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)

The Churches with great consent teach among us that the decree of the Nicene Synod, concerning the unity of the divine essence, and concerning the three persons, is true and to be believed without any doubt. Namely, that there is one divine essence which is both called and is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of immense power, wisdom, and goodness, the Creator 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 in that signification in which the ecclesiastical writers have used it in this cause, to signify not a part or a quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.

They condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, such as the Manichaeans, who set down two principles, a Good and an 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” a 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 after the fall of Adam, all men propagated in the natural way, are born with original sin. We understand original sin to be that which the holy fathers, and all the orthodox and piously learned in the Church so call it, namely, the guilt whereby all who are born are, on account of Adam's fall, subject to the wrath of God and eternal death, and the corruption of human nature itself, propagated from Adam. And this corruption of human nature comprises a defect of righteousness or integrity, or of original obedience, and concupiscence.

And this defect is a horrible blindness and disobedience, namely, to be wanting in that light and knowledge of God which was to have been in our unimpaired nature; likewise, to be wanting in that rectitude, that is, a perpetual obedience, a true, pure, and supreme love of God, and like gifts of an unimpaired nature. Wherefore, those defects and this concupiscence are a thing condemned, and by its own nature worthy of death. And this vice of origin is truly a sin, condemning and bringing eternal death even now upon those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

They condemn the Pelagians, who deny original sin and think that those defects or that concupiscence are things indifferent or only penalties, and not things damnable by their own nature, and dream that man is able to satisfy the law of God, and on account of this his own obedience can be pronounced just 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)

Likewise, they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, took unto Him man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably conjoined in the unity of His person: one Christ, true God and true man, born of the Virgin Mary, who 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 those that believe in Him, by sending the Holy Ghost into their hearts, and give eternal life to those sanctified. The same Christ shall openly come again to judge the quick and the dead, etc., 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)

But that we may obtain these benefits of Christ, namely, the remission of sins, justification, and eternal life, Christ gave the Gospel, in which these benefits are set forth to us, as it is written in the last chapter of Luke, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations. For since all men propagated in the natural way have sin, and cannot truly satisfy the law of God, the Gospel convicts of sin, and shows us Christ the Mediator, and thus teaches us concerning the remission of sins.

When the Gospel convicts of our sins, terrified hearts ought to resolve that the remission of sins and justification by faith are freely given to us for Christ's sake, by which faith we ought to believe and confess that these things are given to us for the sake of Christ, who was made a sacrifice for us and placated the Father. Although, therefore, the Gospel requires repentance, yet, that the remission of sins may be certain, it teaches that it is given freely, that is, that it does not depend on the condition of our own worthiness, nor is it given on account of any preceding works or the worthiness of those that follow. For then would the remission be uncertain, if we were to think that we obtain the remission of sins only when we had merited it by our preceding works, or when our repentance were sufficiently worthy.

For in true terrors the conscience finds no work which it can oppose to the wrath of God, and Christ is given and set forth to us that He might be the propitiator. This honor of Christ ought not to be transferred to our works. Therefore Paul says, By grace you have been saved. Likewise, Therefore it is of faith, that the promise may be sure. That is, the remission will thus be certain when we know that it does not depend on the condition of our worthiness, but is given for Christ's sake. This is a firm and necessary consolation for pious and terrified minds. And so also do the Holy Fathers teach. And there is extant a memorable and noteworthy sentence of Ambrose, in these words: This is ordained of God, that he who believes in Christ is saved, without works, by faith alone, freely receiving remission of sins.

And the term "faith" signifies not only the knowledge of the history of Christ, but also to believe and assent to this promise, which is proper to the Gospel, in which the remission of sins, justification, and eternal life are promised to us for Christ's sake. For this promise also pertains to the history of Christ, just as in the Creed, to the history is added this article: I believe the remission of sins. And the other articles concerning the history of Christ are to be referred to this article. For that benefit is the end of the history. For this reason Christ suffered and was resurrected, that for His sake the remission of sins and eternal life might 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 the remission of sins. And this preaching is twofold and universal. It convicts all of sin, and to all believers it promises the remission of sins, so that the remission may not be uncertain, but that all terrified minds may know they ought to believe that the remission of sins is surely given to us for Christ's sake, not for our merits or worthiness. And when we console ourselves in this way by the promise of the Gospel, and lift ourselves up by faith, we surely obtain the remission of sins, and at the same time the Holy Ghost is given to us. For the Holy Ghost is given and is efficacious through the Word of God and through the Sacraments. When we hear or consider the Gospel, or receive the Sacraments, and console ourselves by faith, the Holy Ghost is at the same time efficacious, according to that saying of Paul to the Galatians, 3: That you might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. And to the Corinthians: The Gospel is the ministry of the Spirit. And to the Romans: Faith comes by hearing. When, therefore, we console ourselves by faith and are freed from the terrors of sin through the Holy Ghost, our hearts conceive other virtues; they come to know the mercy of God truly, they conceive a true love and a true fear of God, confidence, hope in the divine help, invocation, and like fruits of the Spirit.

Condemned are those who teach nothing of this faith, by which the remission of sins is received, but bid consciences to be in doubt whether they obtain remission. And they add that this doubt is not a sin. Likewise, they teach that men obtain remission of sins on account of their own worthiness; they do not teach that we should believe that the remission of sins is given freely for Christ's sake.

Condemned also are the fanatical spirits, who imagine that the Holy Ghost is given, or is efficacious, without the Word of God. And for this cause they contemn the ministry of the Gospel and of the Sacraments, and seek illuminations without the Word of God and outside the Gospel, and thus they lead minds away from the Word of God to their own opinions, which is most pernicious. Such in former times were the Manichaeans, the Enthusiasts, and now are the Anabaptists. We constantly condemn such madness. For they do away with the true use of the Word of God and falsely dream that the Holy Ghost is received without the Word of God, and, relying on their own opinions, they devise impious dogmas and produce infinite dissension.

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)

Likewise, they teach that when we are reconciled by faith, the righteousness of good works, which God has commanded us, must necessarily follow, just as Christ also has commanded: If you would enter into life, keep the commandments. But because the infirmity of human nature is so great that no one can satisfy the law, it is necessary to teach men not only that the law is to be obeyed, but also how this obedience may be pleasing, lest consciences fall into despair when they understand that they do not satisfy the law. This obedience, therefore, is pleasing, not because it satisfies the law, but because the person is reconciled in Christ by faith, and believes his remaining sins are forgiven. Therefore, we must always hold that we obtain remission of sins and that the person is pronounced just, that is, accepted, freely for Christ’s sake, through faith. But afterward, the obedience to the law is also pleasing and is regarded as a kind of righteousness, and merits rewards. For the conscience cannot oppose its own purity or works to the judgment of God, as the Psalmist testifies: Enter not into judgment with Your servant, for in Your sight no one living is justified. And John says: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. And Christ says: When you have done all things, say, "We are unprofitable servants." But after the person is reconciled and just by faith, that is, accepted, the obedience is also pleasing and is reputed to be a kind of righteousness, as John says: Everyone who abides in Him does not sin. And 2 Corinthians 1: For our boasting is this, the testimony of our conscience.

And this obedience ought to resist evil desires and by degrees, through spiritual exercises, become purer, and we should be careful not to do anything against our conscience, according to that saying: The aim of the law is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. But those who obey evil desires and act against their conscience are in mortal sins, and retain neither the righteousness of faith, nor the righteousness of good works. According to that saying of Paul: Those who do such things will 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 is properly the congregation of the members of Christ, that is, of the saints who truly believe and obey Christ; although in this life many evil men and hypocrites are mixed with this congregation, even until the last judgment. The Church, properly so called, has its signs, namely, the pure and sound doctrine of the Gospel, and the right use of the Sacraments. And for the true unity of the Church it is sufficient 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 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 the Church properly is the congregation of saints and true believers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil men are mingled therewith, who nevertheless have fellowship with the Church in the external signs, it is lawful to use Sacraments administered by evil men, according to the saying of Christ: The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, etc. Both the Sacraments and Word of God are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men.

They condemn the Donatists, and such like, who denied it to be lawful to use the ministry of evil men in the Church, and who thought the ministry of evil men to be unprofitable and of none effect.

Article IX: Of Baptism. (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 children are to be baptized, who, being by Baptism commended to God, are received into God’s grace and are made sons of God, as Christ testifies, speaking of the 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 who affirm that infants are saved without Baptism and outside the Church of Christ.

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 the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly exhibited to those who eat in the Lord’s Supper.

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 the 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 enumerate all sins, according to that saying: 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, remission of sins is available at whatever time they are converted. And that the Church ought to impart absolution to such as return to repentance.

But repentance, that is, the conversion of the ungodly, consists properly of these two parts. One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin, in which we also recognize the wrath of God and grieve that we have sinned, and we detest and flee from our sins. As Joel preaches: Rend your hearts and not your garments, and turn to the Lord your God, etc. The other part is faith, which is conceived from the Gospel, or from the absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake sins are surely remitted, and comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Of which faith Paul speaks when he says: Being justified by faith, we have peace. Then good fruits of repentance ought to follow, that is, obedience to God, according to that saying: We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

They condemn the Novatians, who would not absolve those who 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 who contend that remission of sins is obtained on account of the worthiness of contrition, of love, or of other works, and who bid consciences to be in doubt in repentance whether they obtain remission, and who affirm that this doubt is not a sin.

They condemn also those who teach that Canonical satisfactions are necessary to redeem eternal punishment or the pains of purgatory; and if we confess that present calamities are mitigated by good works, as Isaiah teaches, chapter 58: Break your bread for the hungry, etc., And the Lord will give you rest always. They reject also indulgences, which are remissions of feigned satisfactions.

