Of the Church.
Because the papists boast a lot about the Church, I would like to be properly instructed in this article.
As the Jews in Jeremiah boasted without ceasing, here is the temple of the Lord, here is the temple of the Lord, here is the temple of the Lord. So also the popes boast of the church, church, church great, but mere. I will now briefly instruct you on how you should approach this article. First of all, you must know what the true Christian church is and how it can be recognized.
So explain this to me.
The true church is that which abides in the true word of God, and in the holy use of the two sacraments. 1 Tim. 3. Matt. 28. Matt. 26. In our faith the true church is called a holy, universal, apostolic church.
Is this true church with us Protestants?
Yes, it is with us, for by the grace of God we have the word of truth, and abide in the pure unadulterated teaching of the holy prophets, evangelists and apostles, and have the right use of both the most holy sacraments. Therefore we can say with good reason that with us is the one, holy, universal, apostolic Church.
Why are they called one?
1. because she is the bride of Jesus Christ, but Christ has only one bride. 2. because there is only one Christian faith, one Christian baptism, one Lord, and one Christ. To Ephesians 5 Therefore she compares Christ to one sheepfold, one flock. John 10. 3. because it is united in the truth, and only agrees with the one truth.
Why is it called holy?
Not because it is holy in itself, on itself, and of itself, but because it is holy through the
blood of their Lord Bridegroom Jesus Christ, and is sanctified, and washed and cleansed from unholiness. 1 John 1: The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin. Ephesians 5: Christ gave himself to sanctify them, cleansing them by the washing of water in the word. That he might present them to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that they should be holy and without blemish.
Why is it called catholic?
Not, as the popes think, because most of the world adheres to it: for Christ calls his army a small army, Luke 12 [:32]. Sin would be much more catholic, which is inherent in all and every man in the whole world. Nor is it called catholic because it is old and has lasted a long time: Sin is also old, has lasted almost as long as the world: the devil is also old, all kinds of heresies, shame, epicurean life is old: but it is called catholic because it has the doctrine which is catholic, that which Christ commanded to preach to all creatures, Matt. 28 [:19]. Which went forth into all lands, Ps. 19 [:4]. Which has been beneficial to all creation, Col. 1 [:16]. which doctrine was in the first church, and shall remain to the end of the world, Isaiah 40.
Why is it called apostolic?
Not as if it were built or founded on the apostle Peter, but because of the teaching of the prophets and apostles, as St. Paul himself says in the first letter to the Corinthians 3 [:5-11]: Who is Paul, who is Apollos? They are servants, etc. I have planted, Apollos has watered, but God has given the growth. So then neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but God who gives the increase. And soon after: No one can lay any other foundation except the one that has been laid, which is Jesus Christ. From this we see that we are not founded on men, but on Christ and his teaching, which was revealed to us through the prophets and apostles. As St. Paul says to the Ephesians 2 [:20]: "You are now built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ being the cornerstone on which the whole building is built," etc.
Is the Scripture of the apostles more than the church?
Of course, Scripture is much more than the Church. For the Scriptures can be without the Church, but the Church cannot be without the Scriptures, because it is not the Scriptures that are born of the Church, but the Church is born of the Scriptures and of the Word of God. As St. Peter wrote in his first epistle in chapter 1 [:22-23]: Love one another fervently from a pure heart, as those who have been born again, not of perishable but of imperishable seed, that is, of the word of God, which abides forever. So then the Word and the Scriptures are mother: but the church is daughter, that is, the Scriptures are more than the church.
Can the true church not err?
The answer to this question is different. It can err, since it is made up of all men: but all men are liars, as David says in the Psalm 116 [:11]: it can err and does err in life. For if any man thinketh that he hath no sin, he deceiveth himself, and the truth is not with him, saith John in the first chapter of the first epistle [1 John 1:8]. She can err in what concerns her priests and preachers, that they also fall into error, of doctrine and of life, as Aaron fell into idolatry, as Urias the high priest set up an idolatrous altar in the temple of the Lord, as Annas, Caiphas the high priests erred and persecuted Jesus, as those priests erred, of whom Isaiah 28 [:7] says: Both priests and prophets are mad with strong drink, drowned in wine, and staggered with strong drink; they were mad in prophesying, and they stumble out judgments. Again in chapter 56 [:10]: All their watchmen are blind, they all know nothing. Furthermore, the church can err in several articles that are not directly contrary to the faith, as the apostles did when they thought that Christ's kingdom would be worldly. It also errs in articles of faith, in particular [particulariter], so that some persons in the congregation of the church err. On the other hand, it is to be known that
the whole church in all its true members never again completely errs, because it has the Holy Spirit, who leads it into all truth, for even the gates of hell cannot overpower it, Matt. 16 [:18]. And it is impossible that; the elect should be completely deceived, Matt. 24.
