{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_275/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_275","id":"gutenberg_275","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/275","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Lutheran Church -- Doctrines","Theology, Doctrinal"],"text":"Produced by Allen Mulvey\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE AUGSBURG CONFESSION\n\n     The Confession of Faith:\n     Which Was Submitted to His Imperial Majesty Charles V\n     At the Diet of Augsburg in the Year 1530\n     by Philip Melanchthon, 1497-1560\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE EMPEROR CHARLES V.\n\n\nMost Invincible Emperor, Caesar Augustus, Most Clement Lord: Inasmuch as\nYour Imperial Majesty has summoned a Diet of the Empire here at Augsburg\nto deliberate concerning measures against the Turk, that most atrocious,\nhereditary, and ancient enemy of the Christian name and religion, in\nwhat way, namely, effectually to withstand his furor and assaults\nby strong and lasting military provision; and then also concerning\ndissensions in the matter of our holy religion and Christian Faith, that\nin this matter of religion the opinions and judgments of the parties\nmight be heard in each other's presence; and considered and weighed\namong ourselves in mutual charity, leniency, and kindness, in order\nthat, after the removal and correction of such things as have been\ntreated and understood in a different manner in the writings on either\nside, these matters may be settled and brought back to one simple truth\nand Christian concord, that for the future one pure and true religion\nmay be embraced and maintained by us, that as we all are under one\nChrist and do battle under Him, so we may be able also to live in unity\nand concord in the one Christian Church.\n\nAnd inasmuch as we, the undersigned Elector and Princes, with others\njoined with us, have been called to the aforesaid Diet the same as the\nother Electors, Princes, and Estates, in obedient compliance with the\nImperial mandate, we have promptly come to Augsburg, and--what we do not\nmean to say as boasting--we were among the first to be here.\n\nAccordingly, since even here at Augsburg at the very beginning of the\nDiet, Your Imperial Majesty caused to be proposed to the Electors,\nPrinces, and other Estates of the Empire, amongst other things, that the\nseveral Estates of the Empire, on the strength of the Imperial edict,\nshould set forth and submit their opinions and judgments in the German\nand the Latin language, and since on the ensuing Wednesday, answer was\ngiven to Your Imperial Majesty, after due deliberation, that we would\nsubmit the Articles of our Confession for our side on next Wednesday,\ntherefore, in obedience to Your Imperial Majesty's wishes, we offer,\nin this matter of religion, the Confession of our preachers and of\nourselves, showing what manner of doctrine from the Holy Scriptures and\nthe pure Word of God has been up to this time set forth in our lands,\ndukedoms, dominions, and cities, and taught in our churches.\n\nAnd if the other Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Empire will,\naccording to the said Imperial proposition, present similar writings,\nto wit, in Latin and German, giving their opinions in this matter of\nreligion, we, with the Princes and friends aforesaid, here before Your\nImperial Majesty, our most clement Lord are prepared to confer amicably\nconcerning all possible ways and means, in order that we may come\ntogether, as far as this may be honorably done, and, the matter between\nus on both sides being peacefully discussed without offensive strife,\nthe dissension, by God's help, may be done away and brought back to\none true accordant religion; for as we all are under one Christ and do\nbattle under Him, we ought to confess the one Christ, after the tenor\nof Your Imperial Majesty's edict, and everything ought to be conducted\naccording to the truth of God; and this it is what, with most fervent\nprayers, we entreat of God.\n\nHowever, as regards the rest of the Electors, Princes, and Estates,\nwho constitute the other part, if no progress should be made, nor some\nresult be attained by this treatment of the cause of religion after the\nmanner in which Your Imperial Majesty has wisely held that it should be\ndealt with and treated namely, by such mutual presentation of writings\nand calm conferring together among ourselves, we at least leave with\nyou a clear testimony, that we here in no wise are holding back from\nanything that could bring about Christian concord,--such as could be\neffected with God and a good conscience,--as also Your Imperial Majesty\nand, next, the other Electors and Estates of the Empire, and all who\nare moved by sincere love and zeal for religion, and who will give an\nimpartial hearing to this matter, will graciously deign to take\nnotice and to understand this from this Confession of ours and of our\nassociates.\n\nYour Imperial Majesty also, not only once but often, graciously\nsignified to the Electors Princes, and Estates of the Empire, and at the\nDiet of Spires held A. D. 1526, according to the form of Your Imperial\ninstruction and commission given and prescribed, caused it to be stated\nand publicly proclaimed that Your Majesty, in dealing with this matter\nof religion, for certain reasons which were alleged in Your Majesty's\nname, was not willing to decide and could not determine anything, but\nthat Your Majesty would diligently use Your Majesty's office with the\nRoman Pontiff for the convening of a General Council. The same matter\nwas thus publicly set forth at greater length a year ago at the last\nDiet which met at Spires. There Your Imperial Majesty, through His\nHighness Ferdinand, King of Bohemia and Hungary, our friend and clement\nLord, as well as through the Orator and Imperial Commissioners caused\nthis, among other things, to be submitted: that Your Imperial Majesty\nhad taken notice of; and pondered, the resolution of Your Majesty's\nRepresentative in the Empire, and of the President and Imperial\nCounselors, and the Legates from other Estates convened at Ratisbon,\nconcerning the calling of a Council, and that your Imperial Majesty also\njudged it to be expedient to convene a Council; and that Your Imperial\nMajesty did not doubt the Roman Pontiff could be induced to hold\na General Council, because the matters to be adjusted between Your\nImperial Majesty and the Roman Pontiff were nearing agreement and\nChristian reconciliation; therefore Your Imperial Majesty himself\nsignified that he would endeavor to secure the said Chief Pontiff's\nconsent for convening, together with your Imperial Majesty such General\nCouncil, to be published as soon as possible by letters that were to be\nsent out.\n\nIf the outcome, therefore, should be such that the differences between\nus and the other parties in the matter of religion should not be\namicably and in charity settled, then here, before Your Imperial Majesty\nwe make the offer in all obedience, in addition to what we have already\ndone, that we will all appear and defend our cause in such a general,\nfree Christian Council, for the convening of which there has always been\naccordant action and agreement of votes in all the Imperial Diets held\nduring Your Majesty's reign, on the part of the Electors, Princes, and\nother Estates of the Empire. To the assembly of this General Council,\nand at the same time to Your Imperial Majesty, we have, even before\nthis, in due manner and form of law, addressed ourselves and made appeal\nin this matter, by far the greatest and gravest. To this appeal, both to\nYour Imperial Majesty and to a Council, we still adhere; neither do we\nintend nor would it be possible for us, to relinquish it by this or\nany other document, unless the matter between us and the other side,\naccording to the tenor of the latest Imperial citation should be\namicably and charitably settled, allayed, and brought to Christian\nconcord; and regarding this we even here solemnly and publicly testify.