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 instituted, not only to be marks of profession among men, but much more 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 condemn therefore the Pharisaical opinion, which obscures the doctrine of faith, and does not teach that faith is required in the use of the Sacraments, which believes that grace is given to us for Christ’s sake. But it imagines that men are made just on account of the use of the Sacraments ex opere operato, and indeed without a good disposition in the one 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 duly called, just as Paul also commands Titus to appoint presbyters 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 Ecclesiastical Rites, which are instituted by human authority, they teach that those rites are to be observed which can be observed without sin, and which are conducive to tranquility and good order in the Church, such as certain holy days, certain pious chants, and other like rites.

But concerning this kind of thing, they teach that consciences are not to be burdened with superstitious opinions; that is, it is not to be thought that those human ordinances are a righteousness before God, or that they merit the remission of sins, or that they are necessary acts of worship for the righteousness of the Gospel. But it is to be thought that they are things indifferent, which can be omitted outside of the case of scandal. But they sin who violate them with scandal, as those who rashly disturb the tranquility of their Churches, etc.

Rejected therefore are traditions which cannot be observed without sin, such as the tradition of celibacy. Rejected also is the impious opinion concerning traditions and vows, in which it is imagined that acts of worship devised by human authority merit the remission of sins, are satisfactions for sins, etc. Such false persuasions concerning vows, concerning certain fasts, etc., have been spread 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 by God. They teach therefore that it is lawful for Christians to hold civil office, to execute judgments, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just war, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to take an oath when required by the magistrates, to enter into lawful marriage, to practice approved arts according to the laws.

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

They condemn also those who place evangelical perfection in the forsaking of civil offices, since evangelical perfection is spiritual, that is, it consists in the movements of the heart, in the fear of God, in faith, in love, in obedience. For the Gospel preaches an eternal righteousness of the heart. Meanwhile, it does not destroy the civil government or the household, but very much requires that they be preserved in this corporal 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)

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

We condemn the Anabaptists, who now spread Jewish opinions, imagining that before the resurrection the godly shall take possession of the kingdoms of the world, the ungodly being everywhere destroyed or oppressed. For we know that the godly ought to obey their present magistrates, not to seize their governments, nor to dissipate governments by sedition, because Paul commands, Let every soul be subject to his magistrate. We know also that the Church in this life is subject to the cross, and that she will first be glorified after this life, as Paul says, We must be made like the image of the Son of God. Wherefore we utterly condemn and execrate the madness and diabolical fury of the Anabaptists.

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

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 the human will has some liberty to work a civil righteousness, and to choose things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness that is spiritual; because Paul says: The natural man does not perceive the things of the Spirit of God. And Christ says: Without Me you can do nothing. But spiritual 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 by faith in our terrors. As Paul teaches when he says: That you might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in the third book of the Hypognosticon.

We grant that all men have a free will, having indeed the judgment of reason, not that it is thereby capable in things pertaining to God, without God, either to begin, or at least to complete them, but only in works of this present life, whether good or evil. By "good" I mean those things which arise from the goodness of nature, that is, to be willing to labor in the field, to be willing to eat and drink, to be willing to have a friend, to be willing to have clothing, to be willing to build a house, to be willing to take a wife, to raise cattle, to learn the art of diverse good things, to be willing to do whatever is good that pertains to the present life, all of which things do not subsist without divine governance; yea, from God and through Him they are and have their beginning. But by "evil" I mean such things as to be willing to worship an idol, to be willing to commit homicide, etc. This sentence of Augustine clearly teaches what ought to be attributed to free will, and plainly distinguishes civil discipline, or the exercise of human reason, from spiritual movements, from true fear, patience, constancy, faith, invocation, in the sharpest temptations, amidst the snares of the devil, in the terrors of sin. In these things it is certainly needful that we be ruled and aided by the Holy Ghost, as Paul says, The Spirit helps our infirmity.

We condemn the Pelagians and such like, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things, and to do the law of God as touching the substance of the acts. We candidly and necessarily reprehend these dreams, for they obscure the benefits of Christ. For for this reason is Christ the Mediator 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 mind of the flesh is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can it be. For although human nature is able in some way to perform external works by itself (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and from murder), yet it cannot work the inward movements, such as true fear, true confidence, patience, chastity, unless the Holy Ghost governs and helps our hearts. And yet in this place we also teach this, that it is the commandment of God that even carnal men be restrained by the diligence of reason and by that civil discipline, as Paul says, The Law is our schoolmaster in Christ. Likewise, The 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 of ungodly men, which turns itself away from God to other things against the commandment of God. Therefore Christ says of the devil: When he speaks a lie, he speaks from 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 charge that the doctrine of good works is neglected by us, is a manifest calumny. For the books of our theologians are extant, in which they piously and usefully teach concerning good works, what works in every calling are pleasing to God. And while in the churches there was once 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 spent in praising human traditions, in holy days, fasts, monasticism, fraternities, pilgrimages, the worship of saints, Rosaries, and other useless acts of worship, now, by the benefit of God, the Church is called back to true and useful acts of worship, which God approves and requires. The prophets deplore with most grave sermons this calamity of the Church: that with true acts of worship extinguished, human ceremonies and an impious trust in ceremonies should reign in the Church. And by this error they call the Church back to true acts of worship, to truly good works. What can be said more gravely than that sermon in Psalm 49: The Mighty One, God the Lord, speaks and calls the earth? Here God preaches to the whole human race, condemns trust in ceremonies, and proposes other acts of worship, and signifies that He is greatly wroth with those who in the Church so preach ceremonies that they overwhelm true acts of worship. Similar sermons are extant in the Prophets, as in Isaiah 58, and Zechariah 7, and Micah 6, and Hosea cries out: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. And it is not obscure that many good and learned men even before this age have desired a better doctrine concerning the consolation of consciences and concerning the discrimination of works. For it is fitting that there exist in the Church both doctrines: namely, the Gospel concerning faith, for instructing and consoling consciences, and it is also fitting to set forth what are truly good works, which are the true acts of worship of God. But our adversaries, because they corrupt the doctrine of faith, first cannot offer firm consolation to consciences; they bid them to be in doubt concerning the remission of sins. And yet afterward they bid them to seek remission through their own works; they invent monasticism and other works. Then they do away with true acts of worship. For invocation and other spiritual exercises are shaken from minds not confirmed by trust in Christ. Furthermore, works of the second table are not pleasing to God unless faith be added, that this begun and imperfect obedience may be pleasing for Christ’s sake. Thirdly, they obscure the works commanded by God, and they far prefer human traditions. These they adorn with most specious titles; they call them evangelical perfection. In the meantime, concerning the duties of one's calling—of the magistrate, of marriage—they have so frigidly taught that many serious men have doubted whether these kinds of life were pleasing to God. Therefore our preachers, with good zeal, have illustrated both kinds of doctrine. They set forth the Gospel concerning faith, and they add a pious doctrine concerning works.

OF FAITH

First, therefore, we teach thus concerning faith and justification: Christ has aptly comprehended the Sum of the Gospel when, in the last chapter of Luke, He commands that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name. For the Gospel convicts of sins and requires repentance, and at the same time it offers remission of sins for Christ’s sake, freely, not on account of our worthiness. And just as the preaching of repentance is universal, so also is the promise of grace universal, and it commands all to believe and to receive the benefit of Christ, as Christ says, Come to me, all you who are weary. And Paul says, He is rich to all, etc. Although, therefore, some contrition, or repentance, is necessary, yet we must hold that the remission of sins is given to us, and that we are made from unjust to just—that is, reconciled or accepted and sons of God—freely, for Christ’s sake, not on account of the worthiness of our contrition or of other preceding or subsequent works. But this benefit must be received by faith, by which we must believe that for Christ’s sake remission of sins and justification are given to us. This sentence brings firm consolation to terrified minds. And how necessary it is for the Church, experienced consciences can easily judge. And it has nothing absurd, nothing perplexing, nothing sophistic. Here there is no need for disputes about predestination or the like. For the promise is universal, and it detracts nothing from works; nay, it awakens to faith and to truly good works. For the remission of sins is transferred from our works to the mercy of God, that the benefit may be certain, not that we should do nothing, but much more, that we may know how our obedience, in such great infirmity of ours, may be pleasing to God. This sentence, by which the honor of Christ is illustrated, and which sets forth a most sweet and firm consolation to pious minds, which brings forth the knowledge of the divine mercy, and true acts of worship, and eternal life, to spurn and condemn this is more than Pharisaical blindness. When this consolation was not formerly set forth, many anxious consciences tried to heal themselves by 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 bids us to believe that the remission of sins and justification are given to us freely for Christ’s sake. And this whole doctrine is directed to that true conflict of the terrified conscience.

But let us add some testimonies. Paul, Romans 3: We are justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, through faith.

Romans 4: But to him who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.

Ephesians 2: By grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. In these and similar sentences, Paul plainly teaches that the 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 have need of this consolation. For if the promise depended on the worthiness of our works, it would be uncertain. So that, against the terrors of sin and of death, we may have a certain and firm consolation, and that faith may be able to stand, it is necessary that it rest on mercy alone, and not on our worthiness. Therefore Paul says, Therefore it is of faith, that the promise may be sure. For our works cannot be opposed to the judgment of God, according to that saying, If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, who could stand? Therefore a mediator was given to us, Christ. Nor is His honor to be transferred to our works.

