First draft of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, which was presented to Emperor Carl on Sept. 22 at the Imperial Diet of 1530, but was not accepted.
Chyträus had this writing printed after a manuscript of Spalatin in the Latin edition of his Uist. XuZ. aont., p. 337. It is then reprinted in the appendix of Pfaff's edition likr. "odesia" "vanASlioatz dolio, p. 94. Another Latin recension from
The first edition of the Margravial Brandenburg Neichstag Acts of 1530, No. 19, is found in Förstemann's Urkundenbuch, Vol. II, p. 483. A third redaction is in the ducal library in Wolfenbüttel. It consists of 57 leaves in folio format, thirty of which are written by Spalatin, but 21 by Melanchthon's own hand. Among the latter, ten or twelve pages are blank. What was written by Spalatin is a fair copy, but here and there with corrections by Melanchthon, while what was written by Melanchthon is a concept, often crossed out and changed. Printed in Förstemann's "Neues Urkundenbuch", p. 357-380. - But also in German language the Apology in its first draft is already published in 1577 by the provost of Berlin Georg Cölestin in his first edition of the German Augsburg Confession. He gives the text "faithfully copied according to Philippi and the theologians and hand present at the time". Bertram has published this text in his litterar. Abhandlungen, Theil III, p. 56. Förstemann, Urkundenbuch, Vol. II, p. 530, has another edition of this writing, not significantly different from this one, from a volume of acts of the Hessian secret state archives at Casfel. The imprint at Cölestin was fo unknown, that even Salig knew nothing about it and Walch had it retranslated after the Latin of Chyträus. We leave it at the old translation, and limit ourselves to making the most necessary improvements according to Förstemann.
Translated from Latin by M. A. Littet.
1 Imperial Majesty will see right away that those who wrote the refutation of our confession acted not only without reason but also without honesty. Majesty will immediately see that those who wrote the refutation of our confession acted not only without understanding, but also without honesty. For they attack in vain the description of original sin when they say: The fear of God and trust in God are effects (actus), and thus if original sin were not well described, that it would be a lack of such effects, because not even the nature of children in the state of innocence would have had such effects in itself. But the German Confession says that we are not talking about the effects, but about the gifts that nature had in the state of innocence. For this is the description there: "Further, it is taught that after the fall of Adae all men who are born naturally are conceived and born in sins, that is, that they are all full of evil desire and inclination from their mother's womb, and can have no true fear of God, no true faith in God by nature." Here the words show that we are not talking about real sins, but about the faculty, namely, that people, so naturally born, cannot by natural forces bring forth a true fear of God and a true trust against God. And it is nothing new that fear and trust are not only effects, but also gifts. And we have spoken with diligence in such a way that we have the ge-
explained my description of original sin, which is somewhat obscure. For they otherwise describe it thus: original sin is a lack of inherent righteousness. But we prefer to take the parts that there is a lack of fear of God, a lack of trust in God 2c. For inherent righteousness would have put the fear of God and trust in God in the children who are born. And we have counted these pieces because, when others speak of original sin, they only touch on the very worst desires against the other table, but do not mention the much worse vices 1) of nature, namely, how in nature there is contempt for God, distrust of God, and such spiritual harm and corruption. They think nothing of it in schools. In the meantime, they argue about whether the tinder (of original sin) is a property of the body; whether it came in by infection of the apple or poisonous blowing of the snake?
But that they add that this is also a damned article of Luther, that original sin remains after baptism, is an unnecessary blasphemy. For they know well that Luther taught correctly that guilt was forgiven through baptism, although the material of sin, as they say, still remains. This is what Luther calls sin. For this is also what Scripture and Augustine say. Others call it tinder; and, according to philosophical opinions, dream that man's nature, even if it is weak, can of its own accord bring forth the fear of God, trust in God, and such like impulses. And because they ignored the Gospel and introduced Aristotle into the church, who wrote that the affections (or movements of the mind) were mean things, they also judged tinder (or the lust for blood) to be a mean thing. So the school teachers kept the name of original sin, but did not explain the matter properly. Therefore Luther had to explain what original sin is, and how guilt is taken away and sin begins to be killed by the Holy Spirit, but that it is not yet completely taken away. Likewise, the law of sins, which is in the members of the body, is remitted in the spiritual rebirth, and yet remains in the mortal body; remitted because the guilt is cancelled by the sacrament in which believers are born again. From this, Her Imperial Majesty will easily see that the debt is cancelled by the sacrament in which the faithful are born again. Majesty will easily see that we speak and believe about original sin just as the Catholic Church believes.
1) In Latin vitia; with Förstemann in German: Lüste.
From the IV and VI articles.
(3) In the fourth and sixth articles, extensive arguments about merit are added, but it is not actually stated how far the works of men are meritorious. And those who do not explain this, with their praise of works, completely obscure the righteousness of faith, which is of great need to the pious, and which must be especially practiced and preached in the church.
4 But how modestly they speak of merit now! Before this, when they spoke of forgiveness of sins and justification, no faith was thought of; only works were thought of. They also said: the works without the Holy Spirit deserved grace de congruo, but afterwards with grace they deserved eternal life de condigno. So the whole Christian doctrine was nothing else than a human worldly wisdom of bourgeois morals. For this they also evidently wrote: A good work done without grace and a good work done with grace are of the same kind, and grace contributes only so much that it is regarded as merit.
5 They emphasized the ability of human nature so much that they thought there was no need for the Holy Spirit. Indeed, some were still in doubt as to whether grace does anything in the justified. They also taught that man could keep God's commandment by natural ability, according to the nature of the thing (or deed), although the appearance of merit would be removed.
At that time, no popes punished such blasphemies, but rather allowed them to be taught freely in schools. But since there were doubts about indulgences, and also about the tyrannical world domination of the pope, they were first made into intolerable heresies, and they were considered worthy of being made terrible examples of.
But where there have been more thoughtful theologians, they have gradually improved much of such scholastic teaching. They recognize that more than reasonable philosophy has crept into Christian doctrine; they see that the human faculty has been elevated too high; they admit that the commandments of God do not only command civil duties, which reason can still meet to some extent, but also spiritual impulses, such as faith, hope, invocation of God, love of neighbor, killing of the flesh 2c.
(8) They also like to add faith when they speak of justification and forgiveness of sins, that sins are not imputed to them because of faith,
who believe that they are forgiven for Christ's sake.
(9) However, they make some mention of the merit of works, and confess that it is a small one. They say that works done in grace deserve eternal life, but minus principaliter. From such a heap of evil opinions they have still kept this little piece.
(10) And even if the works were to some extent meritorious, our article is still quite correct and catholic, that the works commanded by God are indeed necessary to be done, but in such a way that we do not insist on them as if we were thereby earning grace and righteousness, but only and solely through the merits and voluntary promise of Christ. This much is written in our article. And there is no doubt that all Catholics confess and preach this; for thus says the prophet in the Psalm: "Thou wilt not enter into judgment with thy servant, for before thee no living man is righteous." Likewise, "If thou wilt impute sin, O Lord, who shall stand?" And Augustine says, "God does not bring us to eternal life by our merits, but by His mercy. So our article commands to do good works because of the divine will and command, and yet rejects the reliance on works. This is what all pious and catholic people have always rejected, and it is an abominable blindness of the adversaries to spread themselves so defiantly with merits, since they themselves confess that all our good works are impure, as the Scripture says, "Who can say, I am pure in heart?" Fie! that we still boast of merits in such impurity of heart, when even the saints complain that they do not trust God, are angry with God's judgment, are plagued by many evil desires.
The adversaries destroy Christ's saying with a fictitious interpretation, of which clever people can easily see what people will judge when it comes to light. When you have done everything, say, "We are useless servants," which they interpret to mean: useless servants of God, not of ourselves.