\n\n\n\n\nArticle I: Of God.\n\nOur Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the\nCouncil of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and\nconcerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any\ndoubting; that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called\nand which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite\npower, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things,\nvisible and invisible; and yet there are three Persons, of the same\nessence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father the Son, and the\nHoly Ghost. And the term \"person\" they use as the Fathers have used it,\nto signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of\nitself.\n\nThey condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article,\nas the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other\nEvil--also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all\nsuch. They condemn also the Samosatenes, old and new, who, contending\nthat there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue that\nthe Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that \"Word\"\nsignifies a spoken word, and \"Spirit\" signifies motion created in\nthings.\n\n\n\n\nArticle II: Of Original Sin.\n\nAlso they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the\nnatural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without\ntrust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice\nof origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death\nupon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.\n\nThey Condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity\nis sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits,\nargue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and\nreason.\n\n\n\n\nArticle III: Of the Son of God.\n\nAlso they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the\nhuman nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there\nare two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one\nPerson, one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin\nMary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, that He might\nreconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original\nguilt, but also for all actual sins of men.\n\nHe also descended into hell, and truly rose again the third day;\nafterward He ascended into heaven that He might sit on the right hand of\nthe Father, and forever reign and have dominion over all creatures, and\nsanctify them that believe in Him, by sending the Holy Ghost into their\nhearts, to rule, comfort, and quicken them, and to defend them against\nthe devil and the power of sin.\n\nThe same Christ shall openly come again to judge the quick and the dead,\netc., according to the Apostles' Creed.\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle IV: Of Justification.\n\nAlso they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own\nstrength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake,\nthrough faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and\nthat their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has\nmade satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness\nin His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.\n\n\n\n\nArticle V: Of the Ministry.\n\nThat we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and\nadministering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and\nSacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works\nfaith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel, to\nwit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies\nthose who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake.\n\nThey condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Ghost\ncomes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations\nand works.\n\n\n\n\nArticle VI: Of New Obedience.\n\nAlso they teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and\nthat it is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God's\nwill, but that we should not rely on those works to merit justification\nbefore God. For remission of sins and justification is apprehended by\nfaith, as also the voice of Christ attests: When ye shall have done all\nthese things, say: We are unprofitable servants. Luke 17, 10. The same\nis also taught by the Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is ordained of God\nthat he who believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of\nsins, without works, by faith alone.\n\n\n\n\nArticle VII: Of the Church.\n\nAlso they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church\nis the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and\nthe Sacraments are rightly administered.\n\nAnd to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the\ndoctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor\nis it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies,\ninstituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith,\none Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.\n\n\n\n\nArticle VIII: What the Church Is.\n\nAlthough the Church properly is the congregation of saints and true\nbelievers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and\nevil persons are mingled therewith, it is lawful to use Sacraments\nadministered by evil men, according to the saying of Christ: The\nScribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, etc. Matt. 23, 2. Both\nthe Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and\ncommandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men.\n\nThey condemn the Donatists, and such like, who denied it to be lawful to\nuse the ministry of evil men in the Church, and who thought the ministry\nof evil men to be unprofitable and of none effect.\n\n\n\n\nArticle IX: Of Baptism.\n\nOf Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that\nthrough Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to\nbe baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into\nGod's grace.\n\nThey condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and\nsay that children are saved without Baptism.\n\n\n\n\nArticle X: Of the Lord's Supper.\n\nOf the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ\nare truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of\nthe Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XI: Of Confession.\n\nOf Confession they teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in\nthe churches, although in confession an enumeration of all sins is\nnot necessary. For it is impossible according to the Psalm: Who can\nunderstand his errors? Ps. 19, 12.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XII: Of Repentance.\n\nOf Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism\nthere is remission of sins whenever they are converted and that the\nChurch ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance.\nNow, repentance consists properly of these two parts: One is contrition,\nthat is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin;\nthe other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution,\nand believes that for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the\nconscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to\nfollow, which are the fruits of repentance.\n\nThey condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can\nlose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such\nperfection in this life that they cannot sin.\n\nThe Novatians also are condemned, who would not absolve such as had\nfallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance.\n\nThey also are rejected who do not teach that remission of sins comes\nthrough faith but command us to merit grace through satisfactions of our\nown.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XIII: Of the Use of the Sacraments.\n\nOf the Use of the Sacraments they teach that the Sacraments were\nordained, not only to be marks of profession among men, but rather to be\nsigns and testimonies of the will of God toward us, instituted to awaken\nand confirm faith in those who use them. Wherefore we must so use the\nSacraments that faith be added to believe the promises which are offered\nand set forth through the Sacraments.\n\nThey therefore condemn those who teach that the Sacraments justify\nby the outward act, and who do not teach that, in the use of the\nSacraments, faith which believes that sins are forgiven, is required.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.\n\nOf Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in\nthe Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XV: Of Ecclesiastical Usages.\n\nOf Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be observed which\nmay be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquillity\nand good order in the Church, as particular holy-days, festivals, and\nthe like.\n\nNevertheless, concerning such things men are admonished that consciences\nare not to be burdened, as though such observance was necessary to\nsalvation.\n\nThey are admonished also that human traditions instituted to propitiate\nGod, to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for sins, are opposed\nto the Gospel and the doctrine of faith. Wherefore vows and traditions\nconcerning meats and days, etc., instituted to merit grace and to make\nsatisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the Gospel.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XVI: Of Civil Affairs.\n\nOf Civil Affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works\nof God, and that it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit\nas judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to\naward just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers,\nto make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by\nthe magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage.\n\nThey condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to\nChristians.\n\nThey condemn also those who do not place evangelical perfection in the\nfear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, for the Gospel\nteaches an eternal righteousness of the heart. Meanwhile, it does not\ndestroy the State or the family, but very much requires that they be\npreserved as ordinances of God, and that charity be practiced in such\nordinances. Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their\nown magistrates and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they\nought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5, 29.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XVII: Of Christ's Return to Judgment.\n\nAlso they teach that at the Consummation of the World Christ will appear\nfor judgment and will raise up all the dead; He will give to the godly\nand elect eternal life and everlasting joys, but ungodly men and the\ndevils He will condemn to be tormented without end.\n\nThey condemn the Anabaptists, who think that there will be an end to the\npunishments of condemned men and devils.\n\nThey condemn also others who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions,\nthat before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession\nof the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XVIII: Of Free Will.\n\nOf Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose\ncivil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has\nno power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that\nis, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the\nthings of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2,14; but this righteousness is\nwrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the\nWord. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his\nHypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free,\ninasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby\ncapable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught\nin things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether\ngood or evil. \"Good\" I call those works which spring from the good in\nnature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to\nhave a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to\nraise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good pertains\nto this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the\nprovidence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their\nbeing. \"Evil\" I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit\nmurder, etc.\n\nThey condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy\nGhost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all\nthings; also to do the commandments of God as touching \"the substance\nof the act.\" For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward\nwork, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it\ncannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in\nGod, chastity, patience, etc.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XIX: Of the Cause of Sin.\n\nOf the Cause of Sin they teach that, although God does create and\npreserve nature, yet the cause of sin is the will of the wicked, that\nis, of the devil and ungodly men; which will, unaided of God, turns\nitself from God, as Christ says John 8, 44: When he speaketh a lie, he\nspeaketh of his own.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XX: Of Good Works.\n\nOur teachers are falsely accused of forbidding good Works. For their\npublished writings on the Ten Commandments, and others of like import,\nbear witness that they have taught to good purpose concerning all\nestates and duties of life, as to what estates of life and what works\nin every calling be pleasing to God. Concerning these things preachers\nheretofore taught but little, and urged only childish and needless\nworks, as particular holy-days, particular fasts, brotherhoods,\npilgrimages, services in honor of saints, the use of rosaries,\nmonasticism, and such like. Since our adversaries have been admonished\nof these things, they are now unlearning them, and do not preach these\nunprofitable works as heretofore. Besides, they begin to mention faith,\nof which there was heretofore marvelous silence. They teach that we are\njustified not by works only, but they conjoin faith and works, and\nsay that we are justified by faith and works. This doctrine is more\ntolerable than the former one, and can afford more consolation than\ntheir old doctrine.