When, therefore, we say we are justified by faith, we do not mean that we are just on account of the worthiness of that virtue itself. But this is the meaning: We obtain remission of sins and the imputation of righteousness by mercy for Christ’s sake. But this mercy cannot be received except by faith.

And faith here signifies not only a knowledge of the history, but it signifies to believe the promise of mercy which is available to us through the mediator Christ. And when faith is understood in this way as trust in mercy, Jacob and Paul are not in disagreement. For when Jacob says, The demons believe and tremble, he understands faith to be a knowledge of the history; this does not justify. For the impious and the devil also know the history. But Paul, when he says, Faith is counted as righteousness, speaks of trust in the mercy promised for Christ’s sake. And this is the meaning: Men are pronounced just, that is, reconciled, through mercy, not on account of their own worthiness. But this promised mercy must be received by faith. Now, good minds will not be offended by the newness of this Pauline phrase, We are justified by faith, if they properly understand it to be said of mercy, and adorn it with its 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 spouse of Christ, that they should resolve that the remission of sins or reconciliation is surely given, not on account of our worthiness, but freely through mercy, for Christ’s sake, that the benefit may be certain. Justification in these sentences of Paul signifies the remission of sins, or reconciliation, or the imputation of righteousness, that is, the acceptance of the person.

Nor do we bring forward a new dogma in the Church. For Scripture copiously hands down this doctrine of faith, and Paul treats this point especially in some Epistles. And the holy Fathers teach the same. For thus says Ambrose in Of the Calling of the Gentiles: The redemption by the blood of Christ would become of little value, nor would the prerogative of human works be subjected to the mercy of God, if the justification which is by grace were due to preceding merits, so that it would not be the gift of a bestower, but the wages of a worker. And there are many entire disputes on this matter in Augustine. Of which these are his words: Inasmuch as through the law He showed man his infirmity, that by faith he might flee for healing to His mercy. For it is said that he carries law and mercy on his tongue: the law, by which he makes the proud guilty; but mercy, by which he justifies the humble. The righteousness of God, therefore, is through the faith of Jesus Christ for all who believe, etc.

And the Synod of Milevis writes: Is it not sufficiently shown that this was done by the law, that sin might be known, and so, against the victory of sin, one might flee to the divine grace which is set forth in the promises, that the promises of God, that is, the grace of God, might be sought for liberation, and that there might begin to be in man a righteousness, not his own, but of God.

OF GOOD WORKS

Since we set forth the necessary doctrine of faith and consolation to the churches, the doctrine of good works is also added: that is, that in the reconciled, obedience to the law of God is necessary. For the Gospel preaches a new life, according to that saying, I will put my law in their hearts. This new life, therefore, must be obedience to God. And the Gospel preaches repentance. Nor can faith exist except in those who repent, because faith consoles hearts in contrition and in the terrors of sin, as Paul teaches, Being justified by faith, we have peace. And concerning repentance he says, Romans 6: Our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. And Isaiah says, Where will the Lord dwell? In the contrite and humble spirit, etc.

Secondly, among good works, the chief and highest worship of God is faith itself, and it gives birth to many other virtues which cannot exist unless the heart has first conceived faith. For Paul says, How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? As long as minds are in doubt whether they are heard by God, as long as they feel themselves rejected by God, they do not truly call upon God. But when by faith we acknowledge mercy, we flee to God, we love Him, we call upon Him, we hope, we expect help, we obey in afflictions, because now we know that we are sons, and that our sacrifice and our afflictions are pleasing to God. Faith gives birth to these acts of worship. Ambrose therefore says excellently, Faith is the mother of a good will and of just action. Our adversaries wish to appear to magnificently adorn the doctrine of good works, and yet concerning these spiritual works—concerning faith, concerning the exercises of faith in invocation, in all the affairs, counsels, and perils of life—they say nothing. And indeed, one cannot speak rightly of these exercises if consciences are left in doubt, if they do not know that God requires faith as the chief act of worship. And when that great spectacle of external works is cast 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 concerning these interior works and the fruits of the Spirit. For these works make the distinction between the pious and hypocrites. External acts of worship, external ceremonies, and other external works can also be performed by hypocrites. But these acts of worship alone belong to the true Church: true repentance, fear, faith, invocation, etc. These acts of worship are chiefly required and praised in the scriptures, as in Psalm 49: Offer to God the sacrifice of praise; call upon me in the day of trouble, etc.

Thirdly. By this faith, which consoles our hearts in repentance, we receive the Holy Spirit, who is given that He may govern and help us, that we may resist sin and the devil, and may more and more acknowledge our infirmity, and that the knowledge of God, fear, and faith may grow in us. Wherefore, obedience to God and a new life ought to grow in us, as Paul teaches, that we ought to be renewed to the knowledge of God, that a new light and image of Him who created us may be brought about in us, etc.

Fourthly. We also teach when this commenced obedience is pleasing to God. For in such great infirmity and impurity of our nature, the saints do not satisfy the law; there is therefore need for pious consolation, that they may know how this small and imperfect obedience is pleasing to God. For it is not pleasing because it satisfies the law, but because the persons are reconciled and just for Christ’s sake, and they believe that their weakness is forgiven them. Thus Paul teaches, There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ, etc. Although, therefore, this new obedience is far from the perfection of the law, yet it is righteousness and merits a reward, because the persons are reconciled. And thus we are to judge of works, which indeed are to be adorned with most ample praises, because they are necessary, because they are acts of worship of God and spiritual sacrifices and merit a reward. But yet, this consolation must first be held concerning the person, which is necessary in the conflict of conscience: that by faith we freely have remission of sins, and the person is just, that is, reconciled, and an heir of eternal life, for Christ’s sake; and that afterward the obedience is pleasing, according to that saying, Now 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 of death are to be conquered by trust in the mediator Christ, as it is written, O death, I will be your death. And John 6, Christ says: This is the will of the Father who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life. And Paul, Being justified by faith, we have peace. And the Church always prays, Forgive us our debts. And thus the holy Fathers themselves teach concerning the weakness of the saints and concerning faith. Augustine, in his exposition of Psalm 30, says: In your righteousness deliver me. For if you should regard my righteousness, you condemn me. In your righteousness deliver me. For there is a righteousness of God which also becomes ours when it is given to us. But it is called the righteousness of God for this reason, lest man think that he has righteousness from himself. As the Apostle Paul also says: To him who believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, that is, who makes the ungodly man just. If he should act as though according to the proposed rule of the law, the sinner would be condemned. By this rule, if he were to act, whom would it set free? It finds all to be sinners. This the Apostle says: All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. What is it to fall short of the glory of God? That He Himself may set you free, not you. Because you cannot set yourself free, you are in need of a liberator. Why do you boast of yourself? Why do you presume on the law and on righteousness? Do you not see what fights within you? Do you not hear him who struggles, and confesses, and desires help in the fight: Wretched man that I am, etc.? It can easily be judged that this doctrine is necessary for the Church, that men may know they do not satisfy the law, and yet may have consolation, how this imperfect obedience is pleasing. This doctrine, certain absurd persuasions formerly horribly overwhelmed, in which the unlearned, against the authority of Scripture and of the ancient Church, imagined that men satisfy the law of God; likewise, that they are just on account of the fulfillment of the law, etc. And that monks are perfect, and perform greater and more excellent works than the law of God demands. In the meantime, there was the deepest silence about how the mediator Christ should be apprehended by faith; but they bade men to doubt, or to trust in their own works.

Furthermore, 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 fight against them, but obey them against the command of God, and commit actions against their conscience, these are unjust, and they retain neither the Holy Spirit, nor faith, that is, trust in mercy. For in those who delight in sins, and who do not repent, faith cannot even exist, which seeks the remission of sins.

Fifthly. It is necessary also to teach this: how men can do good works. It has just been said how they are pleasing to God; here we add also how they can be done. Although men by their own strength can perform external honest works in some way, and they ought to perform this discipline, yet men without faith are in the power of the devil, who impels them to manifest baseness, and occupies their minds with impious and blasphemous opinions; for that is the kingdom and tyranny of the devil. Besides this, nature by itself is weak, and without the help of God it cannot raise itself up and perform spiritual works. Therefore we teach that in the Gospel the Holy Spirit is promised, who helps and governs the minds of those who repent and assent to the Gospel. Wherefore, in all of life, in such great weakness of nature, amidst these snares of the devil, in all perils, faith is to be exercised in invocation, so that we may be able to persevere in faith and in obedience to God.

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 the blood of Christ, and may learn the true use of the ceremony, Both Kinds in the Sacrament are given to the laity in the Lord's Supper; because the sacrament was instituted not only for a part of the Church, namely, for the presbyters, but also for the rest of the Church. Therefore, the people also use the Sacrament as Christ instituted it. And indeed Christ says in Matthew 26: Drink of it, all of you, where He manifestly says of the cup, that all should drink. And lest any man should craftily say that this refers only to priests, Paul's ordinance to the Corinthians testifies that the entire Church commonly used both kinds. This custom long remained even in the Latin churches, nor is it certain when, or by what author, it was changed. Cyprian in some places testifies that the blood was given to the people. So Jerome writes somewhere to Pope Cornelius: By what means do we teach or exhort them to shed their blood in confessing His name, if we deny the blood of Christ to those who are to be His soldiers? Or how do we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them to drink the cup of the Lord in the Church by the right of communion? And Jerome says: The priests administer the Eucharist and distribute the blood of Christ to the people.

There is extant in the Decrees a canon of Pope Gelasius, who forbids the sacrament to be divided, in these words: We have learned, however, that certain persons, having received only a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the cup of the sacred blood; who, without a doubt, since they are bound by I know not what superstition, should either receive the entire Sacraments or be debarred from the entire, because a division of one and the same mystery cannot occur without great sacrilege.