So is it true what the popes say: "The Roman Church is not mad?
This does not follow. For the true church is not bound to Rome: The Roman church, as it is at present, cannot be considered the true apostolic church, but is the coetus malignantium, the church of the wicked, Psalm 26 [:4-5]. The church in which the wicked walk, and the scoffers sit, Psalm 1 [:1]. although there is no doubt that there are still some in the midst of the multitude who are true adherents of the true church and have an abhorrence for the papal idolatry, just as in this world the pious and the wicked are always mixed together, good and bad fish, good seed and tares, Matthew 13 [:24-30].
But how can one prove that the Roman papal church is not the true church?
This is easy to prove. The Lord Christ says of His Church: My sheep hear my voice and follow me, John 10 [:27]. The Roman Church, however, does not hear Christ's voice: as is evident from many articles. It does not want to let the voice of Christ in Scripture pass for the only guiding principle, it does not hear this voice of Christ: He that believeth on him shall be saved. Or Mark 9 [:23] Tantum crede, only believe. Again since Christ commanded that all Christians should drink from the cup, the Roman Church does not want to hear this. Because it has neither pure doctrine nor the pure use of the sacraments, it cannot be recognized as a true church.
But they have reasons to prove that the Roman Church is the true Church?
I am not unaware that they have some strong arguments and reasons. But I am ready to answer them, hoping that Christian hearts will be satisfied and content.
First of all, they say that Paul himself considered the Roman church to be a true church.
We also admit this, but it does not follow that the Roman Church was a true church for sixteen and a half hundred year, which is why it is so, because much can change in such a time, as has unfortunately happened to this church.
But because it was a true church, it could not have been wrong?
The Roman Church has been a particularis Ecclesia, not the universal church, nor the head of the churches, therefore it could well have erred. As St. Paul himself warned them in the epistle to the Romans in the 11th chapter with these words [:21]: Do not be proud, but be afraid; has God not spared the natural branches, that he might not spare you also? Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God, the severity in those who have fallen, but the goodness in you, as far as you continue in goodness, otherwise you will also be cut off. The churches at Corinth and Galatia were also true churches, yet they had gone astray even in the days of St. Paul, who planted them. If this could have happened in such a short time, what could not have happened in sixteen and a half hundred years?
The Roman Church has another opportunity, because it has been the mother of all Christendom.
How can this be? For the church at Jerusalem and Antioch was much earlier than that at Rome, and especially the church at Jerusalem is praised in Holy Scripture, that from it the other churches are to be planted, Isaiah 2 [:3]: From Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. David in the 110th Psalm [:2]: The Lord will send the scepter of thy kingdom out of Zion. Thus the church at Jerusalem is to be regarded as the mother rather than the Roman church, because it is older than the Roman church and it is said in Scripture that the Word of the Lord is to go forth from Jerusalem.
Paul says to the Romans in chapter 1 [:8] that the faith of the Roman church is said in all the world to be much higher, even a mother of all other churches.
This cannot follow, otherwise the papists would have to admit that the church at Thessalonica is also higher than others,
indeed that it is the mother of others. Because St. Paul also writes about her in the first epistle to the Thessalonians in chapter 1 [:8]: The word of the Lord has gone forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in all places your faith in God has broken out. Therefore the Roman church has no preference over this church.
Christ promises in John 16 [:13] the Holy Spirit, who is to guide the churches into all truth.
This promise actually concerns the apostles and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which took place at Pentecost, so it can by no means be applied to the present Roman synagogue. And although it is true that the Holy Spirit instructs the true church in all truth, namely through the word of truth, it does not follow that the Roman church does not err, because it does not want to be judged, taught or instructed by the Spirit of God, just as the Holy Spirit is often grieved, resisted and contradicted when lies are taken for truth, as Paul testifies in 2 Thessalonians 2 [:10].
In Matthew 16 [:18] Christ says: The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church.