\n\nForasmuch, therefore, as the doctrine concerning faith, which ought to\nbe the chief one in the Church, has lain so long unknown, as all\nmust needs grant that there was the deepest silence in their sermons\nconcerning the righteousness of faith, while only the doctrine of works\nwas treated in the churches, our teachers have instructed the churches\nconcerning faith as follows:--\n\nFirst, that our works cannot reconcile God or merit forgiveness of sins,\ngrace, and justification, but that we obtain this only by faith when we\nbelieve that we are received into favor for Christs sake, who alone has\nbeen set forth the Mediator and Propitiation, 1 Tim. 2, 6, in order that\nthe Father may be reconciled through Him. Whoever, therefore, trusts\nthat by works he merits grace, despises the merit and grace of Christ,\nand seeks a way to God without Christ, by human strength, although\nChrist has said of Himself: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. John\n14, 6.\n\nThis doctrine concerning faith is everywhere treated by Paul, Eph. 2, 8:\nBy grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is\nthe gift of God, not of works, etc.\n\nAnd lest any one should craftily say that a new interpretation of\nPaul has been devised by us, this entire matter is supported by the\ntestimonies of the Fathers. For Augustine, in many volumes, defends\ngrace and the righteousness of faith, over against the merits of works.\nAnd Ambrose, in his De Vocatione Gentium, and elsewhere, teaches to like\neffect. For in his De Vocatione Gentium he says as follows: Redemption\nby the blood of Christ would become of little value, neither would\nthe preeminence of man's works be superseded by the mercy of God, if\njustification, which is wrought through grace, were due to the merits\ngoing before, so as to be, not the free gift of a donor, but the reward\ndue to the laborer.\n\nBut, although this doctrine is despised by the inexperienced,\nnevertheless God-fearing and anxious consciences find by experience that\nit brings the greatest consolation, because consciences cannot be set\nat rest through any works, but only by faith, when they take the sure\nground that for Christ's sake they have a reconciled God. As Paul\nteaches Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.\nThis whole doctrine is to be referred to that conflict of the terrified\nconscience, neither can it be understood apart from that conflict.\nTherefore inexperienced and profane men judge ill concerning this\nmatter, who dream that Christian righteousness is nothing but civil and\nphilosophical righteousness.\n\nHeretofore consciences were plagued with the doctrine of works, they did\nnot hear the consolation from the Gospel. Some persons were driven by\nconscience into the desert, into monasteries hoping there to merit grace\nby a monastic life. Some also devised other works whereby to merit grace\nand make satisfaction for sins. Hence there was very great need to treat\nof, and renew, this doctrine of faith in Christ, to the end that anxious\nconsciences should not be without consolation but that they might know\nthat grace and forgiveness of sins and justification are apprehended by\nfaith in Christ.\n\nMen are also admonished that here the term \"faith\" does not signify\nmerely the knowledge of the history, such as is in the ungodly and in\nthe devil, but signifies a faith which believes, not merely the\nhistory, but also the effect of the history--namely, this Article: the\nforgiveness of sins, to wit, that we have grace, righteousness, and\nforgiveness of sins through Christ.\n\nNow he that knows that he has a Father gracious to him through Christ,\ntruly knows God; he knows also that God cares for him, and calls upon\nGod; in a word, he is not without God, as the heathen. For devils and\nthe ungodly are not able to believe this Article: the forgiveness of\nsins. Hence, they hate God as an enemy, call not upon Him, and expect no\ngood from Him. Augustine also admonishes his readers concerning the word\n\"faith,\" and teaches that the term \"faith\" is accepted in the Scriptures\nnot for knowledge such as is in the ungodly but for confidence which\nconsoles and encourages the terrified mind.\n\nFurthermore, it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do good\nworks, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but because\nit is the will of God. It is only by faith that forgiveness of sins is\napprehended, and that, for nothing. And because through faith the Holy\nGhost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections,\nso as to be able to bring forth good works. For Ambrose says: Faith is\nthe mother of a good will and right doing. For man's powers without the\nHoly Ghost are full of ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works\nwhich are good in God's sight. Besides, they are in the power of the\ndevil who impels men to divers sins, to ungodly opinions, to open\ncrimes. This we may see in the philosophers, who, although they\nendeavored to live an honest life could not succeed, but were defiled\nwith many open crimes. Such is the feebleness of man when he is without\nfaith and without the Holy Ghost, and governs himself only by human\nstrength.\n\nHence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged\nwith prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended,\nbecause it shows how we are enabled to do good works. For without faith\nhuman nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the Second\nCommandment. Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect\nanything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man's\nhelp. And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of\nlusts and human devices rule in the heart. Wherefore Christ said, John\n16,6: Without Me ye can do nothing; and the Church sings:\n\n     Lacking Thy divine favor,\n     There is nothing found in man,\n     Naught in him is harmless.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XXI: Of the Worship of the Saints.\n\nOf the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints may be set\nbefore us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to\nour calling, as the Emperor may follow the example of David in making\nwar to drive away the Turk from his country; For both are kings. But the\nScripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints,\nsince it sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation,\nHigh Priest, and Intercessor. He is to be prayed to, and has promised\nthat He will hear our prayer; and this worship He approves above all, to\nwit, that in all afflictions He be called upon, 1 John 2, 1: If any man\nsin, we have an Advocate with the Father, etc.\n\nThis is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there\nis nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic,\nor from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the\ncase, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as\nheretics. There is, however, disagreement on certain Abuses, which have\ncrept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if\nthere were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part\nof bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have\nnow reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand\nthe same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all\nchurches been the same; although, among us, in large part, the ancient\nrites are diligently observed. For it is a false and malicious charge\nthat all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished\nin our churches. But it has been a common complaint that some abuses\nwere connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could\nnot be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent\ncorrected.