In the Tripartite History it is written concerning the rebuke of the Emperor Theodosius, whom Ambrose would not admit to communion without penance, because he had too harshly avenged the slaughter of a few soldiers at Thessalonica, and had slain seven thousand citizens. Here Ambrose says: With what hands will you receive the holy body of the Lord? With what rashness will you, with your mouth, receive the cup of the precious blood? etc. It is manifest, therefore, that the custom of the ancient Church was to give both parts of the sacrament to the people. Only a custom, not so ancient, takes the other part away from the people. But we will not dispute what is to be thought of a custom received against the authority of the apostolic Scripture, against the Canons, and against the example of the ancient Church. All pious men 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. Although, therefore, custom has changed the ancient rite in the Latin Church, yet it neither disapproves nor prohibits it. Nor indeed ought human authority to prohibit the ordinance of Christ and the most received custom of the ancient Church. Therefore we have not thought that the use of the entire sacrament should be forbidden. And in that ceremony which ought to be a bond of mutual love in the Church, we have not wished to be harsh against charity toward the consciences of others, who preferred to use the entire sacrament, nor have we thought that any cruelty should be exercised in this matter. But as much as we are able, we have, together with the ceremony itself, restored the pious doctrine concerning the fruit of the ceremony, so that the people may understand how the sacrament has been set forth for the consoling of the consciences of those who repent. This doctrine invites the pious to the use and reverence of the sacrament. And for not only was the ceremony formerly mutilated, but the chief doctrine of its fruit was also neglected. And perhaps the mutilation of the ceremony signified that the Gospel concerning the blood of Christ had been obscured, that is, concerning the benefit of Christ's death. Now, by the benefit of God, the pure doctrine of faith is 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 preaches marriage, and commands 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, the marriages of priests are prohibited, and those contracted are dissolved. And this is the more unworthy, because these things are done in the Church, which ought especially to abhor baseness. Thus, marriage ought to have been protected with the greatest zeal to avoid many great evils. Besides this, since in all moderately constituted pagan commonwealths, for most serious reasons, marriage has been held in great honor, what is less fitting in the Church than to dissolve the most holy bond of marriage, or to punish marriage with capital penalties, as though it were the highest crime? Whence has this inhumanity pervaded the Church, in which mutual love ought to excel? Moreover, the matter speaks for itself, how much baseness and wickedness the pontifical law concerning celibacy produces. Nor can it be said by any human voice how many vices have flooded into the Church from this source. For, not to speak of the Epicureans, whom nothing shames, how many pious and good men have unhappily struggled with the infirmity of nature, and at last have fallen into horrible despair. But to what end is this new cruelty, unless that those infinite wicked deeds in the Church be confirmed, and that the wicked may sin with more impunity?

This cause has no need of disputation. For this new law, which is now defended by our adversaries, which both prohibits marriages to priests and dissolves those contracted, conflicts with natural law, with divine law, with the Gospel, with the constitutions of the ancient synods, and with the examples of the ancient Church. We have need only of the piety and equity of our most excellent Emperor, whom we beseech that for the sake of his piety and his office, the tyrannical law having been abolished, he would endeavor to heal the Church. Since all unjust cruelty is displeasing to God, then especially that which is exercised against pious and learned priests, who have well deserved of the Church. And not only do the divine oracles threaten the most atrocious penalties to those who exercise cruelty against priests, but examples are also extant from all ages which prove that those threats are not in vain. For, to omit other innumerable examples, the tribe of Benjamin was almost entirely destroyed on account of the violated wife of the priest's host. For when the corpse of the little woman, who, having been vexed by outrages, had died, was cut in pieces and sent to the princes of Israel, the entire people judged that so great an inhumanity ought to be punished most severely. And when the authors of the deed were not given up for punishment, the whole tribe of Benjamin, having received a great disaster, paid the penalty. But at this time, priests are afflicted with multiple injuries. They, against whom indeed no crime is charged except marriage, are tortured with horrible punishments and killed; their wretched wives and little children, cast from their nests, wander as exiles, without a certain abode, without shelter, without a home. Paul calls the prohibition of marriage a doctrine of demons. To this testify not only the most shameful vices which celibacy has brought into the Church, but also this very harshness which is exercised on account of this law against priests, and their wives and children. For the devil is a murderer, and is especially delighted by the calamities of the pious. But one day the authors of such counsels will pay the penalty to God. We have judged this cruelty to be neither worthy of Christians, nor useful to the Church.

But as to 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 against wicked deeds worthy of punishment? There ought to be no authority of a Pontifical decree which conflicts with the law of nature and with the commandment of God. By nature men are so made that they may be fruitful; wherefore the Jurists say that the union of male and female is of the law of nature. And this Genesis teaches in the first and second chapters. Furthermore, as Paul says: Let every man have his own wife to avoid fornication, he surely commands all who are not fit for celibacy to contract marriage. And Christ admonishes that not all men are fit for celibacy, when he says: Not all men can receive this saying.

Furthermore, neither human laws nor vows are valid which conflict with the divine commandment. And the event itself testifies that nature cannot be changed by human laws. We see how much baseness that celibacy produces. And if there are any good men who strive to be chaste, they understand the magnitude of the burden and the peril, and they especially deplore this servitude of their order. In the Nicene Synod, certain men attempted to pass a law that priests should be forbidden the custom of marriage. This law was rejected by the entire Synod. And the Latin Church was once more lenient. For it only dismissed from their ministry those who, while holding ecclesiastical office, took wives; it did not prohibit marriage. This new law of the Pontiffs is unknown to the ancient Church and to the Synods, which wholly prohibits marriage and dissolves what is contracted.

It is manifest, moreover, that both parts of this decree conflict with the Gospel. Against us is alleged the authority of the Church and of the Synods, which the Pontiffs themselves, the authors of this decree, have impudently contemned. Nor have pious priests obscurely protested against this new law. For ecclesiastical histories testify that it was imposed upon the churches not without the sharpest conflicts. The Bishop of Tarragona writes to Pope Siricius that the priests of Spain cannot be induced to accept the law by which they were forbidden the custom of their wives. What tragedies Siricius makes there, how severely he writes back!

For these are the words of Siricius, unworthy of a pontiff: Let him now tell me, whoever he may be, this follower of lusts and teacher of vices... And then he twists the most foreign saying of Paul to his own cause: Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. It is indeed doubtful whether it should be ascribed to ignorance or to impudence that he speaks so contumeliously of marriage. For nothing else was at stake than that priests be forbidden the use of their wives, whom they then had. Afterward, later Pontiffs were much harsher, when the Pontifical decree concerning the casting away of wives was recited in a Synod in Germany by the Archbishop of Mainz. The priests were so inflamed with rage that they threatened to make an attack on the Archbishop himself. And it was a matter both unworthy and harsh to cast away their present wives; but at last, either force or superstition conquered. How much milder was Cyprian to women who did not keep their promised chastity! For he writes in the first book, eleventh Epistle: If they are 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.

Moreover, unjust laws are not wont to be perpetual. We therefore beseech our most excellent Emperor that, among the other disadvantages of the Church, he would also consider the vices of this law, in which matter this also is to be considered: The very nature of men, as it were, grows old and becomes more infirm. Wherefore, it is to be foreseen, lest more vices creep in. Nor ought the laws themselves to be the seeds of vices. Plato most pleasingly says that laws are to be made for the sake of virtue. But whether the tradition of celibacy is defended for the sake of piety, or for some other counsel, is not difficult to judge. Lastly, since Christ especially commended to the pious the care of the ministers of the Gospel, we beseech the most excellent Emperor to prohibit the cruelty which has long now been exercised against pious men, the priests, and that he would rather deliberate with the Church than with our adversaries. Love and mercy ought to excel in the Church. Wherefore the true Church especially abhors unnecessary cruelty, nor does she wish priests to be killed on account of a tyrannical tradition. She wishes also to spare the wretched wives and children of priests. The Church commends the life and salvation of all these to you, most clement Emperor. All the pious everywhere on earth are affected by these calamities, and silently they desire Christian leniency in this business, and with common tears they commend to you the learned and good men, useful to the Church, and their wives and children, whom they see you to be by nature endowed with a certain excellent and heroic goodness, and to have in this cause hitherto used a singular moderation, which indeed signifies that you are deliberating on the right healing of the commonwealth. The Church does not wish you to be the minister of another's cruelty. The greatest honor of Kings is that which Isaiah attributes to them, when he says that they ought to be the nursing fathers of the Church; that is, that governments ought to serve not only for corporal utility, but also for the defense of peace and of human society, and also to aid the Gospel, namely, by protecting the priests and by granting tranquility to the cities, so that the youth may be instructed in religion and men may be taught. The Church, therefore, asks that you remember that pious priests are to be cared for by you as your wards. It is your office to be a shield for innocence, to repel injuries, especially from the weak who cannot protect themselves: from pious women, from childhood, from orphans. In these also you should consider the wives and children of priests, who are truly orphans, to have been divinely committed to you.