(12) What could not all be said against this ludicrous interpretation, if I did not spare your imperial majesty, our most gracious lord? For since the opponents wanted to put their name before their writing, they should have written with more diligence and correctness.
13 Ambrose explained this passage much better, saying: "It follows, therefore, that no one should boast of works, because we owe obedience to God by right. And
soon after: One must praise grace, but not forget the weakness of nature. But let us briefly prove that this word of Christ condemns merit and the trust of merit. Christ's intention is to withdraw us from the ungodly trust in our works. But he makes a conclusion from the equation that we could not make God our debtor. As a servant who does his duty does not make his master a debtor, so you also, he says, cannot make God a debtor, since you are servants. But since God is not a debtor, it necessarily follows that we cannot boast that the works are meritorious. For how do they merit, since God owes them nothing?
14 To which is added that he calls us "unprofitable servants. Whoever understands the manner of speaking can easily see that it means unfit 1) servants. For who fears God enough? who believes him as he should? Who loves God properly? Who is patient enough in tribulation? Who loves his neighbor rightly? Who does in everything as his profession requires? So he calls them "useless" for- maliter, because one must speak to the sophists in a dialectical way. So Paul teaches that works are unclean: "I do not do the good that I want, but the evil that I do not want." Likewise, "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit." For sin, lust, contempt of God, distrust of God is in nature. These infirmities are also burdensome to the saints and hinder good works. This is the real and true opinion of the words of Christ.
15 Thus follows the conclusion that removes the reliance on works: Since GOD is not a debtor, nor are our works sufficient: who then can boast of merit? Will even a servant boast if he has tilled the field badly?
Finally, even the interpretation of the adversaries does us no good. For if the works of God are of no use, it follows that he owes them nothing. If he owes them nothing, how can they have the glory of merit?
(17) But let us set aside these apparent subtleties, since everyone can see that in this very saying Christ intended to punish trust in works. And yet the adversaries want to destroy such testimony by a false and deceitful interpretation. But there is no need for further argument. For it is clear that Scripture everywhere declares that we do not boast about ourselves, that we do not rely on our works or our abilities.
1) inadequate, insuKeisntes.
defy. Therefore, we have rightly said that the works commanded by God are necessary to do, and yet one must not rely on such works, but on the grace of Christ.
(18) But, they say, the Scriptures require the word "reward," therefore good works are meritorious. What do the adversaries bring forward but such childish and ludicrous plots, and want to appear to argue according to right reasoning, since they do not understand the language of Scripture? But so that we do not endure and burden anyone too long with refutations of such petty quibbles (for they are so obscure because of their pointed nature that they are hardly understood even in schools), we will only briefly say that it is called "reward" not for the sake of the worthiness of the works, but for the sake of the promise of God. But the promise, as Paul teaches, is received in faith, not for our works, but for the merit of Christ. Now as the promise requires faith according to Paul, so the reward requires faith because it is a promised thing. Meanwhile, the cause of the promise is not the value of our works, but the merit of Christ.
(19) All this would be understandable enough if the philosophical quarrels had not suppressed Paul's teaching of the promises, of grace, of justification, of faith, in the church. Therefore, in our confession we have been content with these two sayings and sentences: 1) that one must necessarily do good works because of the commandment of God; 2) and that we must not rely on our works, but on the gracious promise of God. For though the righteousness of the law merits rewards of the law, yet we do not merit grace and righteousness before God by our works. For those who attach such glory to our works diminish the glory of Christ, as Paul says: "If righteousness comes from the law, Christ died in vain."
20 And in this way we say that we are justified by faith alone, because faith grasps the grace and mercy of God, seeing that God is gracious to us for Christ's sake. This faith is counted as righteousness before God. And because he receives the Holy Spirit, the Spirit renews the hearts and impels them to do good; as it is written in the prophet, "I will put my law in their hearts"; thus, good works are fruits of faith.
21 Meanwhile, faith recognizes that for the sake of Christ, not for the sake of our works, we have a gracious God. Therefore
faith is righteous, and not works, because faith looks to Christ, for whose sake we are saved.
(22) Otherwise men would have no certain and firm comfort against sins, if we obtained grace because of our works, because we always have something fragile about us. But faith gives the conscience a sure consolation, in that it feels that we are certainly accepted for grace because of Christ, even though our works are worthless.
23 The adversaries dispute the word "alone" and want to have it their joke. For they have invented a new name, so that they may pull us through and call us solarios, because we teach that men are justified sola fide, by faith alone; they also cry out that such a word ("alone") is not in Scripture. They complain that the sacraments are excluded from this way. But we hold that a man is justified by faith, not because of previous or subsequent works. This faith is awakened by the Word and the Sacraments. So the sacraments are not excluded, but the merit of works. Paul does the same when he says: "It is the gift of God, not of works." This negation clearly excludes works. He also often says, "We are justified by grace through faith." Is not then "by grace" (or in vain) also an exclusionary word? And is it not just as much as if it said, we are justified by faith alone, when it says, we are justified by grace (or in vain)? Does this not exclude works? Here, His Imperial Majesty sees that once again we are justified by faith. Majesty, that once again a quarrel has arisen over a word, and that the adversaries interpret and misuse this word sola (alone) in a treacherous way, since all Catholics have always confessed that forgiveness of sins takes place by grace. And the adversaries themselves do not deny it. But they take pleasure in childish bickering and quarreling over words. If the word sola is so annoying to them, why do they not scratch it out of the old books? for ours did not first speak in this way. In the Confession we have drawn on the words of Ambrosius: "Thus it is ordained of God, that whosoever believeth in Christ should be saved without works, sola by faith alone, and receive forgiveness of sins freely. Hilarius also says Matth. 8: "It vexes the scribes that a man should forgive sin (for they regarded Christ as merely a man), and that that should be forgiven which the law could not remit; for the law is the law.
Faith alone (sola) makes righteous. Do these severe judges want to erase the word sola also in the books of these, which are now read so many hundred years? But the adversaries are not ashamed of anything. This whole matter of justification has been diligently and extensively treated by Augustine against the Pelagians, and by Ambrose in several books, and since they know that we follow their opinion, they still catch a word that they can take around.
In the seventh article they intend to make us hateful by mentioning John Hus, since soon after we clearly confess that in the church in this life there are many evil and hypocrites mixed in. The adversaries are also called dead members of the church. Therefore, when we describe the church, we mean by it the living members. And lest anyone think that we are dreaming of a Platonic congregation (or civil society), we add the outward marks by which the church is to be recognized, namely, unanimity (or agreement) in the Gospel and use of the sacraments, as the Gospel teaches. That assembly is the church in which such marks are. But among those who have these marks, some are holy; those who use such marks rightly, others are hypocrites and wicked, who misuse such marks. What can be said of the more righteous? or what godly person 1) has spoken of it otherwise? But the adversaries have not shied away from reporting their imperial majesty obviously wrong. Majesty obviously wrongly. Does not Paul say Eph. 5: "Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it, and cleanse it by the washing of water in the word" 2c. ? Here he calls the church a community, not of all, but of those who are being cleansed, and adds the outward signs, baptism and word.
(25) That they say that the general (universal) statutes of men are necessary for the right unity of the churches, we constantly deny. For human customs are not divine services, which are necessary for righteousness. Therefore, equality in such statutes is not necessary. Just as other peoples have different lengths of days, so they can also have different customs in the church. The Scriptures teach this in many places, Rom. 14: "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit"; Gal. 3: "You are all children of God through the Holy Spirit.
1) Chytraeus offers: plus instead of: xius.
Faith in Jesus Christ. For as many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ. For there is neither Jew nor Greek here, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female." But hereafter.