We know this and firmly believe that even though all the gates of hell are set against us, they shall not prevail against us, for as David says in Psalm 46 [:1-5]: God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the world perish, though the mountains fall into the midst of the sea. Even if the sea roar and be though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Nevertheless, the city of God will remain beautiful with its fountains, where the holy dwellings of the Most High are. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved. Christ speaks of this protection in Matthew 16 [:18] and says that even the gates of hell will not prevail against the true church. No man of understanding will be able to force from this that the Roman Church may not err. For Christ's church is not bound to Rome but is gathered without distinction of persons or cities from all the people who fear God, Acts 10 [:34].
In Matthew 28 [:20], Christ promises the Church his presence and says that he will remain with her until the end of the age.
Of course, the Lord Christ does this; he remains with us eternally with his grace as long as we do not depart from him. But if we do not want to remain with him, with His Word, then He departs and goes away, just as he departed from the Gadarenes, Matthew 8 [:34]. Therefore it does not follow from this promise of Christ that the Roman Church cannot err. Christ does not speak of the Roman Church alone, but of all Christendom, of all Christian congregations. The church at Corinth and Galatia had as much reason to be comforted by this promise of Jesus Christ as the Roman church, yet they have erred and allowed themselves to be led away from the recognized truth; Christ the bridegroom is indeed faithful, if only the bride, the Church, were also faithful. But she is sometimes unfaithful, not keeping her duty to the Lord Christ, just as the Roman synagogue has become an adulteress, because she has taken another head, another bridegroom besides Christ, namely the Roman Pope. Therefore, in the Revelation of John 17 and 18, she is called a harlot, a dwelling place of devils, a container of all unclean spirits, a container of all unclean hostile birds.
So if the Roman Church became a harlot, it would follow that Christ would have had no bride for a long time and our ancestors would all have been damned.
God be praised for that. Is Christ bound to Rome in the same way? Although the Roman Church and the papacy itself were not Christ's bride, Christ nevertheless had his bride and church in the midst of the papacy; indeed, as Luther speaks more blessedly: Under the papacy there remained a true nucleus of elect Christians; for there were many thousands of little children who were incorporated into the Lord Christ through baptism. After that there were many Christians who were ignorant of some errors, but who retained the reason for their salvation, Jesus Christ. They had to take comfort in Christ's intercession, which he made at the foot of the cross: Lord, forgive them, they know not what they do. They did not know the abomination of the mass, because the mass was in Latin, and secretly mumbled by the priests,
and there is no doubt that God worked in them the right faith through the Gospels, through the history of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which was nevertheless still read to the people in the papacy throughout the year, fulfilling what God promised in the 55th chapter of Isaiah [:11]: My word shall not return to me void, but shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper whereunto I send it. Furthermore, there were also many of them who publicly contradicted the pope's arrogance, avarice and deceit, for which reason they were executed by him and tyrannically brought from life to death. Their names are all mentioned in Heaven, Luke 10 [:11?], but some are mentioned in the Catalogo testium veritatis, in the Martyrologia Nigrini, and other books. John says of them in the 17th chapter of Revelation [:6]: I saw the woman drink of the blood of the saints and of the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. But many were under the papacy, whose mouths were shut, who were not allowed to resist for fear of danger, but who meanwhile sighed, called upon God diligently, and committed their bodies and souls to him. But all this is undeniable, that many, many hundreds of Christians, even in their deathbeds, prepared themselves for the blessed journey. For it was necessary for them to be pointed unanimously and solely to the merit of Jesus Christ and to be reminded to recognize their sins and to truly believe in Christ Jesus. The papists and Jesuits cannot deny that Anshelm’s questionnaires are used with dying persons, which has indeed been of great benefit to the sick. And there is no harm in placing them here, so that we may see how our ancestors died blessedly in the midst of the accursed heap. This is what St. Anshelm himself writes:
If one of our brethren is in his last days, it is godly and advisable that he be well instructed by a prelate or another priest in the following questions and admonitions, and that he be asked first:
Brother, do you rejoice that you will die in faith? and he answered, Yes.
Confess that you have not lived as well as you should? Answer: Yes, I confess it.
Do you regret it? Yes.
Do you have the intention that you would improve yourself if you lived longer? Answer: Yes.
Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died because of you? Answer: Yes.
Do you believe that you cannot be saved except through his death? Answer: Yes.
Do you thank him from the bottom of your heart? Yes.