The Church is most tenderly affectionate, and not only does she approve of the love of a wife among themselves, and of parents toward their children, she is also herself affected by the sorrows of the forsaken and of orphans. And indeed, in so great a goodness of your nature, she judges nothing to be unfeeling; wherefore she hopes that the executions and tortures of priests, and the exiles of their wives and children, also bring grief to you. The Church also admonishes this, that you take care lest many places of Christian doctrine, whose explanation is necessary, be at the same time oppressed, while the piously learned are killed, while the studies of Christian doctrine are shaken from men. What else do our adversaries do but that, all letters having been destroyed and doctrine oppressed, men should depend only on the authority of those who rule; that the dreams of the unlearned, however impious, however absurd, should be considered oracles? Our adversaries think this barbaric servitude is profitable to their dominion. Nor in many places does the oppressed Church now lie obscurely in this servitude. And although we also embrace the ancient Synods which agree with apostolic doctrine, yet it is not fitting to use the authority of the Church as a pretext for all abuses and vices which a more recent and worse age has brought into the Church. Men flatter themselves too much if they think no vice has been derived into the Church from the affections of covetous men, from those labyrinths and darknesses of scholastic doctrine and of traditions. Nor indeed are good men at this time so much endangered on account of marriage as on account of their zeal for repurifying and illustrating Christian doctrine, which the bishops ought to rule and to aid. For to these especially has been commended the care of adorning and defending doctrine; these ought to be the governors and promoters of this most holy and most 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 vigilant, lest impious opinions be received or confirmed, and to abolish idolatry with all zeal. In these offices many great heroes among the pious have deserved well: Gideon, Hezekiah, Josiah, Constantine, and many others. Wherefore you will consider it also to be of your office to take care lest those things which have been piously and usefully disclosed and amended by good and learned men be overwhelmed; lest impious abuses be established by your authority. The Psalmist says: For the sake of Your temple at Jerusalem, kings shall bring presents to You.

Proper, however, are the duties of Kings to be conferred upon the Church: to inquire into true doctrine, and to take care that good doctors are set over the churches; to give diligence that ecclesiastical controversies may be rightly judged; not to destroy pious doctrine, but rather to excite and propagate it, and to rightly constitute and protect the concord of the Church. With these true duties you can now, most excellent Emperor, adorn the Church of Christ, which indeed He Himself especially requires of you, and which the churches, torn in horrible ways, seek. Lastly, since human traditions ought to yield to the times, especially in the Church, in which the salvation of the pious, love, and public peace ought to be of far more account than any human traditions, it is much better to dissemble the abrogation of this little tradition concerning celibacy than to confirm lusts, to dissipate marriages, to take up cruelty against priests and their wives and children, to oppress pious doctrine, and to work devastation in the churches. And although the world in all ages has paid the signal penalties for its lusts, as the histories testify, we do not doubt that these things 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)

Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and is celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been added to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned be taught. And not only has Paul commanded to use in the church a language understood by the people, but it has also been so ordained by man’s law. The people are accustomed to partake of the Sacrament together, if any be fit for it, and this also increases the reverence and devotion of public worship. For none are admitted except they be first examined. The people are also advised concerning the dignity and use of the Sacrament, how great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, that they may learn to believe God, and to expect and ask of Him all that is good. These are the true acts of worship of Christians. These acts of worship—fear, faith, invocation, hope, etc.—God approves. Therefore, when these acts of worship are exercised in the use of the ceremonies, the use of the Sacrament is pleasing to God. Inasmuch, then, as the people are accustomed to the ceremony and are advised of its use, the Masses among us are held rightly and piously. And all things are done in the Church with greater gravity and reverence than in times past.

It is also manifest that for many centuries there has been a public complaint from good men concerning the abuse and profanation of the Mass. For it is not obscure how widely this abuse extends in all the temples, by what manner of men Masses are celebrated, and against the interdict of the Canons. Then, how basely they are applied to sacrilegious gain. For very many celebrate Masses, both without repentance, and only for the sake of their belly. These things are more known than can be disguised. Nor does it seem that any divine thing from the beginning of the world has been so commonly applied to gain as the Mass. Paul threatens horribly those who treat the sacrament unworthily when he says: Whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. And in the Decalogue it is written: He who misuses the name of God will not be held guiltless. As, therefore, the world has at other times paid the penalties for idolatry, so there is no doubt that this great profanation of the Mass will be punished with the most atrocious penalties. And perhaps for this cause chiefly the Church is afflicted in these last times with blindness, discords, wars, and many other plagues. And these manifest abuses the bishops, though they were not ignorant of them, have hitherto not only tolerated, but have even sweetly smiled upon. Now, late, they begin to complain of the calamities of the Church, when no other thing has offered occasion for the tumults of these times than the abuses themselves, which were so manifest that they could no longer be tolerated by moderate men. Would that the bishops, for the sake of their office, had before these times restrained the avarice and impudence of the monks or of others who have turned the Mass to a matter of profit, having changed the custom of the ancient Church.

But we shall state from what source those abuses have sprung. The opinion has been spread in the Church that the Lord’s Supper is a work which, when celebrated by a priest, merits remission of sins, both of guilt and of punishment, for the one performing it and for others, and this ex opere operato [by the work having been performed], without a good disposition in the one using it. Likewise, that when applied for the dead, it is a satisfaction, that is, that it merits for them the remission of the pains of purgatory. Thus they interpret the sacrifice when they call the Mass a sacrifice: a work, that is, which, when applied for others, merits for them the remission of guilt and of punishments, and this ex opere operato, without a good disposition in the one using it. Thus they interpret the oblation made by the priest in the Mass for the living and the dead. This persuasion having been received, men then taught to seek the remission of sins and all manner of goods, and to free the dead from their pains, by the benefit of the Mass. It did not matter by what sort of men the Masses were performed, because they taught that they benefited others without a good disposition in the one using them. Then it was questioned whether one Mass said for many is worth as much as individual Masses for individuals. This dispute and the number of Masses and the gain have grown infinitely. But we do not now dispute about gain; we accuse the impiety. For our teachers teach that this opinion concerning 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 of this cause if one considers the arguments which follow.

First. Above, we have shown that men obtain the remission of sins freely by faith, that is, by trust in the mercy of God for Christ's sake. Therefore, it is impossible to obtain the remission of sins through another’s work, and indeed without a good disposition, that is, without one’s own faith. This argument clearly refutes that monstrous and impious opinion concerning the merit and application of the Mass.

Second. The passion of Christ was an oblation and satisfaction, not only for original guilt, but also for all other sins, as it is written to the Hebrews: We have been sanctified through the offering of Jesus Christ once for all. Likewise: By one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. Furthermore, a good part of the Epistle to the Hebrews is spent in confirming this sentence, that the sacrifice of Christ alone has merited for others the remission of sins or reconciliation. It says that for this reason the Levitical sacrifices were repeated yearly, because they did not abolish sin. But by the sacrifice of Christ, satisfaction has been made once for all sins. This honor of the sacrifice of Christ ought not to be transferred to the work of a priest. For He says plainly that by one oblation the saints have been perfected. Besides, it is impious to transfer our confidence, which ought to rest on the oblation and intercession of Christ the high priest Himself, to the work of a priest.

Third. In the institution of the Lord's Supper, Christ does not command that priests should offer for others, living and dead. By what authority, therefore, has this rite, as an oblation for sins, been instituted in the Church without a commandment of God?

It is much more absurd that the Mass is applied to liberating the souls of the dead. For the Mass was instituted for a remembrance, that is, that those using the Lord’s Supper, by remembrance of the benefit of Christ, should lift up and confirm their faith, and console their terrified consciences. Nor is the Mass a satisfaction for punishment, but it was instituted for the remission of guilt; namely, not that it be a satisfaction for guilt, but that it be a sacrament by which we who use it may be reminded of the benefit of Christ and the remission of guilt. Since, therefore, that application of the Lord’s Supper to liberate the dead has been received without the authority of Scripture, yea, against Scripture, it is to be condemned as a new and impious rite.

Fourth. A ceremony without faith in the New Testament merits nothing, neither for the one performing it, nor for others. For it is a dead work, according to that saying of Christ: The true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. The same is proved by the whole of chapter 11 to the Hebrews: By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice. Likewise: Without faith it is impossible to please God. Therefore, the Mass does not merit remission of guilt or of punishment ex opere operato. This reason plainly refutes the merit, which they call ex opere operato.

Fifth. The application of the benefit of Christ is made by one’s own faith, as Paul testifies in Romans 3: Whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, through faith. And this application is made freely. Therefore, the application is not made by another’s work, nor on account of another’s work. For when we use the sacraments, the application is made by our work and our faith, not by the work of another. For if remission should not come to us except by applied Masses, it would be uncertain, and confidence would have to be transferred from Christ to the work of a priest, which, as is manifest, has happened. Moreover, confidence placed in the work of man is condemned.

Sixth. These and many other arguments testify that the opinion concerning the merit and application of the Mass for the living and the dead must necessarily be censured. Now, if it be considered how widely this error has ranged in the Church, how by this persuasion the number of Masses has increased, how by this sacrifice remission of guilt and of punishment has been promised to the living and the dead, it will be apparent that the Church, on account of this profanation, has been deformed by horrendous sins. Never has a graver cause, most excellent Emperor, arisen in the Church, or one more worthy for learned and good men to deliberate upon diligently. All the pious, with most ardent vows, ought to petition God that the Church be freed from these sins. All kings and bishops ought to strive with all zeal, that this whole cause being rightly explained, the Church may be repurified.

The institution of the sacrament fights against that abuse. For nothing is commanded concerning an oblation for the sins of the living and the dead. But it is commanded that the body and blood of the Lord be received, and that this be done in remembrance of the benefit of Christ. But "remembrance" signifies not some historical representation as in a spectacle, as they dream who defend merit ex opere operato, but it signifies to remember by faith the promise and benefit, to console the conscience, and to give thanks for so great a benefit. For the principal cause of its institution is that faith be there excited and exercised, when we receive this pledge of grace. Furthermore, the institution ordains that there be a communion, that is, that the ministers of the Church should also distribute the body and blood of the Lord to others. And that this custom was observed in the primitive Church, Paul testifies to the Corinthians, who also commands that some should wait for others, that there may be a common participation.