In the tenth, we do not say that the dead body of Christ is taken, or a body without blood, or blood without a body, but that the whole and living Christ is present in every part of the sacrament.
In the eleventh, although we consider confession and absolution to be right, as is known, we do not want to bind anyone's conscience to keep the chapter: Omnis utriusque sexus etc., All men and women 2c., because it is impossible to confess all sins. It is not only impossible to remember all deeds, but also impossible to know all sins. For the heart of man is evil and unsearchable; human nature is full of evil desires, ungodliness, contempt for God. These sins are so inherent in nature that they cannot be seen or understood unless the Holy Spirit shows them in our hearts. But it is necessary to teach the consciences that even sins that are not told are forgiven to the believers.
(28) And since the people should have been taught about absolution and faith, the one concern of all those who wrote and taught in the churches was to get people into the habit of keeping a record of sins. In the meantime, everything was silent about the faith.
Therefore, we do not want to place this burden of the chapter: All of Both Sexes 2c. on pious consciences, since it is burdensome enough in itself, without what they have added of innumerable and highly dangerous cords of the glosses.
30 In the twelfth, that they say that certain works must be imposed on the confessors for satisfaction cannot be proved from Scripture.
(31) And that they think that the punishment of eternal death is changed into a temporal punishment, which the power of the keys interprets, cannot be proved. And this opinion is too close to the glory of the merit and satisfaction of Christ, because Christ is the sacrifice for sin, as the Scripture says: "He is the propitiation for our sins."
(32) And what ungodliness is this, to think that the guilt is taken away because of the merit of Christ, but the punishment because of our works, since Christ is the conqueror of death and sins, as it is written in Hebrews 2, "that he destroyed by death.
him who had the dominion of death, that is, the devil, and delivered those who through fear of death had to be slaves all their lives."
Likewise, since the gospel proclaims the forgiveness of sins by grace, it is false that sin is forgiven partly because of the death of Christ and partly because of our atonement and repentance.
(34) Though God exercises the saints through many tribulations, these can neither be put away nor taken away by the power of the keys.
35 David was punished after adultery; this punishment for sin was not necessary. But it pleased God both to humble him and to show others an example. As he himself says: "It is good for me that you have humbled me, that I have learned your rights.
(36) But if penitential canons (rules) were made in the churches, these did not concern the forgiveness of sins, but were only a public discipline that served as an example or to test those who converted back to the church. It was a human custom that was not necessary for the forgiveness of guilt or punishment.
(37) But there is no need for extensive argument here. All pious men in all places testify that our doctrine of repentance has freed many godly consciences from despair, and shown the true and certain consolation according to the Gospel. None of the school teachers ever explained how sins are forgiven. This whole thing has remained unknown.
In the thirteenth article they demand that we confess that there are seven sacraments. We have said nothing about this number in our confession. For no one in the church has ever believed that it was necessary to count seven sacraments, if by sacraments we understand such ceremonies as Christ commanded to be performed, and to which he added the promise of grace. It is known that two such ceremonies are baptism and the Lord's Supper. Meanwhile, we readily admit that absolution can also be called a sacrament, for it is a commandment and promise of Christ. We also want to accept that this name be given to the ordination of priests, if one understands by it the office of preaching, for it is God's command. Likewise, when it is given to marriage, for that also has God's command. But this (scil. Sacrament of Marriage) does not belong to the New Testament alone. Confirmation and the last rites are church customs,
But they do not have an explicit command of Christ. Therefore, these customs are to be regarded just as other human statutes, so that they are not considered necessary things for salvation.
39 And it is surprising that they did not include prayer among the sacraments, since Dionysius includes it among them, and it can truly be called a sacrament, because it has a commandment from God and glorious promises. This name of a sacrament would have elevated prayer, as it were, and attracted it all the more to prayer and faith.
(40) But here again the adversaries lack honesty. They do not quarrel with us about the number of sacraments for any other reason than to cast hatred on us by the unintelligent. For they know well that this number has nothing dangerous about it, and yet that the simple are upset when they hear that the sacraments are, as it were, mad. But they are strange to themselves, and do not want to know what errors they taught before, not only about the number of sacraments, where there is no danger at all, but also about the use of them, which the Sophists have completely reversed. For they have taught that the sacraments conferred grace, the mere works by themselves (ex opere operato).
(41) And this also is something more inconsistent, that for the reception of grace through the sacrament a good emotion is not required; who does not see that this is quite blasphemously spoken?
(42) Therefore, this doctrine has brought down the whole faith of righteousness and the right spiritual practices of faith, and has established trust in works, which falls away in death and in the judgment of God. And the consciences had no consolation afterwards, because they did not know the doctrine of forgiveness of sins and of righteousness by grace. Now, however, even most of the adversaries recognize the benefit of the doctrine which ours has driven from the use of the sacraments, namely, that the sacraments do not confer grace for the sake of mere action or deed, but that they are instituted to awaken faith, and are of use when faith is present; thereby the timid consciences are raised up, and believe that God cares for them and accepts them for grace, and that they are heard by God for Christ's sake. For the word and the sacrament have the same effect, as Augustine also indicates when he writes: the sacrament is a visible word, that is, a sign that falls on the eyes, so that it moves the heart to faith.
In the fourteenth, they demand that the ordination (or consecration) of bishops take place. Here we want to answer briefly that we would like to preserve the church government and believe that it is conducive to the peace of the church. Therefore, we would not accept church servants without the authority of the bishops, if only the bishops were kinder and did not persecute the true doctrine. However, they ordain no one and admit no one to the ecclesiastical office to whom they do not lay down the most stringent points, namely, that he should not practice the doctrine of the Gospel, nor marry. And there are others that are just as hard.
But because our priests cannot accept such points with a good conscience, they do not ask for the power of the bishops. Because "one must obey God more than men". If the bishops would stop this tyranny, we would gladly give the bishops what they have to give, so that the wisely ordered scales in the Church would be preserved.
And let the bishops see how they want to give account to God, that they are the cause of the destruction of the obedience of the church with their stubbornness. Such tyranny does not befit shepherds, to whom, as Paul says, power has been given for edification (improvement) and not for destruction.
46 In the fifteenth, we are told that the doctrines of men (statutes) are not the services of God necessary for salvation. But such an article has been confirmed in our confession with many testimonies. And because we want to say more about it below, we will now only give one testimony, which Christ holds up to us: "In vain do they serve me with the commandments of men" [Matth. 15].
47 Since the Scriptures condemn everywhere the opinion that we deserve grace through services that are invented without the Word of God, what is the impudence of requiring these services as necessary?
(48) As for the invocation of the saints, we admit that the angels and saints in heaven pray to God for the Church, as the Scripture also says that the angels rejoice over a sinner who repents. But this serves nothing for the invocation. The invocation is uncertain and dangerous. For it has no testimony from Scripture; therefore we do not accept it, nor do we want to put Christ's glory beside the glory of the saints. Christ alone is such an intercessor and mediator that he is also a reconciler. Other saints are not reconcilers. We have the command and the
Promise of Christ: "Whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give it to you". Therefore, we must call upon Him in Christ's name, and hold this High Priest and Reconciler up to the Father. This honor cannot be transferred to other saints.
The other part.
(49) This doctrine, which we have confessed, not only brings about the correction of some abuses in external things, but also has many other and higher goods, for which reason we have accepted it and want to remain with it for the glory of God. The whole church was previously oppressed with the works doctrine, and the glory of the merit of Christ and the righteousness of faith lay buried in darkness. In the sermons, some taught about nothing but some human statutes, certain fasts, holidays, ceremonies, indulgences, certain orders, certain devotions to the saints, and the like. Nothing was heard of faith in Christ, of the righteousness of faith. But this is the main part of the Christian doctrine, the righteousness of faith.