Now then, thank him, as long as you live, put all your trust in this death alone, commit yourself completely to this death, cover yourself completely with this death, wrap yourself completely in it, and when the Lord wants to judge you, say: Lord, I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and you and your judgment, otherwise I will not argue with you. If he says, "You are guilty of judgment," say, "I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and the merit of his most worthy suffering, which I bring instead of the merit that I should have and unfortunately do not have. He also said, "I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and your wrath. Then he says three times, Lord, into your hands I commend my spirit. And let those standing around him answer: Lord, into your hands we commend this patient's spirit. Then he will gently fall asleep and will not see death forever. So far Anselm.
O how blessed our ancestors died who were practiced in such matters. To see from this how it is a vain pretense to our adversaries, as if our ancestors must all be damned if the Roman church had not always been the true church. The Holy Spirit said through the prophet Daniel in the 12th chapter [:41]: "Three kinds will escape from the hands of the Antichrist: Edom, Moab, and the firstfruits of the children of Ammon. What these three names mean is very finely explained by Luther in his Bible in the 12th chapter of Daniel, where he writes thus: The pope will not cut down or deceive three nations; they will remain and be the holy Christian church under the destroyer, the last Christ. For the holy church must remain until the end of the world. The first are Edomites. Edom means red color. The Edomites are the holy martyrs who have allowed themselves to be constantly martyred by the pope, bishops, doctors, especially by
the bloodhounds of the preacher orders, who have martyred, strangled, drowned and burned many of the masses throughout the world to this day.
The others are Moabites. Moab means from the father, or paternal, paternus. These are those who remain in the world from time to time and have not fallen away from their father Christ. They may not have been public preachers, but in the end they relied on Christ's death and did not die on the Pope's Mausim, nor on his letters of indulgence. I have seen quite a few of them myself, and heard of many more, from Munich and all sorts of towns. Just as St. Bernard also did, when he thought his hour had come, he forgot his order and everything of papal Mausim, and committed himself to Christ's suffering with these words: Christ inherited the kingdom of heaven by two rights: first, as the only, eternal Son, the right remains his alone. Secondly, as earned through his suffering. He has given us this right and merit, for he suffered for our sake. God asked these Bernards and Moabites, or fatherly Christians, to keep much for him, as he did the seven thousand of the people of Israel at the time of Elijah.
The third, principium filiorum Ammon, that is, the firstfruits of the children of the people. Moab and Ammon were brothers, so these Ammonites want to become brothers of the paternal fraterni. I understand these to be the young, innocent group that is born again from baptism, that is born before it recognizes or respects the pope's Mausim, that can neither strengthen nor weaken it, as the Edomites and Moabites do. That is why they are called the firstfruits and children of the people, that is, of the people of God in the Church, recently born through baptism. These the Antichrist had to leave unchallenged and unled. So far Luther.
I am content with the answer, but the Pope’s desire that we should name all those who did not follow the Roman Church in the days of our ancestors.
This is an outrageous request. How can we name them all if we weren't alive at the time? Despite the fact that they call them all by name that they like. It is enough for the elect to be written in God's book of remembrance, Malach 3 [:16], into the hands of God, Isaiah 49, into heaven, Luke 10, it is enough that they have known God.
For as St. Paul says, 2 Timothy. 2 [:19]: The solid foundation of God exists and has this seal: The Lord knows his own. The holy prophet Elijah indeed could not have said who or what the seven thousand were who had not bowed the knee to Baal, for he thought there were none. But God knew them and said: "There are still seven thousand left who are righteous and have not worshipped Baal. So there is no doubt that many thousands have not bowed the knee to the papal abomination of the Mass, whom we cannot name. St. John in Revelation nevertheless sets a fine number of the innocent, as he says in the 14th chapter [:1]: I beheld, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Zion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. And soon afterward he says [:4], These are the ones who are not endowed with wives, for they are virgins and follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been bought from among men, as firstfruits to God and the Lamb, and in their mouths no falsehood is found, for they are blameless for the throne of God. The Jesuits may quarrel with St. John as to why he did not name these hundred forty and four thousand candidates by name.
Could there have been a genuine church among the papists?
Although the priests, prelates, monks, bishops, cardinals and popes themselves were not the true church, God nevertheless had His Church in the midst of the papacy. And it may well be that the clergy did not belong to the true church, but were nevertheless in the church. Therefore Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2 [:4], that the Antichrist will sit in the midst of the temple of God, not apart from the temple of God, and yet will not be a member of the temple of God. Matthew 13 says: That which is of the field of God is in the church his good seed and tares, good and bad fish. But the evil fish, the tares, are not a proper member of the church, even though they are in the church. Another similarity: Christ says in John 18 [:36]: My kingdom is not of this world. This word is true. But nevertheless the kingdom of Christ is in this
world. So Christ's kingdom can be in this world, but not of this world. So the church can have remained in the papacy and yet not have been of the papacy: Papatus fuit in Ecclesia, non de Ecclesia. Ecclesia fuit in Papatu, non de Papatu. [Google]
The popes say that if our church was the true church, and the true church also under the papacy, then we should call it a church that taught precisely what we now teach.