\n\n\n\n\nARTICLES IN WHICH ARE REVIEWED THE ABUSES WHICH HAVE BEEN CORRECTED.\n\nInasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from\nthe Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which\nhave been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary\nto the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would\ngraciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons\nwhy the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their\nconscience. Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in\norder to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange\nslanders among the people. Having thus excited the minds of good men,\nthey have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by\nthe same arts, to increase the discord. For Your Imperial Majesty will\nundoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us\nis not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent.\nBesides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the\nrevilings of enemies. But it can readily be judged that nothing would\nserve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish\nreverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies\nwere observed rightly in the churches.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XXII: Of Both Kinds in the Sacrament.\n\nTo the laity are given Both Kinds in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper,\nbecause this usage has the commandment of the Lord in Matt. 26, 27:\nDrink ye all of it, where Christ has manifestly commanded concerning the\ncup that all should drink.\n\nAnd lest any man should craftily say that this refers only to priests,\nPaul in 1 Cor. 11,27 recites an example from which it appears that the\nwhole congregation did use both kinds. And this usage has long remained\nin the Church, nor is it known when, or by whose authority, it was\nchanged; although Cardinal Cusanus mentions the time when it was\napproved. Cyprian in some places testifies that the blood was given\nto the people. The same is testified by Jerome, who says: The priests\nadminister the Eucharist, and distribute the blood of Christ to the\npeople. Indeed, Pope Gelasius commands that the Sacrament be not divided\n(dist. II., De Consecratione, cap. Comperimus). Only custom, not so\nancient, has it otherwise. But it is evident that any custom introduced\nagainst the commandments of God is not to be allowed, as the Canons\nwitness (dist. III., cap. Veritate, and the following chapters). But\nthis custom has been received, not only against the Scripture, but also\nagainst the old Canons and the example of the Church. Therefore, if any\npreferred to use both kinds of the Sacrament, they ought not to have\nbeen compelled with offense to their consciences to do otherwise. And\nbecause the division of the Sacrament does not agree with the ordinance\nof Christ, we are accustomed to omit the procession, which hitherto has\nbeen in use.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XXIII: Of the Marriage of Priests.\n\nThere has been common complaint concerning the examples of priests who\nwere not chaste. For that reason also Pope Pius is reported to have said\nthat there were certain causes why marriage was taken away from priests,\nbut that there were far weightier ones why it ought to be given back;\nfor so Platina writes. Since, therefore, our priests were desirous to\navoid these open scandals, they married wives, and taught that it was\nlawful for them to contract matrimony. First, because Paul says, 1 Cor.\n7, 2. 9: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. Also: It\nis better to marry than to burn. Secondly Christ says, Matt. 19,11: All\nmen cannot receive this saying, where He teaches that not all men are\nfit to lead a single life; for God created man for procreation, Gen. 1,\n28. Nor is it in man's power, without a singular gift and work of God,\nto alter this creation. [For it is manifest, and many have confessed\nthat no good, honest, chaste life, no Christian, sincere, upright\nconduct has resulted (from the attempt), but a horrible, fearful\nunrest and torment of conscience has been felt by many until the end.]\nTherefore, those who are not fit to lead a single life ought to contract\nmatrimony. For no man's law, no vow, can annul the commandment and\nordinance of God. For these reasons the priests teach that it is lawful\nfor them to marry wives.\n\nIt is also evident that in the ancient Church priests were married men.\nFor Paul says, 1 Tim. 3, 2, that a bishop should be chosen who is the\nhusband of one wife. And in Germany, four hundred years ago for the\nfirst time, the priests were violently compelled to lead a single life,\nwho indeed offered such resistance that the Archbishop of Mayence, when\nabout to publish the Pope's decree concerning this matter, was almost\nkilled in the tumult raised by the enraged priests. And so harsh was\nthe dealing in the matter that not only were marriages forbidden for the\nfuture, but also existing marriages were torn asunder, contrary to all\nlaws, divine and human, contrary even to the Canons themselves, made\nnot only by the Popes, but by most celebrated Synods. [Moreover, many\nGod-fearing and intelligent people in high station are known frequently\nto have expressed misgivings that such enforced celibacy and depriving\nmen of marriage (which God Himself has instituted and left free to men)\nhas never produced any good results, but has brought on many great and\nevil vices and much iniquity.]\n\nSeeing also that, as the world is aging, man's nature is gradually\ngrowing weaker, it is well to guard that no more vices steal into\nGermany.\n\nFurthermore, God ordained marriage to be a help against human infirmity.\nThe Canons themselves say that the old rigor ought now and then, in the\nlatter times, to be relaxed because of the weakness of men; which it\nis to be wished were done also in this matter. And it is to be expected\nthat the churches shall at some time lack pastors if marriage is any\nlonger forbidden.\n\nBut while the commandment of God is in force, while the custom of\nthe Church is well known, while impure celibacy causes many scandals,\nadulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments of just\nmagistrates, yet it is a marvelous thing that in nothing is more\ncruelty exercised than against the marriage of priests. God has\ngiven commandment to honor marriage. By the laws of all well-ordered\ncommonwealths, even among the heathen, marriage is most highly honored.\nBut now men, and that, priests, are cruelly put to death, contrary to\nthe intent of the Canons, for no other cause than marriage. Paul, in 1\nTim. 4,3, calls that a doctrine of devils which forbids marriage.\nThis may now be readily understood when the law against marriage is\nmaintained by such penalties.\n\nBut as no law of man can annul the commandment of God, so neither can it\nbe done by any vow. Accordingly, Cyprian also advises that women who\ndo not keep the chastity they have promised should marry. His words\nare these (Book I, Epistle XI ): But if they be unwilling or unable to\npersevere, it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire by\ntheir lusts; they should certainly give no offense to their brethren and\nsisters.\n\nAnd even the Canons show some leniency toward those who have taken vows\nbefore the proper age, as heretofore has generally been the ease.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XXIV: Of the Mass.