The abuses of the private Mass having therefore been disclosed, because many of them were performed on account of that application for the sins of others and do not agree with the institution of Christ, they have ceased in our churches. But one common Mass has been instituted, according to the ordinance of Christ, in which the pastors of the churches consecrate, receive, and distribute to others the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And such a Mass is held on individual feast days, and also on other days, if any wish to use the sacrament. Nor are they admitted to communion unless they are first examined. There are also added pious sermons, as Christ commanded, that sermons be held when this ceremony is performed. And in these sermons, when other articles and precepts of the Gospel are diligently taught to men, they are then also admonished for what use the sacrament was instituted; namely, not that this ceremony ex opere operato merits for them the remission of sins, but that the sacrament is a testimony, a pledge, by which Christ testifies that He bestows His promises upon us, and that the promises pertain to us, that Christ exhibits His body to us to testify that He is efficacious in us as in His members, He exhibits His blood to testify that we are washed by His blood. The sacrament, therefore, is profitable to those who repent, and who there seek consolation, and being confirmed by this testimony, believe that the remission of sins is truly bestowed upon them, and they give thanks to Christ for so great a benefit. Thus is the application of the benefit of Christ made, not on account 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, the very ordinance of Christ testifies that the benefit of the Gospel pertains to us. Such a use of the sacrament is pious and is to be taught in the churches; it both illustrates the doctrine of faith and of spiritual exercises and of true acts of worship, and it brings great consolation to pious consciences and raises up faith. Before these times, the churches were taught far otherwise concerning the use of the sacrament. Nothing was proposed except that this work had to be done. Of faith, of the consolation of consciences, no one made any mention. And consciences were vexed by the immoderate diligence of confession. They thought this to be the purity which the Gospel requires, when the Gospel requires true fear and true confidence, and consoles us by the use of this sacrament, so that those who repent may believe that they surely have a propitious God for Christ's sake, even though our nature is infirm and impure, even though this our commenced obedience is far from the perfection of the law. From all these things it is sufficiently clear that the Mass among us agrees with the institution of Christ and with the rite of the primitive Church. Besides, it especially illustrates 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, and keeps others away. And from the decrees of the Nicene Synod it is apparent that one person celebrated the Liturgy, as the Greeks call it, who distributed the body and blood of the Lord to all the others. For these are the words of the decree: Let the deacons, according to their order, receive the holy communion after the presbyters, from the bishop or from a presbyter. Here it plainly says that the presbyters themselves receive the sacrament from the one who distributes it. Nor is any mention made of private Masses before the time of Gregory. But as often as the ancients speak of the Mass, it is apparent that they speak of a certain common Mass. Since, therefore, the rite of the Mass among us has the authority of Scripture and the example of the ancient Church, and since only certain intolerable abuses have been cast away, we hope that the custom of our churches cannot be disapproved. Other indifferent rites are for the most part preserved in the accustomed manner. But the number of Masses is different. Nor in former times was the Mass celebrated daily even in the most frequented churches, as the Tripartite History, book 9, chapter 38, testifies: But again in Alexandria, on the fourth and sixth weekdays the scriptures are read and the doctors interpret them, and all things are done except for the solemn rite of the oblation.

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)

Theologians and canonists have cast great darkness upon this part of Christian doctrine, concerning repentance. And not only do their own libraries testify to this, but so do the consciences of all the pious, which confess that those inextricable disputes of the theologians and the infinite traditions concerning repentance have been a horrible butchery of consciences. For they never teach anything certain about how remission of sins is obtained; concerning faith there is the deepest silence. Yea, they bid men to be in perpetual doubt concerning the remission of sins. Afterward, they torture consciences with the harsh enumeration of sins, and likewise with Satisfactions. And what a snare for the conscience was the tradition which commands all sins to be enumerated!

But Satisfactions have obscured the benefit of Christ, because even the learned imagine that by them eternal death is compensated. The unlearned thought that by these works the remission of guilt is purchased. And what of the fact that for the most part they were acts of worship not commanded by God: babblings of prayers, invocations of saints, pilgrimages, and other things of this kind? Thus the simple doctrine of repentance was buried under a great heap of useless and evil opinions. And it is manifest that for many centuries good men have desired a purer doctrine.

It is especially needful, therefore, that there exist in the Church a most pure and simple doctrine concerning repentance. For this reason, our teachers have taken the greatest pains to bring light to this article, which indeed they have so disclosed and illustrated that even the more sound of our adversaries confess that they have, in this matter, well deserved of the Church.

For simply, plainly, without any sophistry, we set forth the sentence of the Gospel concerning repentance, so that men may understand how they ought to return to Christ, how they may obtain the remission of sins, and which acts of worship, which works, are pleasing to God. First, we teach that contrition is necessary, that is, true terrors and sorrows of the soul, which acknowledges the wrath of God and grieves that it has sinned, and ceases to perpetrate evil. And although these sorrows are necessary, yet it must be known that the remission of sins is not given on account of the worthiness of contrition or of these sorrows. But faith is to be added, that is, confidence in the mercy promised for Christ’s sake, and we are to resolve that sins are remitted freely for Christ's sake.

When we are raised up by this faith in those terrors, we surely obtain the remission of sins, as we have shown above. And our minds conceive this faith from the Gospel, and from Absolution, which announces the Gospel and applies it to terrified consciences. Therefore our teachers teach that private Absolution is to be retained in the churches, and they adorn its dignity and the power of the Keys with true and most ample praises; namely, that the power of the Keys administers the Gospel, not only to all in general, but also privately to individuals, as Christ says: You will have gained your brother, etc. And that we must believe that voice of the Gospel which is administered to us in Absolution by the ministry of the Church, 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 of no avail unless we are sufficiently contrite. And afterward they bid men to be in doubt concerning absolution, because no one knew himself to be sufficiently contrite. What was this but to snatch the consolation of the Gospel from consciences, and to take away from the Church and utterly abolish the ministry of the Gospel, or the power of the Keys? Who does not see that these most pernicious errors are rightly reprehended?

But since Confession offers a place for imparting absolution privately, and since the rite itself preserves in the people the understanding of the power of the Keys and of the remission of sins, and since, moreover, that conference is of great benefit for admonishing and instructing men, we diligently retain Confession in our churches, but in such a way that we teach that the enumeration of sins is not necessary by divine right, nor are consciences to be burdened with that enumeration. For no precept concerning this enumeration is extant in the apostolic scriptures. And the recounting of all sins is impossible, according to that Psalm: Who can understand his errors? Likewise Jeremiah says: The heart of man is corrupt and inscrutable. But if no sins were remitted except those recounted, consciences could never find peace, because they can neither see nor remember very many sins. For which reason it can be easily understood that the ministry of absolution and remission does not depend on the condition of enumeration.

The ancient writers also testify that the enumeration is not necessary. For Chrysostom in his Epistle to the Hebrews says: Let us persuade ourselves that we have sinned, and let us not pronounce it with the tongue only, but also with an intimate conscience; let us not only say we are sinners, but let us also reckon up our specific sins. I do not say to you that you should betray yourself in public, nor that you should accuse yourself before others, but that you should obey the Prophet: ‘Reveal your way to the Lord.’ Confess your sins before God, before the true Judge, with prayer. Pronounce your sins, not with the tongue, but with the memory of your conscience, and then hope that you can obtain mercy. This sermon of Chrysostom not only teaches what is to be thought of enumeration, but also most gravely joins together contrition and faith. Just as we join them, it first bids that we truly acknowledge our sins and detest them from the heart, then it teaches to add prayer and faith, which resolve that we are forgiven. And elsewhere he says: Declare your sins that they may be blotted out. If you are ashamed to say what you have sinned, say it daily in your soul. I do not say that you should confess them to a servant, that he may reproach you. Say them to God, that He may cure them.

The gloss in the Decrees on Repentance, fifth distinction, also confesses that Confession was instituted by the Church, and is not commanded in the scriptures of the old and new testament, and many doctors have thought the same. Wherefore our sentence concerning Confession is neither new nor absurd.

Lastly, concerning Satisfactions, it was most needful to admonish pious minds. For Satisfactions have had even more inconvenience than that enumeration. For they obscured the benefit of Christ, because the unlearned thought that they obtained remission of guilt on account of those their own works; and when anything in these was omitted, consciences were troubled. Likewise, ceremonies, pilgrimages, and other useless works of this kind, not commanded by God, were chosen. And with these the doctors themselves imagined that eternal death was compensated.

Therefore we have thought that pious minds should be freed from these errors, and we teach that satisfactions, namely those canonical ones which they themselves call works not owed, etc., neither avail for the remission of guilt, nor for the remission of eternal punishment, nor are they necessary. In former times in the Church, the custom in public repentance was not to receive the lapsed who were returning to the Church unless some penalty was added for the sake of example. From that custom satisfactions arose. But the ancients by that example wished to deter the people from sinning; they did not think that ceremony was a compensation for guilt or for eternal death or for purgatory. These things the unlearned afterward invented.

But those ancient customs in time grew old and were antiquated. We, therefore, do not burden consciences with satisfactions, but we teach that the fruits of repentance are necessary: obedience, the fear of God, faith, love, chastity, and the whole newness of the spirit ought to grow in us.