This is the noblest of interjections, one that our opponents brag about a lot. But it does not have much substance. There are two questions: whether the Church under the papacy taught exactly what we now teach, and whether it believed exactly what we now believe. The true Church has always had the faith that we have, according to the guidance of Scripture, but with differences. At one time it had no stubble at all beside it, at another time its stubble and tares ran along with it, as happened in the papacy. But the stubble was burned and consumed in the furnace of the cross.
As far as teaching is concerned, the Church taught exactly what we now teach, as in the times of the patriarchs, prophets, evangelists and apostles, the teachers taught as we do, but mixed in some things that were not right, which we do not teach either. In the days of Christ, the Pharisees and Scribes sat on the throne of Moses, reading Moses, but also reading their essays. In the days of the church under the papacy, baptism with water and the word was practiced, but other abuses were mixed in. The Word of God was read as we do, but other false interpretations were mixed in.
Therefore, even if after the times of the first apostolic churches this very thing was not publicly taught which we now teach, it does not follow that there was no true church then, because it is nothing new that the preaching office is falsified and not entirely pure. Nevertheless, lest the popes should say: We cannot name a church which taught in matters of faith precisely what we teach, we call them the church of the prophets, the apostles and the first apostolic church, with which doctrine our confession
and creed is in complete agreement. But when they say, according to their custom: They do not speak of the first apostolic church, but of the subsequent one, it is evident how they have an abhorrence of the apostolic church, which is, after all, the other example of all. They could have done well to help the Jews and Pharisees against John the Baptist and Christ himself. For is it not so: if the Pharisees and Jews had wanted to force John the Baptist to say which church before him had taught just this, about baptism, about Jesus, about the cessation of the Levitical sacrifices and the law, then John would have appealed to the prophets' church and teaching, who had taught just this. The Popes could now train the Jews well. They should not reject the first prophetic church, but John should name another, after the prophetic church, soon before the birth of Christ, which would have taught this very thing. Of course, John and Christ soon realized that the Jews were scoffers, and even if they had not been able to identify a church after the prophetic church that taught this very thing, there would still have been a true church at all times that believed this very thing, and Christ answered them, John 10 [:7]: All who came before me were thieves and murderers.
Do you think that there can be a true church if the preaching ministry is not pure?
This may well be the case, as it is irrefutably proven. For is it not true that in the days of the godless King Ahaz there was no pure preaching ministry? Of course, there was a true church all the same. At the time of the birth of Jesus Christ there was also no pure preaching ministry, yet God gathered him a church. It was the same under the tyranny of the Antichrist: there was a proper preaching ministry, but not a pure one, but they had built up all kinds of stubble, which could not stand in God's way so that he would not have preserved his church.
Has God been powerful through such preaching?
Yes, because God is not bound to people: Man's unfaithfulness cannot overthrow God's faithfulness. Therefore, because the papal priests were in the ordinary office,
even if they were otherwise heretics, they nevertheless baptized rightly with water and the Word. This can be clearly demonstrated to them when one asks whether the children baptized by us were baptized correctly. Then they say: Yes, and do not baptize them again. If you ask further: Who are the preachers? They answer: Heretics. Can the heretics baptize properly? They answer: Yes, because they sit in the ordinary office of preaching and administer the sacrament according to the institution of Christ, their baptism cannot be blamed. If one of them were to say, "Oh, then they are true preachers," the Jesuits would say no, and quickly distinguish the ordinary ministry and its proper administration from their errors. So they must confess that a preaching ministry that is not entirely pure nevertheless does God's work, or rather that God works his will through it. Judas was a devil, John 6, but even so, if he taught God's word, his preaching ministry was not without power. Before I conclude this, however, I would like some of the Jesuits to show me and name a certain church that has taught precisely what is now being taught in Rome under the guidance of the Council of Trent. If some pope will name me a certain church which before the Council of Trent taught everything and anything in matters of faith in the same way as is now taught in Rome after the Council, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and gladly let them show me. But I am certain that a thousand years will pass before the popes will be able to do so.
