cannot be opposed to the wrath and judgment of God. The wrath of God is placated only thus, when we apprehend by faith the gratuitous mercy promised because of Christ. Therefore, those who place trust not in Christ, but in their own works, lose Christ.

Moreover, the Monks have taught that their kind of life is a state of perfection, because they observed not only the precepts, but also the counsels. This error fights most with the Gospel, because they have feigned that they satisfied the precepts in such a way, as even to do more. And hence was born the horrible error, that they feigned that they had merits of supererogation. They applied these for others, so that they were satisfactions for the sins of others. If anyone wished to discuss these things hatefully, how many things could he commemorate, which even the Monks themselves are now ashamed of.

It is no light scandal in the Church, to propose to the people a certain devotion devised by men without the command of God, and to teach that such a devotion justifies men. For the righteousness of faith in Christ, which ought to be taught as much as possible in the Church, is obscured, when those wonderful religions of angels, a pretense of poverty and humility, and celibacy are poured over the eyes of men.

Besides, the precepts of God are obscured, and the true devotion of God, when men hear that only Monks are in a state of perfection, because Christian perfection is to fear God seriously, and again to conceive great faith, and to trust because of Christ, that we have God appeased, to ask from God, and to certainly expect help in all things being done, according to one's calling. Meanwhile, diligently doing good works on the outside, and to serve one's calling. In these things is true perfection, and the true devotion of God, it is not in celibacy, or mendicancy, or sordid clothing. And the people conceive many pernicious opinions from those false encomiums of the Monastic life. They hear celibacy being praised without measure, therefore they are engaged in marriage with offense to conscience. They hear that only beggars are perfect, therefore they retain possessions with offense to conscience, they do business. They hear that the Evangelical counsel is about not avenging oneself, therefore others in private life do not fear to avenge themselves, for they hear that it is a counsel, not a precept. Others judge that all magistracies and civil offices are unworthy of Christians.

Examples are read of men who, having deserted marriage, having deserted the administration of the republic, hid themselves in Monasteries. They were calling that fleeing from the world, and seeking a kind of life that would please God more, nor were they seeing that God must be served in those commands, which he himself handed down, not in commands, which have been devised by men. A good and perfect kind of life is that which has the command of God. It is necessary to admonish men about these things. And before these times Gerson rebuked the error of the Monks about perfection, and testifies that it was a new expression in his times, that the Monastic life is a state of perfection.

So many impious opinions cling to vows, that they merit remission of sins and justification, that they are Christian perfection, that they keep the counsels and precepts, that they have works of supererogation. Since all these things are false and vain, they make vows invalid.

 Article XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power. (1530)

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 18:36: “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. 

Of Ecclesiastical Power. (1540)

There have been great disputes about the power of Bishops, in which some have unsuitably mixed up Ecclesiastical power and the power of the sword. And from this confusion, the greatest wars, the greatest commotions have arisen, while the Pontiffs, relying on the power of the keys, not only instituted new devotions, burdened consciences with the reservation of cases, and violent excommunications, but also attempted to transfer the kingdoms of the world, and to take away their power from Emperors. Pious and learned men reproved these vices in the Church long ago. Therefore, for the sake of consoling consciences, our teachers have been compelled to show the distinction between Ecclesiastical power, and the power of the sword, and they have taught that each, because of God’s command, must be religiously venerated and honored, as the highest benefits of God on earth.

They feel thus: that the power of the keys, or the power of Bishops, according to the Gospel, is a power or command of God, to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer the Sacraments. For Christ sends out the Apostles with this command: “As the Father has sent me, so also I send you. Receive the holy spirit, those whose sins you have remitted, they are remitted to them, and those whose sins you have retained, they have been retained." Mark 16: "Go, preach the Gospel to every creature," etc.

This power is exercised only by teaching, or preaching the Gospel, and by offering the sacraments, either to many or to individuals according to one’s calling, because not bodily things, but eternal things, eternal righteousness, the holy spirit, eternal life, are granted. These cannot happen unless through the ministry of the word and the sacraments, just as Paul says, "The Gospel is the power of God, for salvation to everyone who believes." Therefore, since Ecclesiastical power grants eternal things, and is only exercised through the ministry of the word, it does not impede political administration, just as the art of singing does not impede political administration at all. For political administration is concerned with other things than the Gospel. The magistrate defends not minds, but bodies and bodily things, against manifest injuries, and coerces men with the sword, and with bodily penalties, so that he may retain civil justice and peace.

Therefore, the powers, Ecclesiastical and civil, must not be mixed up. Ecclesiastical power has its own command, to teach the Gospel and to administer the sacraments. Let it not break into another's office, let it not transfer the kingdoms of the world, let it not abrogate the laws of Magistrates, let it not take away legitimate obedience, let it not impede judgments about any civil ordinances or contracts, let it not prescribe laws to magistrates about the form of the republic, just as Christ says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Likewise, “Who constituted me a judge or divider over you?” And Paul says in Philippians 3: "Our commonwealth is in the heavens." 2 Corinthians 10: "The arms of our warfare are not carnal, but powerful to God, for destroying thoughts" etc. In this way our teachers distinguish the offices of each power, and they order each to be honored and acknowledged, and each to be a gift and benefit of God.