50 One of the most important things is the doctrine of repentance. How much it has been defiled, not only by those who have sold indulgences, but also by other hypocrites who have forgotten the faith and taught that sins are forgiven for the sake of our merits, who have brought consciences to despair through the reckoning of sins (in auricular confession) and through ungodly pardons.
51 Therefore, since these pieces of repentance and the righteousness of faith have been cleansed in this doctrine that our people practice, and the glory of Christ has been promoted, we recognize that God is offering us great gifts. We see that the consciences have received a certain and firm comfort. We see in what the right service of God consists. We see what works and way of life are pleasing to God.
The knowledge of these things is what first made us love this teaching of ours. From this the adversaries make much use of themselves, even though they may thank those who have taught them.
After that, something was changed in the external church customs, which mainly comes from the above-mentioned most important article, so we did not want to act contrary to the word of God. And yet we have moderated such changes in such a way that we have mostly remained with the Catholic customs. In addition, we have also offered, out of love, to keep the general
mine 1) To hold ceremonies with, which can be accepted without sin.
But all such moderation, which we hope will help us with God, does not help us with the adversaries, who want us by force to accept all old abuses against our conscience. But since we cannot be at their beck and call in this matter, we want to respond with a little to what, as far as we remember, has been read to us in the refutation of our confession, and we ask Your Imperial Majesty, with due honor, to grant us the right of appeal. Maj. with due deference that she may deign to hear the reasons that require us to stand by our opinion. For we have never lacked the will to obey Your Imperial Maj. Maj. in everything that can be done and accomplished without offense to conscience.
55 Now we cannot, without dishonoring Christ, approve of the old abuses. But if it should seem that one is speaking harshly, this is not in the least due to Your Imperial Majesty. Maj. whose virtue and piety is known to the whole world, and whom we most humbly honor as our most gracious Lord, but this whole dispute concerns those who falsely accuse us before your Imperial Majesty of being contrary to Christian doctrine.
Of both shape.
(56) First, they chastise us for including among the abuses the fact that the laity are not given both forms of the sacrament, and they want to enforce that it would be more of an abuse if the laity were given both forms.
We have been asked to agree with this writing. And if it were nowhere objectionable but in this few particulars, we should have high cause not to accept it. For with what mouth or insolence can we call the institution of Christ an abuse? It is known that this Sacrament was instituted by Christ for the whole Church. But how can anyone dislocate the order of Christ? St. Paul says: "No one may change a man's testament", but why do they not only change the testament of Christ, but also call it an abuse? "I received it from the Lord," says Paul, "what I gave you." But he had given the use of both forms to the whole church. Therefore, both forms are infallibly ordained for the whole church.
(58) As for the opponents of the breaking of bread from Lucas and the Acts of the Apostles, they say
1) universales. This is well given in the translation by Förstemann: "der gemeinen christlichen Kirche Gebräuche."
they do not prove that in such places the sacrament was spoken of. And if it were so, they do not prove that only one form of the sacrament was administered.
(59) One also refers to the story of Eli's descendants, whom God threatens to expel from the priesthood, that they should beg bread from priests. But everyone can easily see how beautifully such a story rhymes with the matter. Earlier, the holding about Christ's institution was called an abuse; but now they conclude as if they wanted to indicate that the people should have been punished in such a way that they received only one form of the sacrament from the priests, as the sons of Eli had to beg bread, since they were punished by God. To our mind, those who call the preservation of Christ's institution an abuse, and who consider the sacrament instituted for the consolation of consciences a punishment by taking away the other part, do not speak of the sacrament with reverence.
60) But it is not necessary to answer this story about the descendants of Eli, since everyone can see that it is drawn quite wrongly to this matter.
61 They also present other proofs why it is good to give only one figure to the people, namely, so that the blood will not be spilled; likewise, because it cannot be kept in vessels.
But for the sake of these reasons or causes, Christ's institution must not be abrogated. Therefore, we maintain that it is not an abuse to use both forms of the sacrament. For we dare not call Christ's institution an abuse.
(63) But if one cites the testimonies from the Costnitz and Basel Concilii, neither of the two Concilia calls it an abuse if one uses both forms. And in the decision of the Basel Concilii it is clearly written: those who needed both forms needed the sacrament rightly. Since this is the case, it is rather an abuse to weigh down the consciences of people by prohibiting one form of the Sacrament.
From the priest marriage.
It is astonishing that in this matter the canons should be insisted upon so strongly, when the obvious necessity demands mitigation, and when they are otherwise so easily mitigated or relaxed in the slightest matters. And it is undeniable that this prohibition of marriage derives only from human law. It is also
The old canons allow priests to marry, but they do not allow them to remain in office. The old canons allow the priests to marry, but they do not allow them to remain in office, but they do not banish them. The newer canons, which should be more lenient with such a large number of priests, are less lenient. 1)
For a time, the deacons were allowed to marry in office, so that they were not forced to give up their office if they had not vowed [chastity]; but they were not forced to vow. This was subsequently also changed.
For a long time, priests kept the wives they had married before the priesthood. This was changed, but with the opposition of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Concilium.
If at that time one did not take offense at the novelty, since a change was made against the power of the conciliation and against divine law, why does one take offense at the novelty now, since it is obvious that nothing is done against God's commandment when the marriage state is granted to this state, especially in these last times, since with nature the powers of men also decrease, and vices increase? therefore do not disdain the means of recovery ordered by God.
(68) Indeed, divine law compels those who do not have the gift of chastity to marry. For thus Paul commands, "For the sake of fornication, let every man have his own wife." This commandment absolves from the canons those who are not capable of single status, for "one must obey GOD more than men."
(69) But that the adversaries conclude that the priests must be pure, because it is right that the sacraments should be administered by the pure, is quite correct. For marriage is also not unfaithfulness. For the Scripture says that marriage is honest, and the holy martyr Paphnutius, with the assent of the whole Nicene Concilii, said that marriage is honest, and that intercourse with one's proper wife is chastity. This is not to be called purity, if the consciences are defiled either by fornication or other rutting of lust. And Paul would rather that husbands and wives be reunited than be tempted by Satan. So he considers it a better purity for married couples to be with each other than the pretended abstinence is, where the gift is not present. Although not much of this
1) This sentence is missing in the old edition.
is to be disputed. All of Scripture praises marriage, teaching that it is God's order and appointment. Therefore, it is sanctified by God's Word. There is, therefore, a marital purity, namely, faith, since husbands and wives are assured that this way of life is pleasing to God, and see to it that they walk according to God's commandment in this state, and neither fornicate nor commit adultery.
(70) And the celibate state is not to be exalted with fictitious praise, so that the consciences of the married are burdened by it, as if they lived in an impure state. The adversaries accuse us of following Jovinianus' heresy, which deprives virginity of its due praise. But we do not reproach it. She retains the praise which Christ attaches to him who intersects himself for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. We do not speak of virginity, but of the weakness of man.
(71) Virginity is praiseworthy in those who have such a gift. But if some do not have the gift, they must not be pressed with the hard canon that commanded the celibate state. This is also the opinion of Ambrose, who says: "Virginity alone can only be advised, but not commanded; it is a matter that is based more on vows than on commandments.
But they say that one should seek to attain it through prayer and other practices. Why do not those do this who fight for the celibate state? For their shameful deeds are all too well known, but they are not to be recounted here before the chaste and honorable emperor. Rather, we answer thus: This is not praying, but tempting God, if one has experienced his weakness in battle, and yet does not want to need God's order. There are books by great men who lament the rut of these people who have resisted temptations with all seriousness, and show sufficiently how much these temptations have wounded their consciences. For Christ Himself says, "Not all grasp this word." That is why God wants some to need His order. One must therefore pray that God's order not be despised, which He wants to be used by those to whom He has not given the gift, just as He wants us to need food and other creatures, since He does not preserve our life without their use.