But is the evangelical preaching office now pure?
Yes, praise and thanks be to God. We now have pure teachers in our churches, and God, by special grace, has provided for his Christianity, which for so long lay under the darkness and tyranny of the Antichrist, has restored it, and through his chosen instrument, Luther (of whom he clearly prophesied in Isaiah 11, Daniel 12, in the Revelation of John chapter 14), has completely repurified the church and cleansed it of all papal stubble, as he had previously promised.
From the church.31
What do the popes say about Luther? They laugh that God should have accomplished such a work through such an lowly person?
Mockery and laughter is easy for them. We should know that God has often done great things through little poor people. Who was Moses? A shepherd, yet he led the people of Israel out of Egypt. Who was David? Yet he was chosen by God to be a king. Who was the mother of God? A poor, lowly maiden who was entrusted to a carpenter. Yet she gave birth to the Son of God and the Savior of the world? That is why she says: God looked upon his wretched handmaid and exalted the lowly. Who were the apostles? Poor fishermen. Yet through them the Lord Christ had appointed the holy ministry. And this is what David says in Psalm 113 [:5-6]: Who is like the Lord our God, who has set himself on high and looks down on the lowly in heaven and on earth? Again in Psalm 8 [:2]: Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings you have prepared for yourself a power. For God's power is mighty in the weak. 2 Cor. 12 [:9], and Peter says in 1 Epistle 5 [:5]: God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. This is what St. Paul writes in the first chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians [:26-28]: "Behold, brethren, your calling, not many are called according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble: but what is foolish in the sight of the world God has chosen to put to shame those who are wise, and what is weak in the sight of the world God has chosen to put to shame those who are strong. And that which is base and despised God has chosen, and that which is nothing, to bring to nothing that which is something. Which indeed God also proved in this work, when he put to shame the pope, cardinals, bishops, prelates, who wanted to be something, and drew forth the poor Augustinian monk Martin Luther, who seemed to be nothing.
What can you think of Luther, because you yourself confess that he was a monk?
That does not stop him. He didn't know any different until God enlightened him and led him out of the papal mud. What was Paul? He was much worse than
Luther. Saul was full of snorting and murder against the disciples of Christ, Acts 9 [:1-2], yet God used him as the chosen armor to preach his name among the Gentiles. St. Paul himself recognizes this, as he says in the first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 15 [:9]: I am the least of the apostles, as I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain, but I have labored much more than they all: not I, but the grace of God that is in me. And in the first epistle to Timothy in the first chapter, he writes very finely like this [:12-13]: I thank our Lord Christ Jesus, who has made me strong and faithful, and set me in the ministry, whereas before I was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and a reviler. But I have been shown mercy, because I did it ignorantly, in unbelief. Just as we do not despise St. Paul, even though he was once a blasphemer, so we do not despise Luther, even though he was once a papist.
Nevertheless, Luther did not know everything at first, but still had a number of errors, which he only later discarded and retracted.
We know this well and confess that he was not completely enlightened in one hour or one year, but that God dealt with him successively, as also happened with the apostles, who had Christ Jesus as their teacher for four and a half years, yet they were still unbelieving, as can be seen in Thomas, and were still hard, as Christ after his resurrection reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, Mark 16. [:14] Indeed, before the ascension of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, they were still mistaken, allowing them to dream that Christ would establish a worldly kingdom, an error which they did not dispel until afterward.
Thus Luke also writes in chapter 4 of the Apostolic Histories [Acts 4:13]: "The people saw the joy of Peter and John and were astonished, for they were certain that they were unlearned men (idiots) and laymen. Just as it would be ungodly to despise St. Peter and John, as well as other apostles, because they did not soon learn and know everything
correctly, so we cannot blame Luther, blessed as he was, for still being in some errors at first, out of which he later, with God's grace, extricated himself. What did St. Augustine do? Did he not write whole books of retractions in which he recanted his previous errors? And what is this to keep us from being blessed by Luther? We know that St. Peter, after he had already received the Holy Spirit, nevertheless stumbled, or as St. Paul says, he pretended and did not walk correctly according to the truth of the Gospel, which is why Paul, to his face [in faciem], also resisted him under before his eyes, as is written in the epistle to the Galatians in chapter 2 [:11]: And so much can be said about this part of our faith, from which we are confirmed in the truth and protected from error.
Chapter Navigation