We admonish this also, that sins are often punished with temporal punishments in this life, as David, Manasseh, and many others were punished. And we teach that these punishments are mitigated by good works and by a universal repentance, as Paul teaches: If we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged by the Lord. And repentance merited that God changed the sentence concerning the destruction of Nineveh.

Thus, since the disputes concerning repentance were formerly inextricable and full of absurd opinions, the doctrine, now repurified, is so handed down to the people that it can be understood and can be profitable for piety. We retain and illustrate the true parts of repentance: Contrition, Faith, Absolution, the Remission of sins, the Amendment of the whole life, and the mitigation of present punishments.

And we hope that good men in this place will not only reprehend nothing, but will also be grateful to those who have repurified this part of Christian doctrine, which it is profitable to have in the Churches explained and illustrated as plainly as possible. Christ says that the angels in heaven rejoice when they see a sinner repent. Therefore, the Churches, and the angels themselves, rejoice in the pure doctrine of 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 corporal life, traditions are needful, that is, distinctions of places and of times, so that things may be done in order in the Church, as Paul commands, that all things be done in order, and as is fitting. And for this civil end the Church has traditions; that is, it has established at what times and where the people ought to convene. To this civil end it is lawful to make traditions. But men inexperienced in Christian doctrine are not content with this end, but they attach superstitious opinions to traditions, and they multiply them without measure through superstition. This, not only more recent writers, but also Augustine, have complained has happened in the Church.

Wherefore, it is necessary to admonish the people what is to be thought of traditions which have been established in the Church by human authority. For there is no small cause why Christ and Paul so often preach concerning traditions and admonish the Church that it should judge prudently concerning traditions.

But there has been a public persuasion, not only of the common people, but also of those teaching in the churches, that distinctions of meats and similar works, which the ecclesiastical traditions command, are acts of worship of God which merit the remission of sins. Likewise, that such acts of worship 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 scandal. These persuasions have produced many disadvantages.

First, the proper doctrine of the Gospel has been obscured, which teaches that sins are remitted freely for Christ’s sake. This benefit of Christ has been transferred to those human works. And for this opinion chiefly, traditions have been multiplied, because they were thought to be works that merit the remission of sins, to be satisfactions, to be Christian righteousness. Moreover, for this cause especially, Paul admonishes us so frequently and so severely to be cautious of traditions, lest the benefit of Christ be transferred to traditions, lest the glory of Christ be obscured, lest true and firm consolations be snatched from consciences, and finally, lest faith, that is, trust in the mercy of Christ, be overwhelmed. Paul wished these dangers to be avoided. For it is especially needful that there exist in the Church the pure doctrine concerning the benefit of Christ, concerning the righteousness of faith, and concerning the consolation of consciences.

Second, these traditions have obscured the precepts of God, because this pedagogy was esteemed 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 holy-days, rites, fasts, and vestures. These pauper-spirited elements were in possession of a most honorable title, that they were the spiritual life, and Christian perfection. Meanwhile, the commandments of God concerning one's calling were without any praise: that the father of a family educated his children, that the mother bore children, that the prince governed the commonwealth. These were thought to be worldly works and far below those glittering observances. And this error has greatly tormented pious consciences, which grieved that they were held in an imperfect kind of life, as in marriage, in the office of magistrate, or in other civil functions; 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, yea, that they merited remission of sins.

Thirdly, the opinion of necessity has also severely exercised consciences. For traditions were thought to be necessary. And yet no one, however diligent, could observe them all, especially since they are innumerable. Gerson writes that many fell into despair, and that some even took their own lives, because they perceived that they could not satisfy the traditions. And meanwhile, they had heard no consolation concerning grace and the righteousness of faith. We see that the Summists and Theologians collect traditions, and seek for leniencies to relieve consciences, but they do not sufficiently set them free, but sometimes their very interpretations cast snares upon consciences. And in collecting traditions, the schools and sermons have been so 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 the consolation of consciences in arduous temptations. Therefore, many good men have often complained that they were hindered by these wranglings over traditions, so that they could not be freely occupied in a better kind of doctrine.

Since, therefore, such superstitious opinions were inherent in the traditions, it was necessary to admonish the churches what was to be thought of traditions, to free pious minds from error, and to heal anxious consciences, and to illustrate the benefit of Christ. We do these things not so that the authority of ecclesiastical power may be undermined, not that we may detract from the dignity of bishops, not that we may dissipate the good order of the Church. Rightly understood traditions are loved all the more. But those Judaical opinions are what are reprehended. Thus, therefore, we teach concerning ceremonies instituted by human authority in the Church.

First, concerning traditions which conflict with the commandments of God, or which cannot be observed without sin, the rule of the Apostles is to be followed: We ought to obey God rather than men. Such is the tradition of celibacy. Then, concerning other ceremonies which are by their nature things indifferent, such as fasts, holy-days, distinctions of vesture, and the like, it is to be known that such observances neither merit the remission of sins, nor righteousness, nor are they Christian perfection. But they are things indifferent which can be omitted outside the case of scandal.

The testimonies of this sentence are plain and clear in the Gospel and in the disputations of Paul. For the Holy Ghost has thought it a matter of great price to diligently admonish the Church on this point, lest the Gospel be overwhelmed by superstitious opinions.

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

Colossians 2: Let no one judge you in food, in drink, or in respect of a festival. He forbids consciences to be judged, that is, he forbids consciences to be condemned in the use of such things, but he wills 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 grave sermon, both of Mosaic rites and of ceremonies instituted by human authority. For Paul speaks of both kinds by name. He denies that it is Christian righteousness, and forbids consciences to be burdened with such traditions: If you have died with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you submit to decrees: Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle?

Matthew 15: Whatever goes into the mouth does not defile a man. And indeed there he excuses the Apostles who violated an accustomed tradition, and he adds a memorable sentence: In vain do they worship Me with the commandments of men. He denies that they are true and useful acts of worship for righteousness before God; wherefore, they are not necessary acts of worship. But Christ has not forbidden them to establish traditions for a civil end, that is, for the sake of good order, but He denies that they are acts of worship when He says: In vain do they worship Me. And He teaches that the true acts of worship are works commanded by God: fear, faith, love, patience, chastity, to obey one’s calling, to perform one’s office, etc.

Acts 15: Peter says: Why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we believe we are saved, in the same way as they. Here Peter teaches that we obtain remission of sins and salvation for Christ’s sake, not on account of Mosaic or similar rites. And he admonishes that those who burden consciences with such observances sin most gravely. Nor is the reprehension light, when he says: Why do you test God?

And 1 Timothy 4 calls the prohibition of foods, of marriage, and of similar traditions, doctrines of demons. For why did he use so atrocious a reproach? He did not wish that no ordinances at all should be made, that no distinctions of places and times should be observed. But at that time he judges them to be doctrines of demons when the benefit of Christ is transferred to them, when they are held to be righteousness, likewise to be necessary acts of worship, when the opinion of necessity is attached and consciences are crucified, and faith is shaken from them. These are the disadvantages which Christ and the Apostles wish to be avoided. And therefore they preach so vehemently against traditions. And it is a wonder that those who defend the superstitious opinions of traditions are not moved by those thunderbolts.

There are, moreover, two kinds of traditions. Some require works openly conflicting with the divine law, such as the prohibition of marriage. It is necessary that this rule exist in the Church: We ought to obey God rather than men. Therefore it is manifest that such human traditions are by no means to be obeyed. Others speak of things that are by their nature indifferent, such as of food, of vesture, and of similar things. These traditions become impious when they are proposed with these opinions: that they merit the remission of sins, that they are necessary things, that they are acts of worship of God, that is, duties whose immediate end is that God may be honored by them. These pestiferous opinions it is necessary to censure in the Church. And on account of these opinions, useless human rites are to be cast away, such as distinctions of meats, monastic vesture, and similar superstitious customs, as Hezekiah broke the bronze serpent when he saw that it was worshiped by many. But because this society of men in this corporal life has need of order, some rites useful for this political end can be retained without superstitious opinions; that is, they should not be judged to be acts of worship or necessary things, so that the people may know when the assembly in the temple ought to convene for sermons and for the use of the sacraments. For it is fitting that this ministry be public. It is profitable to establish certain times. Thus are the feast days of the Lord’s Day kept among us, and many others; the accustomed distinctions of Histories in the chants are retained: Christmas, Easter, the feast of the Ascension, Pentecost, and others. And the people love these very ceremonies all the more now that their consciences have been freed from peril and from those unjust burdens about which the monks and canonists once clamored. And, on the other hand, the utility has been shown, that these rites serve the ministry of the Gospel. The people have also 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 being an act of worship is taken away, yet they are sufficiently secured, because we teach that in the amended churches, useful ceremonies serve the ministry of the Gospel. Wherefore, those who petulantly and with scandal violate these ceremonies, that is, who impede the ministry of the Gospel, we say that they sin. Assuredly, there is a necessary moderation of traditions, and consciences should be consulted, so that they may understand that human rites are neither necessary things nor righteousness.