(73) But it is ridiculous that they say that this word of God, "Be fruitful and multiply," applies only to the same time when there were few people, but not to ours.
We hold, then, that the same words create and order nature as it will be afterwards.
and cannot be otherwise than other such words, but: "Let the earth grow green herbs. This word clothes the fields, produces fruit annually, brings forth food and fare for all animals. Thus this saying: "Be fruitful and" 2c. contains not only a commandment, but also the nature of nature in itself, which to change is not our, but God's work.
(75) And the virgins, if they have truly kept virginity, have not done contrary to God's commandment, because they have been free from the above nature, and therefore the above commandment has not affected them, as far as the nature is concerned. For it was a special gift and work of God that made them free.
But let us suppose that it is easy for everyone to keep constant chastity. Who then gave the popes the authority to interpret this law to the churches? Especially since Paul reminded us earlier that such laws are teachings of the devils.
This and many other things could be said in this matter if nothing were known about it. But now there is such an obvious need to mitigate this Canon that it does not require much discussion. Those who defend this canon against God's commandment are guilty of all the lechery and fornication of this state. Therefore, we cannot agree with those who condemn the marriage of priests.
From the fair.
The adversaries admit that there are many abuses of the Mass. Therefore, they will forgive ours, who have punished these shortcomings, which would not have crept into the Church if the bishops had been vigilant.
However, it is easy to judge whether this is an abuse if they hold a certain number of masses against their will at certain times for wages and out of certain compulsion by the laws of the foundations, when they are not at all skilled in doing so.
These infirmities are so common and so well known that they cannot be disguised. But some others are not so well known to the inexperienced, which the adversaries have touched upon above. They claim that the mass is a sacrifice because it was kept that way a thousand years ago, and because the Greeks call it liturgy (or the sacred office, service). Likewise because Misbeach is called an altar in Hebrew, and Thysiasterion (or place of sacrifice) in Greek. Finally, because Christ says, "This does," but to do means as much as to sacrifice. They add that it is an Arian heresy if someone believes that the mass is not a sacrifice.
81 And these reasons they consider sufficient that they put the title of Her Imperial Majesty before them. Maj. What people will think of them when they are printed, smart people can soon see.
They think that the most important and highest matter of all, which is now being argued about, is sufficiently protected if a few words are brought forward which have been taken from some schoolmaster. But what do they do to the matter? Not to mention that the same scribes, if they tore themselves apart, would not be able to give any derivation of their words.
83 Can one not counter such words with as many others, which are much better to hear? The Church calls it a synaxis, a communion; and the Canon itself says that many take (or enjoy) from the altar. But since this is not appropriate for silent Masses, one sees from this that the use of silent Masses is quite new.
But such a high thing must not be judged by mere speculations. And the quarrel is not about the name. We know that the mass was called a sacrifice by the ancients because it was a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ, as Irenaeus says. And we readily admit that the holy fathers call it so. We do not argue with them, but with the moderns, who wrongly understand the name sacrifice, and have introduced into the Church opinions and services that are not at all in harmony with the Gospel.
(85) We argue about merit and dedication, whether the Lord's Supper is a work that earns grace by the mere performance of it? Likewise, which, performed for others and appropriated to them, earns grace by the mere act?
Although the books of the adversaries are full of such things, no testimony can be brought forth from any ancient church scribes that the mass, by the mere doing (or keeping) of it, confers grace on others. For these strange and outrageous opinions or words are new, and invented by the monks who misused the Mass for a shameful gain. The doctrine of the opus operatum, and of the bestowal (or application) of the same, evidently conflicts with the Gospel and with the righteousness of the faith. For Scripture teaches that we are justified by faith, and not by works. But if the mass merits grace for the sake of mere deeds, it must follow that righteousness is of works without faith. And the adversaries do not deny that they have this opinion.
They have publicly written, not only about the holy night meal, but also about sacraments in general, that for the reception of grace through the sacrament no good emotion is required. And they do not only think that the one who holds or performs it becomes righteous, but also those to whom it is administered (or who benefit from it). These, they say, necessarily attain grace, if they do not advance a bar. Is not all this contrary to the doctrine of faith? And with this single reason we want to leave it in this piece, because the matter is quite obvious and known.
We receive the merit of Christ through faith. But they confer the merit of the mass on others, even without faith. Thus they make more of the merit of the mass than of the merit of Christ.
These opinions have crept into the Church since the doctrine of the righteousness of faith was extinguished, and the right use of the sacraments and ceremonies cannot be kept unless the righteousness of faith is known.
We therefore reject the merit of the opus operatum and the consecration of the same. And since the silent masses were done in the opinion, we cannot reestablish them, or accomodate those who defend them, but it should be a common mass, where the sacrament is administered to those who want to use it, for the consolation of the stupid consciences. For for this purpose, as we are taught in the Confession, the Sacrament was instituted. And of this use of the Sacrament the Fathers of the Church wrote. And we must not be considered Arians, because we do not approve of such a devotion, which is contrary to the Gospel.
(90) It is also a false statement that we would do away with the continual sacrifice. For if the mass had been represented by the daily sacrifice, we would certainly not abolish the mass, but only improve the abuse.
We hold to the usage of the ancient church. Those who demand the body and blood of Christ take it from one. The people are urged to the communion and custom of the Sacrament. Among the opponents, the people very rarely need the sacrament, only a few, who are urged, need it. So we are more concerned about the use of the sacrament and daily sacrifice, as they call it, than the opponents.
(92) But since the adversaries are so set on this change of the still mass and accuse us of abolishing the continual sacrifice, like Antiochus, it is necessary to say something more about it.
93. Numbers 28 describes the daily sacrifice. A lamb was burned, and breadcrumbs sprinkled with oil were offered. Then came the drink offering, a certain measure of wine. This was a constant ceremony. Now if anyone wants this to mean the mass, so be it, but in such a way as to understand the whole mass, that is, the Lord's Supper with the preaching of the word added to this ceremony, as Paul says: "As often as you eat of this bread and drink of this cup, you shall proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."
Just as there was a perpetual ceremony, which also meant that Christ would come and this people would remain until Christ was born, so we have the Lord's supper, which is rightly called an eternal testament, because it testifies that Christ has appeared and that no other new word is to be expected from God, which he will send to the world. And this new testament also means that the Church will always remain. But to the ceremony must also come the word and the preaching of the Gospel, by which Christ is made known and the sacrifices are slain, and they give thanks and praise to God. These are the sacrifices of the New Testament.
95. These sacrifices were presented in the Old Testament; namely, that after Christ appeared, the gospel would always remain and be taught in the world, so that continually some would be converted and become a sacrifice to God, and receive eternal life, and give thanks and praise to God, and testify that the teaching of the gospel is true, that God is truly angry with sinners, that He truly forgives believers, truly hears them, truly makes them blessed, and thus also entices others to believe. So Paul interprets the sacrifice of preaching, faith and thanksgiving, Rom. 15: "That I may be a minister of JEsu Christ among the Gentiles, offering the gospel of GOD, that it may be a sacrifice of the Gentiles, acceptable and sanctified by the Holy Spirit"; and Phil. 2: "But I also am offered because of the sacrifice and gift of your faith." For the burning of the lamb signifies the putting to death of Christ and all his members; the bread roll, the giving of life by faith in the preaching of the gospel, which comforts consciences terrified by the preaching of repentance; the drink offering, thanksgiving and preaching. This sacrifice of preaching faith and thanksgiving must always remain in the church. But the ceremony itself, without teaching, is silent.