If the Bishops have any power of the sword, they do not have this as Bishops from the command of the Gospel, but they have it as donated by human law from Kings and Emperors, and from the civil administration of their own goods. Meanwhile, this is another function than the Ministry of the Gospel.

Therefore, since there is inquiry about the jurisdiction of Bishops, the power to command must be distinguished from Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Furthermore, according to the Gospel, or as they speak, by divine law, no jurisdiction belongs to Bishops as Bishops, that is, to those to whom the ministry of the word and the Sacraments has been entrusted, except to remit sins. Likewise, to discern doctrine, and to reject doctrine dissenting from the Gospel, and to exclude the impious, whose impiety is known, from communion of the Church, without human force, but by the word. Here, of necessity and by divine law, the Churches ought to obey, according to that saying, “He who hears you, hears me.”

But when they teach or establish anything against the Gospel, then the Churches have a command of God, which prohibits obedience, Matthew 7: "Beware of false prophets." Galatians 1: "If an Angel from heaven preach another Gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” 2 Corinthians 13: “We cannot do anything against the truth, but for the truth.” Likewise: “Power has been given to us for edification, not for destruction." So also the Canons command, 2, question 7, chapter Priests, and chapter Sheep: And Augustine, against the letter of Petilianus, says, "Nor must catholic Bishops be agreed to, if they happen to err anywhere, or to feel anything against the Canonical scriptures of God.”

If they have any other either power, or Jurisdiction in recognizing certain causes, namely of marriage, or tithes etc., they have this by human law. Where, the ordinaries ceasing, Princes are compelled even unwillingly to pronounce the law to their subjects, so that peace may be retained.

Besides these things it is disputed, whether Bishops or pastors have the right of instituting ceremonies in the Church, and of establishing laws about foods, holidays, grades of ministers, or orders, etc. Those who attribute this right to the Bishops, allege that testimony, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now; but when that spirit of truth will come, he will teach you all truth." They also allege the example of the Apostles, who prohibited abstaining from blood, and from what is strangled. They allege the Sabbath changed into the Lord’s day, against the Decalogue, as it seems. Nor is any example more touted than the change of the Sabbath. They contend that the power of the Church is great, because it has dispensed with a precept of the Decalogue.

But concerning this question, our teachers teach thus: that Bishops do not have the power to establish anything against the Gospel, as has been shown above. The Canons teach the same, distinction 9. Moreover, it is against scripture to establish or demand traditions, so that through that observance we may merit remission of sins and make satisfaction for sins, for the glory of Christ's merit is harmed, when we try to merit remission of sins and justification with such observances. However, it is agreed that traditions have grown almost infinitely in the Church because of this persuasion, while in the meantime the doctrine about faith and the righteousness of faith has been oppressed, because more holidays have been made repeatedly, fasts have been indicated, new ceremonies, new honors of the Saints have been instituted, because the authors of such things thought that by these works they merited remission of sins and justification. Thus, there were formerly Penitential Canons, of which we still see certain traces in satisfactions.

Likewise, most writers feign that in the new Testament the devotion ought to be similar to the Levitical one, the ordination of which God committed to the Apostles and Bishops. And the writers seem to be deceived by the example of the Mosaic law, as if the righteousness of the new Testament were the external observance of certain rites, just as the righteousness of the law was the external observance of certain rites. Therefore, just as in the law it was a sin to eat swine's flesh etc., so in the new Testament they place sin in foods, in days, in clothing, and similar things. And they think that the righteousness of the new Testament cannot exist without these things. Hence are those burdens, that certain foods pollute the conscience, that to omit the Canonical hours is a mortal sin, that fasts merit remission of sins, that these are necessary to the righteousness of the new Testament, that sin in a reserved case cannot be remitted, unless the authority of the one reserving has been accessed, while indeed the Canons themselves speak only about the reservation of a canonical penalty, not about the reservation of guilt.

Whence do Bishops have the right of imposing these traditions on the Churches so as to burden consciences? For there exist clear testimonies, which prohibit establishing such traditions, either for meriting remission of sins, or as necessary to the righteousness of the new Testament, or to salvation.

Paul to the Colossians, 2: "Let no one judge you in food, drink, a part of a feast day, new moon, or Sabbaths." Likewise, "If you have died with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as living in the world, do you make decrees: Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle, all of which perish with use, and are the commands and doctrines of men, which have an appearance of wisdom." Likewise, he openly prohibits traditions to Titus, "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and to commands of men averting the truth." And Christ says in Matthew 15 about those who demand traditions: "Let them alone, they are blind, and leaders of the blind." And he disapproves of such devotions: "Every plant which my heavenly father has not planted, will be uprooted."