\n\nFalsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is\nretained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly\nall the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in\nLatin are interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been\nadded to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed to this end alone\nthat the unlearned be taught [what they need to know of Christ]. And not\nonly has Paul commanded to use in the church a language understood by\nthe people 1 Cor. 14,2. 9, but it has also been so ordained by man's\nlaw. The people are accustomed to partake of the Sacrament together, if\nany be fit for it, and this also increases the reverence and devotion of\npublic worship. For none are admitted except they be first examined. The\npeople are also advised concerning the dignity and use of the Sacrament,\nhow great consolation it brings anxious consciences, that they may learn\nto believe God, and to expect and ask of Him all that is good. [In this\nconnection they are also instructed regarding other and false teachings\non the Sacrament.] This worship pleases God; such use of the Sacrament\nnourishes true devotion toward God. It does not, therefore, appear that\nthe Mass is more devoutly celebrated among our adversaries than among\nus.\n\nBut it is evident that for a long time this also has been the public\nand most grievous complaint of all good men that Masses have been basely\nprofaned and applied to purposes of lucre. For it is not unknown how far\nthis abuse obtains in all the churches by what manner of men Masses are\nsaid only for fees or stipends, and how many celebrate them contrary to\nthe Canons. But Paul severely threatens those who deal unworthily with\nthe Eucharist when he says, 1 Cor.11,27: Whosoever shall eat this bread,\nand drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the\nbody and blood of the Lord. When, therefore our priests were admonished\nconcerning this sin, Private Masses were discontinued among us, as\nscarcely any Private Masses were celebrated except for lucre's sake.\n\nNeither were the bishops ignorant of these abuses, and if they had\ncorrected them in time, there would now be less dissension. Heretofore,\nby their own connivance, they suffered many corruptions to creep into\nthe Church. Now, when it is too late, they begin to complain of the\ntroubles of the Church, while this disturbance has been occasioned\nsimply by those abuses which were so manifest that they could be borne\nno longer. There have been great dissensions concerning the Mass,\nconcerning the Sacrament. Perhaps the world is being punished for such\nlong-continued profanations of the Mass as have been tolerated in the\nchurches for so many centuries by the very men who were both able and in\nduty bound to correct them. For in the Ten Commandments it is written,\nEx. 20, 7: The Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in\nvain. But since the world began, nothing that God ever ordained seems to\nhave been so abused for filthy lucre as the Mass.\n\nThere was also added the opinion which infinitely increased Private\nMasses, namely that Christ, by His passion, had made satisfaction for\noriginal sin, and instituted the Mass wherein an offering should be\nmade for daily sins, venial and mortal. From this has arisen the common\nopinion that the Mass takes away the sins of the living and the dead by\nthe outward act. Then they began to dispute whether one Mass said for\nmany were worth as much as special Masses for individuals, and this\nbrought forth that infinite multitude of Masses. [With this work men\nwished to obtain from God all that they needed, and in the mean time\nfaith in Christ and the true worship were forgotten.]\n\nConcerning these opinions our teachers have given warning that they\ndepart from the Holy Scriptures and diminish the glory of the passion of\nChrist. For Christ's passion was an oblation and satisfaction, not for\noriginal guilt only, but also for all other sins, as it is written to\nthe Hebrews, 10, 10: We are sanctified through the offering of Jesus\nChrist once for all. Also, 10, 14: By one offering He hath perfected\nforever them that are sanctified. [It is an unheard-of innovation in\nthe Church to teach that Christ by His death made satisfaction only for\noriginal sin and not likewise for all other sin. Accordingly it is hoped\nthat everybody will understand that this error has not been reproved\nwithout due reason.]\n\nScripture also teaches that we are justified before God through faith\nin Christ, when we believe that our sins are forgiven for Christ's sake.\nNow if the Mass take away the sins of the living and the dead by the\noutward act justification comes of the work of Masses, and not of faith,\nwhich Scripture does not allow.\n\nBut Christ commands us, Luke 22, 19: This do in remembrance of Me;\ntherefore the Mass was instituted that the faith of those who use the\nSacrament should remember what benefits it receives through Christ, and\ncheer and comfort the anxious conscience. For to remember Christ is to\nremember His benefits, and to realize that they are truly offered unto\nus. Nor is it enough only to remember the history; for this also the\nJews and the ungodly can remember. Wherefore the Mass is to be used to\nthis end, that there the Sacrament [Communion] may be administered to\nthem that have need of consolation; as Ambrose says: Because I always\nsin, I am always bound to take the medicine. [Therefore this Sacrament\nrequires faith, and is used in vain without faith.]\n\nNow, forasmuch as the Mass is such a giving of the Sacrament, we hold\none communion every holy-day, and, if any desire the Sacrament, also on\nother days, when it is given to such as ask for it. And this custom is\nnot new in the Church; for the Fathers before Gregory make no mention of\nany private Mass, but of the common Mass [the Communion] they speak\nvery much. Chrysostom says that the priest stands daily at the altar,\ninviting some to the Communion and keeping back others. And it appears\nfrom the ancient Canons that some one celebrated the Mass from whom all\nthe other presbyters and deacons received the body of the Lord; for thus\nthe words of the Nicene Canon say: Let the deacons, according to their\norder, receive the Holy Communion after the presbyters, from the bishop\nor from a presbyter. And Paul, 1 Cor. 11, 33, commands concerning\nthe Communion: Tarry one for another, so that there may be a common\nparticipation.\n\nForasmuch, therefore, as the Mass with us has the example of the Church,\ntaken from the Scripture and the Fathers, we are confident that it\ncannot be disapproved, especially since public ceremonies, for the most\npart like those hitherto in use, are retained; only the number of Masses\ndiffers, which, because of very great and manifest abuses doubtless\nmight be profitably reduced. For in olden times, even in churches most\nfrequented, the Mass was not celebrated every day, as the Tripartite\nHistory (Book 9, chap. 33) testifies: Again in Alexandria, every\nWednesday and Friday the Scriptures are read, and the doctors expound\nthem, and all things are done, except the solemn rite of Communion.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XXV: Of Confession.