The ancients have called the night meal "thanksgiving", implying that this ceremony is
The purpose of this is to praise the good deeds of Christ, to raise up foolish consciences, to strengthen trust or confidence in the knowledge of the forgiveness of sins, and to distribute grace.
Now let us see who will destroy and abolish the continual sacrifice? The gospel is taught by the adversaries in very few places. In many large countries, sermons are often not preached, and when they are preached, a monk may recite his dream, or if it goes well, some worldly saying from worldly wisdom. Of Christ, of faith in Christ, that through him we have a reconciled God, that through him we obtain all good things from God, not because of our merits; of the exercise of faith in all tribulations, of every man's calling, of love 2c., of such things one hears nothing at all or little, where nothing is so much in vogue as fine masses. Meanwhile, the ceremony, which is instituted for the preaching of Christ, is used for a quite different custom, that of acquiring grace for others by the mere doing of the work. There the continual sacrifice has been quite abolished, where the proper use of the sacrament has been completely perverted, and all is silent from the preaching of the gospel. For so it is said of the ungodly sacrifice, Proverbs 15: "The sacrifice of the ungodly is detestable to God, but the prayer of the sincere is pleasing to Him." Here the Holy Spirit requires faith and prayer; does not accept the mere work without word and faith, as the fine mass is. And in Jeremiah, GOD says, "I commanded you not of burnt offerings in the day that I brought you out of the land of Egypt, but this I said unto them, Hear my voice, and I will be your GOD" [Jer. 7]. Here the prophet obviously condemns mere works, and wants to have word and faith, that we take grace by faith and believe God. In the realm of the popes, however, who either put the teaching of the Gospel aside or want to persecute and destroy it, the ceremony remains, but they do not hear the voice of God; they do not ask that the Gospel be taught by the doctrine of faith, but defend the merit of the mere work and other ungodly services. Therefore it may be better said of them, that they do away with the continual sacrifice.
There are also many other signs that this rule of the popes was foreshadowed by Antioch's empire. Do not the popes worship their god with gold, silver and precious stones, and get with us that we do not approve of these ungodly services? They accuse us that we do not approve the Cere
monies that we desecrate the altars and monasteries. They exhort the most gracious emperor to inflict severe punishment on us. These are Antiochi examples that do not concern us. For with us, thank God! the custom of the Church and the lawful administration of the Sacrament still remain with us, and the preaching of the Gospel of the true service of God, of faith, of hope, of the Cross, resounds, not of human statutes or school dreams.
99. they also pervert the words of Malachi to the fair: "From the going forth of the sun even unto the going down of the earth shall my name be magnified among the heathen; and in every place shall incense be burned unto my name, and a pure offering shall be offered: for my name shall be magnified among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. Such fanciful expressions are also found in other prophets, who, when speaking of the gospel, use words of the law, and thereby indicate a spiritual, but not an outward service of God. For the epistle to the Hebrews also teaches that no sacrifice for sin is necessary after Christ's death. Therefore Peter teaches that we are the holy 'priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices. One must therefore take the passage from Malachi in such a way that incense and sacrifice are not understood there from the mere ceremony, but from preaching, faith and thanksgiving. For without this the ceremony itself is not a sacrifice, for the sake of the mere work, as they speak, as it is written in the epistle to the Hebrews: "Through him we offer the sacrifice of praise to GOD always, that is, the fruit of the lips that confess his name."
100 And Malachi's words themselves sufficiently indicate that one must not understand the mere ceremony, because the incense is not a model, which actually means the night meal, but the prayer. Likewise it is added: "My name will be great among the Gentiles. This is related to preaching, because the name of God is widely spread and proclaimed through the preaching of the Gospel. And people learn to recognize, fear and believe in God.
In this way the ancients also explain this passage of Malachi. For so says Tertullianus: "In all places a pure offering", namely a loud prayer from a pure and clean heart. And Jerome: This is a rule of Scripture, where a manifest prophecy of things to come is involved, one should not weaken by uncertain similes what is written. Those who offer the blind and the lame should know that spiritual sacrifices follow carnal sacrifices, and not the blood of goats or of oxen, but incense, that is, offerings of the Lord.
The saints will be sacrificed to God, and not only in the Jewish land, nor in the one city of the Jewish land Jerusalem, but in all places.
Finally, the adversaries may boast as they wish about the meaning of the continual sacrifice, and they may use the words of Malachi, but they will not bring out that the Lord's Supper is a continual sacrifice with the mere act (ex opere operato), without preaching and faith, and that when it is administered to others it earns them grace and righteousness.
103 Neither the words of Malachi nor the image of the constant sacrifice help them to strengthen or establish these ungodly opinions. And as it goes, one error always spreads another. Since one has once been entrusted with the dedication of the mass, one has begun to ask: whether the merit of the mass is finite or infinite? whether it is divisible? whether one mass is worth as much for many as one is for each person? Good profit was to be made from this. In all danger, one took refuge in this work, as in an idol. But Christ wants to be invoked in faith; he wants all goods to be expected in faith, not for the sake of our merits or works.
104 Since the opponents have not given any reasons for the merit and dedication of the Mass, but only refer to the name "sacrifice" from the Fathers and not from the canonical Scriptures, no further answer seems necessary.
(105) Neither can they, either from the Scriptures or from the Fathers, bring forward anything so firm or certain as to overthrow the reason we have given. For this is a certain proposition: that if righteousness be of faith, it cannot be of a mere work done. Therefore the mass does not justify. 1)
We have also heard that the opponents are making a great fuss about omitting something from the Canon of the Mass. This is a great disadvantage for us, because the Canon is universally held in high regard.
(107) We most earnestly request that Your Imperial Majesty not think that we have changed anything in the Canon out of contempt for religion or the Sacraments. Our people present great and important reasons why they have omitted something from the Canon, and say that they were forced to omit some things out of reverence for the Sacrament,
1) This sentence is missing in the old edition.
obvious abuses have arisen from this. And that one does not think that hereunder something happens against the Catholic Church, so is
108 To consider at the beginning that not everywhere the same canon of the Mass is in use. For the Greek Canon is different from the Latin, and in some places even the Latin ones do not correspond to each other. And even honest scribes confess that Christ taught only the words of the blessing, after which the bishops added the rest, always one more than the other, for ornament and more celebration; for this is what the gloss in the decrees says. Just as before such diversity did nothing to the Catholic faith, so also now one must be of the opinion that the Catholic faith is not challenged, even if one omits something from the canon of the Mass, if one retains only the words that contain the blessing. And in this we persevere sacredly. We also keep the prayer and the thanksgiving. And the Canon itself shows sufficiently that sometimes something has been added or taken away. For one can see that some parts do not hang together properly; and some words from Scripture are quite wrongly twisted to the sacrifice. And since the nature of the sacrifice has not been properly understood, the scribes have subsequently corrupted the Canon even more. For we have not yet seen any of the Adversary's writings (of which we have seen large volumes) that could have described the sacrifice correctly. They are so clumsy and clumsy that when they argue about the sacrifice, when they defend the canon of the Mass, they cannot describe or specify what the sacrifice actually is, what difference there is between the sacrifices of the Old and the New Testament, and what difference there is between sacrament and sacrifice. The opponents do not take offense at this, since wise people in this dispute particularly ask about it.
(109) Some in the Canon omit that he calls the still unblessed bread the sacrifice of salvation; that the priest prays and pleads for Christ that God would graciously accept this sacrifice, which would come out just as if the priest were the mediator between Christ and the Father. Likewise, that he asks that this sacrifice please God, like the sacrifice of Abel; as if other sacrifices had been more than Christ. Now this is inconsistent, but there are other things that ours disapprove of more; for example, that the same part of the canon assigns the mass to the living and the dead, that they may be saved by such a work. This dedication obviously conflicts with the Gospel and the righteousness of faith.