If the Bishops have the right of burdening the Churches with infinite traditions, and of ensnaring consciences, why does scripture so often prohibit establishing and listening to traditions? Why does it call these traditions of demons? Did the holy spirit forewarn about these things in vain? Therefore, it remains, since ordinations instituted as necessary, or with the opinion of meriting remission of sins, fight with the Gospel, that it is not permitted to any Bishops to institute or demand such devotions. For it is necessary that the doctrine about Christian liberty, that the servitude of the law is not necessary for justification, be retained in the Churches, as it has been written in Galatians, "Do not be subjected again to the yoke of servitude." It is necessary that the chief place of the Gospel be retained, that we obtain remission of sins and justification freely through faith in Christ, not because of certain observances, or because of devotions instituted by men.

What therefore ought to be felt about the Lord’s day and similar rites of the temples? To these things they respond, that it is permitted for Bishops or pastors to make ordinances, so that things may be managed in order in the Church, not so that through those things we may merit remission of sins, or may make satisfaction for sins, or consciences be obligated, so that they may judge them to be necessary devotions, and feel that they are sinning, when they violate them without offending others. Thus Paul ordains that women veil their heads in the congregation, that interpreters may be heard in order in the Church etc.

It is fitting that the Churches observe such ordinations because of love and tranquility to that extent, lest one offend the other, so that all things may be done in order and without tumult in the Churches. But indeed so, that consciences may not be burdened, so that they may believe that things are necessary for salvation, and may judge that they are sinning when they violate them without the offense of others, just as no one would say that a woman sins, who proceeds into public with her head not veiled, without the offense of men.

Such is the observation of the Lord’s Day, of Easter, of Pentecost, and of similar holidays and rites. For those who judge that the observation of the Lord’s Day has been instituted in place of the Sabbath by the authority of the Church as necessary, err greatly. Scripture concedes that the observation of the Sabbath is now free. For it teaches that Mosaic ceremonies are not necessary after the Gospel has been revealed. And yet since it was necessary to establish a certain day, so that the people might know when they ought to assemble, it appears that the Church has destined the Lord's day for this thing, which also seems to have pleased them more for this cause, so that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that neither the observation of the Sabbath nor of another day is necessary.

Prodigious disputes exist about the change of the law, about the ceremonies of the new law, about the change of the Sabbath, all of which have arisen from a false persuasion, that the devotion in the Church ought to be similar to the Levitical one, and that Christ has committed it to the Apostles and Bishops, to devise new ceremonies, which may be necessary for salvation. These errors have crept into the Church, since the righteousness of faith was not being taught clearly enough. Some dispute that the observation of the Lord’s day is not indeed of divine law, but as if of divine law, they prescribe about holidays, how far it is permitted to work. What are disputes of this kind, except snares for consciences? For although they try to interpret traditions with equity, nevertheless equity can never be detected, as long as the opinion of necessity remains, which necessarily remains, where the righteousness of faith, and Christian liberty, are ignored.

The Apostles ordered to abstain from blood, who observes this now? And yet those who do not observe it, do not sin, because not even the Apostles themselves wanted to burden consciences with such servitude, but they prohibited it for a time because of offense. For the perpetual will of the Gospel must be considered in the decree. Hardly any Canons are kept accurately, and many daily grow obsolete even among those, who defend traditions most diligently. Nor can consciences be consulted, unless this equity is observed, so that we may know that those things are being observed without an opinion of necessity, nor are consciences harmed, even if traditions grow obsolete.

However, the Bishops could easily retain legitimate obedience, if they did not urge to keep traditions, which cannot be kept with a good conscience. Now they command celibacy, they receive no one unless they swear that they do not want to teach pure Evangelical doctrine. The Churches do not ask that the Bishops make satisfaction for concord with a loss of their honor, which indeed it was fitting for good pastors to do. They only ask that they remit the unjust burdens, which are new, and received beyond the custom of the catholic Church. Perhaps in the beginning certain constitutions had probable causes, which nevertheless do not agree with later times. It also appears that certain things have been received in error, wherefore it would be of Pontifical clemency, to mitigate those things now, because such a change does not weaken the Church's unity. For many human traditions have been changed with time, as the Canons themselves show. But if it cannot be obtained, that observations, which cannot be performed without sin, may be relaxed, it is necessary for us to follow the Apostolic rule, which commands, to obey God rather than men. Peter prohibits the Bishops to dominate, and to command the Churches. Now it is not being done so that domination may be snatched from the Bishops, but this one thing is being sought, that they permit the Gospel to be taught purely, and relax certain few observations, which cannot be kept without sin. But if they remit nothing, may they themselves see, how they will render the reason to God, that by their stubbornness they are offering a cause for schism.

Conclusion. (1530)

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.

Conclusion. (1540)

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 Stationarii. 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 C.M. (Caesareae Maiestatis), in order to exhibit our Confession and let men see a summary of the doctrine of our teachers. If there is anything that anyone might desire in this Confession, we are ready, God willing, to present ampler information according to the Scriptures.

Your Caesarean 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.