This liberty, of which we here speak, was not unknown to the Fathers. For Augustine says: This whole class of things has free observances. And on this sentence he disputes many things. Irenaeus says: A dissonance of fasting does not destroy the consonance of faith. The Tripartite History collects many examples of dissimilar rites, and adds this excellent epigram: The mind of the Apostles was not to sanction holy-days, but to preach a good life and piety. But there is no need to collect many testimonies in a manifest matter. But here our adversaries cry out that public discipline is undermined by this doctrine, that anarchy is brought about, and that good works and the mortification of the flesh are abolished, according to the dogma of Jovinian. These calumnies we have in part already refuted. For there is no anarchy, nor is public discipline undermined, when we teach that traditions whose end is political are to be observed. We teach also that scandals are to be avoided. But concerning the mortification of the flesh we thus respond: True and not feigned mortification is to bear the cross, to be occupied in perils, in wants, and in afflictions. This kind of obedience is an act of worship of God and a spiritual work, as the Psalm says: A sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit, etc. We teach, moreover, another kind of necessary exercises. Every Christian ought also to restrain his flesh by corporal discipline, by labors, by temperance, by meditation on divine things, and by other exercises suitable to his age. The proper and immediate end of these things ought to be that neither satiety nor slothfulness may incite to sin, and that our mind may be made more fit for spiritual affections. It is not to be thought that these exercises are acts of worship which merit the remission of sins, or that they are satisfactions, etc. And this discipline ought to be perpetual, and the same days cannot be prescribed equally for all. Of this discipline Christ says: Take heed lest your bodies be weighed down with surfeiting. Likewise: This kind of demon is not cast out except by fasting and prayer. And Paul says: I discipline my body and bring it into subjection. Therefore, we do not find fault with fastings, but with superstitious opinions and snares of consciences in traditions. Moreover, these exercises, when they are referred to that end, that we may have our bodies subject to spiritual things and for performing our office according to our 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 restrain 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 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.

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 Corinthians 7: 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: 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; 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.

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 the remission of sins and justification, is wicked; as Christ says: 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, not on account of any of our merits.

It is manifest that monks have taught that man-made services merit the remission of sins and justification, and that they are a satisfaction for sins. 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 a vow ought not to be a bond of iniquity, as the Canon says.

Paul says, Galatians 5: You who are justified by the Law have been severed from Christ; you have fallen from grace. That is, you who think that you merit the remission of sins by your own works, and that you please God on account of your own fulfillment of the law, and who do not feel that you receive by faith the remission of sins given freely for Christ's sake through the mercy of God, and that you please God for Christ’s sake; these lose Christ, because they transfer the confidence due to Christ and to the promise of God to their works. Likewise, they set against the wrath of God not the propitiator Christ, but their own works; wherefore they transfer the honor due to Christ to our works. It is manifest that monks teach this: that by their observances they merit the remission of sins, and that they have a propitious God on account of these observances. Wherefore they teach to trust in their works, not in the propitiation of Christ. This trust is impious, and it conflicts with the Gospel, and in the judgment of God it will be found to be vain. For our works cannot be set against the wrath and judgment of God. The wrath of God is placated only when we apprehend by faith the free mercy promised for Christ’s sake. They therefore lose Christ who place their confidence not in Christ, but in their own works.

Furthermore, the monks have taught that their kind of life is a state of perfection, because they observe not only the precepts, but also the counsels. This error greatly conflicts with the Gospel, because they have imagined that they so satisfy the precepts that they might do even more. And from this has been born a horrible error: that they imagined themselves to have works of supererogation. These they applied for others, so that they might be satisfactions for the sins of others. If anyone should wish to odiously expand on these things, how many things could he bring together whereof even the monks are now ashamed!

It is no light offense in the Church to set forth to the people a certain act of worship, devised by men without the commandment of God, and to teach that such an act of worship justifies men. For the righteousness of faith in Christ, which ought to be taught most of all in the Church, is obscured when those 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 propitious God, 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 all magistracies and civil offices are unworthy of Christians.

We read of 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 which have been 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 rebuked 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: that they merit the remission of sins and justification, that they are Christian perfection, that they keep the counsels and commandments, and that they have works of supererogation. All these things, since they are false and empty, make vows null and void.

 Article XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power. (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 controversies 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 pious and learned 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 religiously venerated and held in 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: As My Father has 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: 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: 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: My kingdom is not of this world. Also: Who made Me a judge or a divider over you? And Paul says, Philippians 3: Our citizenship is in heaven. 2 Corinthians 10: The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the casting down of imaginations, etc.

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 right, 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 remit sins, to judge doctrine, to reject doctrines dissenting from 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 churches of necessity and by divine right must obey them, according to that saying: He that heareth you heareth Me.

But when they teach or ordain anything against the Gospel, then the churches have a commandment of God which prohibits obedience, Matthew 7: Beware of false prophets. Galatians 1: If an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed. 2 Corinthians 13: 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. But when the ordinaries fail, princes are bound, even against their will, to dispense justice to their subjects for the maintenance of peace.

Besides these things, it is disputed whether bishops or pastors have the right to institute ceremonies in the Church, and to make laws concerning meats, holy-days, and grades of ministers or orders, etc. Those who grant this right to the bishops allege this testimony: 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 allege the example of the Apostles, who commanded to abstain from blood and from things strangled. They allege the Sabbath as having been changed into the Lord's Day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it seems. Nor is there any example they boast of more than the changing of the Sabbath. Great, they contend, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed from a precept of the Decalogue.

But concerning this question, our teachers teach that bishops have no power to decree anything against the Gospel, as has been shown above. The Canons teach the same thing (Dist. IX). Now, it is against Scripture to establish or require traditions, to the end that by their observance we may merit the remission of sins and make satisfaction for them. For the glory of the merit of Christ is injured when by such observances we undertake to merit the remission of sins and 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 new honors for saints instituted, because the authors of such things thought that by these works they were meriting the remission of sins and justification. Thus in times past the Penitential Canons increased, whereof we still see some traces in the satisfactions.

Likewise, many writers imagine that in the New Testament there ought to be a service like the Levitical, the arrangement of which God had committed to the Apostles and bishops. And these writers seem to be misled by the example of the law of Moses, as if the righteousness of the New Testament were an external observance of certain rites, just as the righteousness of the Law was an external observance of certain rites. As, therefore, under the Law it was a sin to eat the flesh of swine, etc., so in the New Testament they place sin in foods, in days, in vesture, and in similar things. And they believe that the righteousness of the New Testament cannot exist without these things. From this have come those burdens: that certain foods defile the conscience, that to omit the Canonical Hours is a mortal sin, that fasts merit remission of sins and are necessary for the righteousness of the New Testament, that a 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 canonical penalty, and not of the reserving of the guilt.

Whence have the bishops the right to lay these traditions upon the churches for the ensnaring of consciences? For clear testimonies are extant which prohibit the making of such traditions, either to merit the remission of sins, or as things necessary for the righteousness of the New Testament, or for salvation.

Paul, Colossians 2: Let no man judge you in food, in drink, or in respect of a holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days. Likewise: If you have died with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you submit to decrees: Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle? which all perish with use, and are after the commandments and doctrines of men, which things have a show of wisdom. Likewise to Titus he openly forbids traditions: Not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men that turn from the truth. And Christ, Matthew 15, 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 has 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 the making and hearing of traditions? Why does it call them doctrines of demons? Has the Holy Ghost in vain forewarned of these things?

Since, therefore, ordinances instituted as things necessary, or with an opinion of meriting the remission of sins, 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: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and 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 the remission of sins and justification 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 Lord's Day and of similar rites of the temple? 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 the remission of sins or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services and to think that they sin when they violate them without offense to others. Thus Paul ordains that in the congregation women should cover their heads, and that interpreters be heard in order in the church.

It is proper that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquility, so far that one do not offend another, that all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion. But in such a way that consciences be not burdened to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin when they violate 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 was instituted in place of the Sabbath as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture grants that the keeping of the Sabbath is now free. For it teaches that the ceremonies of Moses are not necessary after the Gospel has been revealed. 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, and the changing of the Sabbath, which have all sprung from the false persuasion that there must needs be in the Church a service like the Levitical, and that Christ had given commission to the Apostles and bishops to devise new ceremonies that are necessary for 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 quasi of divine right; 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 emend traditions, yet equity 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 to abstain from blood. Who does now observe it? And yet they that do not observe it sin not; for not even the Apostles themselves wanted to burden consciences with such servitude, but they forbade it for a time, to avoid scandal. 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 most diligently defend traditions. Neither can consciences be consulted, unless this equity be observed, that we know that they are kept without the opinion of necessity, and that no harm is done consciences, even though traditions go out of use.

But the bishops might easily retain lawful obedience 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 Catholic Church. 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. Wherefore 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, which commands us to obey God rather than men.

Peter forbids bishops to be lords, and to rule over the churches. It is not our design now to wrest the government from the bishops, but this one thing is asked, namely, that they allow the Gospel to be purely taught, and that they relax some few observances which cannot be kept without sin. But if they make no concession, it is for them to see how they shall give account to God for furnishing, by their obstinacy, a cause for schism.

Conclusion. (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 much could be said of more abuses, yet, to avoid prolixity, we have embraced the chief points, from which the rest may be easily judged. There have been great complaints concerning indulgences, pilgrimages, and the abuse of excommunications. The parishes were in many ways vexed by the Stationaries. There were endless contentions between the Pastors and the Monks concerning parochial right, confessions, burials, extraordinary sermons, and innumerable other things. We have passed over negotiations of this sort, so that those things which are the chief points in this cause, having been briefly set forth, might be the more easily understood. Nor has anything been here said or adduced to the reproach of any one. Only those things have been recounted which seemed necessary to be said, so 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 impious dogmas should creep into our churches.

The above articles we have wished to exhibit according to the edict of Your Imperial Majesty, in which our confession might be extant, and the sum of the doctrine of those who teach among us might be perceived. If anything shall be desired in this confession, we are prepared, 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 Lüneburg.

Philip, Landgrave of Hesse.

John Frederick, Duke of Saxony.

Francis, Duke of Lüneburg.

Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt.

Senate and Magistracy of Nuremberg.

Senate of Reutlingen.