If this were not clear, one could doubt whether this piece of the canon would be rightly censured. But it is so obvious that one can not only see it with the eyes, but also grasp it with the hands, that people do not become righteous through the appropriation of another's work or merit, without faith. Therefore it is also evident that the part of the canon in which he sets such dedication of the masses for the living and the dead does not only deviate from one or another saying of the Gospel, which does not mean much, but from a main part of the Gospel, namely the whole doctrine of the righteousness of faith. And since this is so, ours will be forgiven for holding the word of the Gospel higher than the word of the canon, especially since everyone admits that the same part of the canon was added by human force or order, and that there have always been unequal canons of the Mass in the church. But one must always accept a clear and certain testimony of Scripture more than a human decree.
What can the opponents say, even though they are quite impudent, against such obvious truth? The matter is so clear that one cannot even make a pretense of opposing it. Since faith makes righteous, it is an ungodly and heretical opinion that the mass, which is added or appropriated to another in the mere act, makes him righteous. And since, therefore, such a dedication cannot be proved, there is a high and important reason why the part of the canon in which such a dedication is contained is omitted. 1)
From vows.
If we are not mistaken, these words were part of the refutation: that the vows had a basis in the Old and New Testament. Of the Old we shall answer soon after; but where they are in the New Testament we know not, except in these passages: "In vain do they serve me with the commandments of men," 2c. and: "Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up," 2c. These passages are quite appropriate for the vows. And we will find many similar sayings also from the monks. For example, Matth. 23: "Woe to you, Christian scholars and Pharisees, you hypocrites, you are like the tombs that are whitened from the outside.
1) Here follows in Förstemann, Urkundenbuch, Vol. II, p. 618 f. in the Latin copy, and p. 577 f. in German, the first part of No. 1007 in this volume, "über das Wort Liturgia".
shine beautifully, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones and uncleanness; just as you outwardly appear righteous before men, but inwardly are full of hypocrisy and unchastity". If there are other passages in the New Testament that are more suitable for vows, let the monks bring them forward, and we will gladly answer them.
But now we only answer in general: The vows, which are made in the opinion of earning righteousness and grace by such work, are an ungodly service, and are neither approved in the Old nor in the New Testament. For St. Paul's saying is, "Ye are empty of Christ (have lost him), who are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Therefore, those are rather fallen from grace who seek righteousness by vows, who are wholly without command and word of God. The holy men, as Bernard, Franciscus, Bonaventure, and the like, lived in such (religious) rules that they believed they did not deserve grace by such practices, but knew that they would be justified by faith. However, they lived in such rules as in schools, because these physical exercises seemed comfortable for them. But this has been a common error, that the monastic vow is another baptism, and the monastic life deserves grace and is enough for sin. Thus ours teach that these opinions are ungodly, and that vows of this opinion are useless and futile. Against this doctrine of ours the adversaries raise nothing. This is the question in dispute, and we do not know whether the opponents have touched it.
If they admit to us that the vows are not worthy of grace, that the service of the monastery is a vain service, as Christ says: "In vain do they serve me with the commandments of men," they will also easily admit that the vows themselves, which are made in an ungodly mind, are useless and vain.
But they cite the passage from the Gospel: "Whoever leaves house, or brothers, or sister, or father, or mother, or wife, for my name's sake, shall receive it a hundredfold. This is truly deceiving the simple-minded, when one forcibly drags a completely improper place into the monastic life. It is a twofold leaving: one is without profession; the other is with profession. Christ speaks of the latter. For nothing must be done without a vocation against the commandments of God. The opinion is therefore that in persecution we should rather lay down our lives and everything than deny and forsake the gospel.
Therefore he adds: "For the sake of the gospel (my name)". For one must not interpret the saying in such a way that it conflicts with other commandments of God. Now other commandments forbid to leave wife and child. But if we are forced by force to leave wife and child, are chased away from house and farm, are killed and strangled, we are excused. Christ speaks of such persecutions, that we patiently suffer the injustice. But the adversaries do not interpret it as persecution or violence, but as fleeing or leaving without a calling, also against God's commandments. For they give way that he who has betrothed himself may leave the bride and go into the monastery.
(115) Then this leaving is not for the sake of the gospel, or the ministry, or the confession of the word, but for the keeping of certain services which are rejected in the Scriptures. So they do not leave home, or father, or mother for the sake of the name of Christ, but because of the wrong opinion they have formed of such useless worship.
(116) And perhaps many leave, not for the glory of the gospel, but for the service of their bellies, a small fortune, that they may receive an hundredfold, that is, that they may have idleness and good cooking.
The monks also refer to this saying because of perfection: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and follow me. This saying contains a special calling, which concerned only the same person, but not everyone. For he commanded that he should follow and go about with them, as the other apostles. And just as he was to follow the calling, so we also must first wait for a calling. And we must not run away from our goods or leave the family without a profession. Then we will be perfect, if we live up to the profession. From this it will be seen that we believe in God. Perfection must be understood in such a way, not that leaving makes one perfect, but that obedience proves that faith is perfect, that is, honest and uncolored. The monastic life, however, is first accepted without a profession, and then it also has such services, in which there is no commandment of God.
This is why almost the entire work is in conflict with the profession. But it is a most dangerous life to live without profession and the word of God. But if there are some who serve the gospel in it, we do not reject them if they only teach and understand faithfully and truthfully,
That they have on them a way of life and service pleasing to God, not because of the monastic life and services, but because of the ministry of the Word.
But if the adversaries do not want to admit that the monastic life has ever been called a state of perfection, Gerson may answer for it. For he has written a special book to refute such ungodly opinion, and he assures that some call him so. But it is not necessary to look for witnesses. We have mostly all heard the monks preach such things in churches. Some intelligent people have wanted to correct the common error, but still keep the customary and common words, hence they wrote: the monastic life is a state of attaining perfection. This is cleverly said, if only the people understand it correctly. But what state or way of life is not a state of attaining perfection? In marriage, in all occupations, we must strive for perfection, and believe that God has called each one to a certain office, in which He wants to exercise him, so that he may learn to believe. This faith is everyone's perfection.
Perhaps it would be better to say that the monastic life was a school, discipline and teaching of children, the ultimate purpose of which was not the same spiritual perfection as in other orders, but scholarship and science, through which young people were sent to govern and teach churches. Such were the collegia of Basil and Augustine in the beginning, where the students were together and practiced the Holy Scriptures and were taught honest morals, so that they could later preside over churches. And there the consciences remained free from vows. If there were still such monasteries, no one would blame them. Now in monasteries mostly lazy bellies are fed, who under the pretext of religion splurge on the common alms.
121 And when the adversaries exhort us to reform the monasteries according to the example of our ancestors, they admit that the morals of the monks have become worse. But we consider it the best reformation not to imprison anyone against his conscience. Meanwhile, we want to establish schools of the Holy Scriptures in our countries according to our ability, and when they are established, we want to decorate them.
Finally, the adversaries conclude that constant chastity is not impossible for man. And since it is difficult, one must ask for it with prayer. Of this conclusion we have said above: one must pray in such a way that we can, however, obtain the chastity given by God.
Do not spurn the means when our weakness requires it: "For he who loves danger will perish within. But who does not know what danger is in this weakness of human nature, under the worst temptations of the devil? And holy men have rightly said that it is a constant struggle and a rare victory. Therefore, we do not want to prevent those who cannot bear the burden of monastic life from marrying according to God's word and order.
From the church power.