\n\nConfession in the churches is not abolished among us; for it is not\nusual to give the body of the Lord, except to them that have been\npreviously examined and absolved. And the people are most carefully\ntaught concerning faith in the absolution, about which formerly there\nwas profound silence. Our people are taught that they should highly\nprize the absolution, as being the voice of God, and pronounced by God's\ncommand. The power of the Keys is set forth in its beauty and they are\nreminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, also,\nthat God requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding\nfrom heaven, and that such faith in Christ truly obtains and receives\nthe forgiveness of sins. Aforetime satisfactions were immoderately\nextolled; of faith and the merit of Christ and the righteousness of\nfaith no mention was made; wherefore, on this point, our churches are by\nno means to be blamed. For this even our adversaries must needs concede\nto us that the doctrine concerning repentance has been most diligently\ntreated and laid open by our teachers.\n\nBut of Confession they teach that an enumeration of sins is not\nnecessary, and that consciences be not burdened with anxiety to\nenumerate all sins, for it is impossible to recount all sins, as the\nPsalm testifies, 19,13: Who can understand his errors? Also Jeremiah,\n17 9: The heart is deceitful; who can know it; But if no sins were\nforgiven, except those that are recounted, consciences could never find\npeace; for very many sins they neither see nor can remember. The ancient\nwriters also testify that an enumeration is not necessary. For in the\nDecrees, Chrysostom is quoted, who says thus: I say not to you that you\nshould disclose yourself in public, nor that you accuse yourself before\nothers, but I would have you obey the prophet who says: \"Disclose thy\nself before God.\" Therefore confess your sins before God, the true\nJudge, with prayer. Tell your errors, not with the tongue, but with the\nmemory of your conscience, etc. And the Gloss (Of Repentance, Distinct.\nV, Cap. Consideret) admits that Confession is of human right only [not\ncommanded by Scripture, but ordained by the Church]. Nevertheless, on\naccount of the great benefit of absolution, and because it is otherwise\nuseful to the conscience, Confession is retained among us.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XXVI: Of the Distinction of Meats.\n\nIt has been the general persuasion, not of the people alone, but also of\nthose teaching in the churches, that making Distinctions of Meats, and\nlike traditions of men, are works profitable to merit grace, and able to\nmake satisfactions for sins. And that the world so thought, appears from\nthis, that new ceremonies, new orders, new holy-days, and new fastings\nwere daily instituted, and the teachers in the churches did exact these\nworks as a service necessary to merit grace, and did greatly terrify\nmen's consciences, if they should omit any of these things. From this\npersuasion concerning traditions much detriment has resulted in the\nChurch.\n\nFirst, the doctrine of grace and of the righteousness of faith has been\nobscured by it, which is the chief part of the Gospel, and ought to\nstand out as the most prominent in the Church, in order that the merit\nof Christ may be well known, and faith, which believes that sins are\nforgiven for Christ's sake be exalted far above works. Wherefore Paul\nalso lays the greatest stress on this article, putting aside the Law\nand human traditions, in order to show that Christian righteousness is\nsomething else than such works, to wit, the faith which believes that\nsins are freely forgiven for Christ's sake. But this doctrine of Paul\nhas been almost wholly smothered by traditions, which have produced an\nopinion that, by making distinctions in meats and like services, we must\nmerit grace and righteousness. In treating of repentance, there was no\nmention made of faith; only those works of satisfaction were set forth;\nin these the entire repentance seemed to consist.\n\nSecondly, these traditions have obscured the commandments of God,\nbecause traditions were placed far above the commandments of God.\nChristianity was thought to consist wholly in the observance of certain\nholy-days, rites, fasts, and vestures. These observances had won for\nthemselves the exalted title of being the spiritual life and the\nperfect life. Meanwhile the commandments of God, according to each\none's calling, were without honor namely, that the father brought up his\noffspring, that the mother bore children, that the prince governed\nthe commonwealth,--these were accounted works that were worldly and\nimperfect, and far below those glittering observances. And this error\ngreatly tormented devout consciences, which grieved that they were\nheld in an imperfect state of life, as in marriage, in the office of\nmagistrate; or in other civil ministrations; on the other hand,\nthey admired the monks and such like, and falsely imagined that the\nobservances of such men were more acceptable to God.\n\nThirdly, traditions brought great danger to consciences; for it was\nimpossible to keep all traditions, and yet men judged these observances\nto be necessary acts of worship. Gerson writes that many fell into\ndespair, and that some even took their own lives, because they felt that\nthey were not able to satisfy the traditions, and they had all the while\nnot heard any consolation of the righteousness of faith and grace. We\nsee that the summists and theologians gather the traditions, and\nseek mitigations whereby to ease consciences, and yet they do not\nsufficiently unfetter, but sometimes entangle, consciences even more.\nAnd with the gathering of these traditions, the schools and sermons\nhave been so much occupied that they have had no leisure to touch upon\nScripture, and to seek the more profitable doctrine of faith, of the\ncross, of hope, of the dignity of civil affairs of consolation of\nsorely tried consciences. Hence Gerson and some other theologians have\ngrievously complained that by these strivings concerning traditions\nthey were prevented from giving attention to a better kind of doctrine.\nAugustine also forbids that men's consciences should be burdened with\nsuch observances, and prudently advises Januarius that he must know that\nthey are to be observed as things indifferent; for such are his words.\n\nWherefore our teachers must not be looked upon as having taken up this\nmatter rashly or from hatred of the bishops, as some falsely suspect.\nThere was great need to warn the churches of these errors, which had\narisen from misunderstanding the traditions. For the Gospel compels\nus to insist in the churches upon the doctrine of grace, and of the\nrighteousness of faith; which, however, cannot be understood, if men\nthink that they merit grace by observances of their own choice.\n\nThus, therefore, they have taught that by the observance of human\ntraditions we cannot merit grace or be justified, and hence we must\nnot think such observances necessary acts of worship. They add hereunto\ntestimonies of Scripture. Christ, Matt. 15, 3, defends the Apostles who\nhad not observed the usual tradition, which, however, evidently pertains\nto a matter not unlawful, but indifferent, and to have a certain\naffinity with the purifications of the Law, and says, 9: In vain do they\nworship Me with the commandments of men. He, therefore, does not exact\nan unprofitable service. Shortly after He adds: Not that which goeth\ninto the mouth defileth a man. So also Paul, Rom. 14, 17: The kingdom of\nGod is not meat and drink. Col. 2, 16: Let no man, therefore, judge\nyou in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the\nSabbath-day; also: If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the\nworld, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances:\nTouch not, taste not, handle not! And Peter says, Acts 15, 10: Why tempt\nye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our\nfathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace\nof the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Here Peter\nforbids to burden the consciences with many rites, either of Moses or\nof others. And in 1 Tim. 4,1.3 Paul calls the prohibition of meats a\ndoctrine of devils; for it is against the Gospel to institute or to do\nsuch works that by them we may merit grace, or as though Christianity\ncould not exist without such service of God.