In this article, the opponents have not said much about what is actually church authority according to the Gospel. They have spoken almost only of the freedom of the spiritual estate, which they have by human right. We, however, have often said that we would like to show all honor and guiltiness against others as well as against this estate.
The bishops have their goods and dominions by human right. We do not take anything from anyone. They should not only take care of their property and power, but also of their office and duty, that the churches have shepherds, that priests are appointed, that the pure doctrine of the Gospel is preached in schools and churches, so that faith and love arise in the minds of the people; that the sacraments should be sacredly administered, and public vices punished and corrected by ecclesiastical excommunication; that ecclesiastical ordinances should be established for edification and not for destruction, and that ecclesiastical discipline should be maintained in such a way that the consciences of the pious should not be burdened with unjust burdens; that the schools of good arts, which are useful to the church, should be preserved.
The bishops have long since abandoned this concern, and if there have been some more pious ones, they have been more troubled by insisting on the statutes of men than by teaching the Gospel. But even this discipline is no longer kept in Rome, but is ridiculed.
The popes war with the kings over the dominion. As the winds stir up the calm sea, so the popes stir up all the kingdoms as often as they feel like it.
This is not only against the Gospel, but also against the canons. Meanwhile, they demand the canons from others as strictly as they can, since no one holds less to the canons than the bishops themselves, and yet they want their prestige and fortune defended, since they ask nothing of the churches, and of the
Canons forget that the beneficium (or church property) is given because of the direction of the office.
(128) To deplore this at the present time is considered a deadly crime and heresy. And we would not have come to this if the adversaries had not caused it.
By the way, we have often testified that we not only highly honor and respect the ecclesiastical authority established in the Gospel as the highest gift of God, through which we may know God and be delivered from sin and the power of the devil and attain eternal life, but that we also very much approve of the ecclesiastical government and scales in the church and, as much as is in us, want to have them preserved. We do not refuse the power of the bishops, if only they do not force us to act against the commandments of God. This sense will acquit us before God's judgment, and before all our posterity we will be found innocent of having caused this division, which was first caused by the unjust condemnation of Luther's teachings, but is now increased by their defiance, who cannot be moved to soften one or the other church order, in which we would give way to their tyranny, if we could do so without offending our conscience. But now we must obey God more than men.
130 But now let us come to the controversy of the church statutes, which the opponents have touched upon here.
In our confession, we have indicated what we consider to be church authority according to the Gospel. It is a command to teach the gospel, to administer the sacraments, and to forgive and retain sins. This authority is called partly the authority of the priestly office (ordinis), 1) partly the jurisdiction.
These great benefits of God are obscured when some add the power to establish laws and new services. For when the mind conceives that Christ has commanded the church to institute some new services and ceremonies apart from the gospel, the doctrine of the grace and righteousness of faith and the forgiveness of sins is immediately obscured, and people think they are justified by the righteousness of works, that is, of such services, but not by faith in Christ. And because such statutes are never kept right, consciences are in constant fear. So this remains a matter of dispute: whether the
1) That is, preaching gospel, reaching sacrammt 2c. Cf. J. T. Müller, 1. e. p. 288.
Bishops have power to establish new services and laws apart from the Gospel? So the opponents conclude: Since the Gospel gives the bishops power of jurisdiction, it follows that they have power to give laws. But this must not follow. For the Scriptures do indeed grant that they exercise jurisdiction, that they (namely) loose and bind; but not according to new laws, but according to the Gospel itself. For they have not a tyrannical power without certain laws, or a royal power over the law which they have received. For thus saith Paul, "We can do nothing contrary to the truth."
In the confession, however, we have not completely taken away the power of the bishops to make regulations in the church. But we have made a distinction among the laws. There must be order in the churches, that the people may know at what time they are to meet together, that there may also be order in the offices, as Paul says, "Let all things be done orderly and honestly."
Another kind of ordinances is when certain services, differences of food, days, celibacy, and such customs are instituted. Likewise, when these ordinances themselves, which were made not so that such works should propitiate God, but so that there would be no confusion in the community, are considered necessary services. And what we believe of both kinds, we have shown in the confession.
(135) A man may use any exercise he wishes, if he does not seek to earn grace by it. But to ordain such a work, and yet to bind the conscience, and to make of it a work necessary to salvation, is, as Peter says, tempting God, and is contrary to Christian liberty, which teaches that we are justified by faith in Christ, for nothing, and not by our works, and forbids ordaining any such services as necessary to salvation.
But the adversaries cannot deny that such customs have been used for meritorious worship. For St. Thomas also expressly writes: "Fasting is used to expiate guilt and to ward it off. This blasphemous opinion is by no means to be tolerated in the church, that human statutes are good for expunging guilt, since all Catholics confess that the forgiveness of sins is by grace. Therefore, if there are some church ordinances that can be kept without sin, and serve for good discipline in the church, then one may
Hold them in such a way that no one is offended. But do not consider them necessary things for righteousness or faith, as they commonly say; and do not think that consciences will be defiled if they are left standing without offense. Just as most have been made, not to trouble the consciences, or to introduce services, but only to prevent disorder in the churches, and distress. For we are not speaking here of the secular and judicial laws, but actually of church ceremonies and church customs.
137. The adversaries vehemently reproach this doctrine of Christian freedom, but they should know that they are not blaspheming us, but the word of God. For if such works are considered necessary services to Christian righteousness, the righteousness of faith and grace is completely obscured.
But this doctrine must necessarily prevail in the church, that we are not justified by our works and worship, but by faith in Christ, through grace. One must necessarily know and recognize that for the right unity of faith it is not at all necessary that everywhere there must be one and the same human order. But all this is thrown overboard if the doctrine of Christian freedom is not practiced.
And what should it not be for pious souls an unheard-of torture to have to deal with the innumerable heap of such statutes and ceremonies, if this consolation and cheap moderation is not used? As Gerson also says: "It is also known (these are his words) that there is such a large number of such statutes that, if one had to keep them most strictly, the largest part of the church would be condemned, and love, which is the end of the whole, also of the divine, law, would be violated.
140. And the wise and godly men have always complained greatly about these troubles, seeing that first of all the doctrine of faith and grace, and likewise the commandments of God, were darkened and left undone, because the people were united and only anxious that they should not let the people's misconduct stand; as Gerson says: The simple and fearful subjects, when they are thus urged by their superiors to pay attention to so many statutes, what wonder is it that afterwards they become the more incapable of recognizing the divine commandments?
141. although it is not only the common people who feel this way, but also the scholars. So-
Then they saw that the consciences were in many snares and dangers, since there was no one to keep so many statutes right. Therefore, it is necessary to teach such reasonable moderation in and because of the statutes of men.
And although savage people generally abuse such indulgence, yet the church and the pious must be regarded more than they. Gerson also judged in this way when he said: "Although contempt arises in some from such indulgence and leniency, some others, who get a right understanding from it, will thank for it. There are already authorities who can punish wild and unruly people when it is necessary. And a wise preacher will also remind both of freedom and of the avoidance of aversions, as Paul is wont to do in this matter.
Our people did not discuss this trade first or only, but others have already written about it. Gerson also has no hesitation in speaking thus: The prelates of the churches have as little power to bind their subjects to certain things which the evangelical rule, which is accepted and recognized by all Christians, does not prescribe, as the elders have power to bind their monks to anything except their religious rule. Of which, in fact, it is the unanimous opinion of St. Thomas and other teachers that the abbot may not impose or command a monk to do anything more than what he has understood and committed himself to in his rule.
(144) We have therefore wanted to respond at this time to what we still remember, and we do not refuse to answer for this confession of ours to the one who demands reason from us.
If we had seen the rebuttal that was read to us in the name of the Imperial Majesty, our most gracious Lord, we would have been able to answer most of it more appropriately and better.