\n\nHere our adversaries object that our teachers are opposed to discipline\nand mortification of the flesh, as Jovinian. But the contrary may be\nlearned from the writings of our teachers. For they have always taught\nconcerning the cross that it behooves Christians to bear afflictions.\nThis is the true, earnest, and unfeigned mortification, to wit, to be\nexercised with divers afflictions, and to be crucified with Christ.\n\nMoreover, they teach that every Christian ought to train and subdue\nhimself with bodily restraints, or bodily exercises and labors that\nneither satiety nor slothfulness tempt him to sin, but not that we may\nmerit grace or make satisfaction for sins by such exercises. And such\nexternal discipline ought to be urged at all times, not only on a few\nand set days. So Christ commands, Luke 21, 34: Take heed lest your\nhearts be overcharged with surfeiting; also Matt. 17, 21: This kind\ngoeth not out but by prayer and fasting. Paul also says, 1 Cor. 9, 27:\nI keep under my body and bring it into subjection. Here he clearly shows\nthat he was keeping under his body, not to merit forgiveness of sins\nby that discipline, but to have his body in subjection and fitted\nfor spiritual things, and for the discharge of duty according to\nhis calling. Therefore, we do not condemn fasting in itself, but the\ntraditions which prescribe certain days and certain meats, with peril of\nconscience, as though such works were a necessary service.\n\nNevertheless, very many traditions are kept on our part, which conduce\nto good order in the Church, as the Order of Lessons in the Mass and\nthe chief holy-days. But, at the same time, men are warned that such\nobservances do not justify before God, and that in such things it should\nnot be made sin if they be omitted without offense. Such liberty in\nhuman rites was not unknown to the Fathers. For in the East they kept\nEaster at another time than at Rome, and when, on account of this\ndiversity, the Romans accused the Eastern Church of schism, they were\nadmonished by others that such usages need not be alike everywhere. And\nIrenaeus says: Diversity concerning fasting does not destroy the\nharmony of faith; as also Pope Gregory intimates in Dist. XII, that\nsuch diversity does not violate the unity of the Church. And in the\nTripartite History, Book 9, many examples of dissimilar rites are\ngathered, and the following statement is made: It was not the mind\nof the Apostles to enact rules concerning holy-days, but to preach\ngodliness and a holy life [, to teach faith and love].\n\n\n\n\nArticle XXVII: Of Monastic Vows.\n\nWhat is taught on our part concerning Monastic Vows, will be better\nunderstood if it be remembered what has been the state of the\nmonasteries, and how many things were daily done in those very\nmonasteries, contrary to the Canons. In Augustine's time they were\nfree associations. Afterward, when discipline was corrupted, vows\nwere everywhere added for the purpose of restoring discipline, as in a\ncarefully planned prison.\n\nGradually, many other observances were added besides vows. And these\nfetters were laid upon many before the lawful age, contrary to the\nCanons.\n\nMany also entered into this kind of life through ignorance, being unable\nto judge their own strength, though they were of sufficient age. Being\nthus ensnared, they were compelled to remain, even though some could\nhave been freed by the kind provision of the Canons. And this was more\nthe case in convents of women than of monks, although more consideration\nshould have been shown the weaker sex. This rigor displeased many good\nmen before this time, who saw that young men and maidens were thrown\ninto convents for a living. They saw what unfortunate results came of\nthis procedure, and what scandals were created, what snares were cast\nupon consciences! They were grieved that the authority of the Canons in\nso momentous a matter was utterly set aside and despised. To these evils\nwas added such a persuasion concerning vows as, it is well known, in\nformer times displeased even those monks who were more considerate. They\ntaught that vows were equal to Baptism; they taught that by this kind of\nlife they merited forgiveness of sins and justification before God. Yea,\nthey added that the monastic life not only merited righteousness before\nGod but even greater things, because it kept not only the precepts, but\nalso the so-called \"evangelical counsels.\"\n\nThus they made men believe that the profession of monasticism was far\nbetter than Baptism, and that the monastic life was more meritorious\nthan that of magistrates, than the life of pastors, and such like,\nwho serve their calling in accordance with God's commands, without any\nman-made services. None of these things can be denied; for they appear\nin their own books. [Moreover, a person who has been thus ensnared and\nhas entered a monastery learns little of Christ.]\n\nWhat, then, came to pass in the monasteries? Aforetime they were schools\nof theology and other branches, profitable to the Church; and thence\npastors and bishops were obtained. Now it is another thing. It is\nneedless to rehearse what is known to all. Aforetime they came together\nto learn; now they feign that it is a kind of life instituted to\nmerit grace and righteousness; yea, they preach that it is a state of\nperfection, and they put it far above all other kinds of life ordained\nof God. These things we have rehearsed without odious exaggeration, to\nthe end that the doctrine of our teachers on this point might be better\nunderstood.\n\nFirst, concerning such as contract matrimony, they teach on our part\nthat it is lawful for all men who are not fitted for single life\nto contract matrimony, because vows cannot annul the ordinance and\ncommandment of God. But the commandment of God is 1 Cor. 7, 2: To avoid\nfornication, let every man have his own wife. Nor is it the commandment\nonly, but also the creation and ordinance of God, which forces those to\nmarry who are not excepted by a singular work of God, according to the\ntext Gen. 2, 18: It is not good that the man should be alone. Therefore\nthey do not sin who obey this commandment and ordinance of God.\n\nWhat objection can be raised to this? Let men extol the obligation of a\nvow as much as they list, yet shall they not bring to pass that the vow\nannuls the commandment of God. The Canons teach that the right of the\nsuperior is excepted in every vow; [that vows are not binding against\nthe decision of the Pope;] much less, therefore, are these vows of force\nwhich are against the commandments of God.\n\nNow, if the obligation of vows could not be changed for any cause\nwhatever, the Roman Pontiffs could never have given dispensation for it\nis not lawful for man to annul an obligation which is simply divine. But\nthe Roman Pontiffs have prudently judged that leniency is to be observed\nin this obligation, and therefore we read that many times they have\ndispensed from vows. The case of the King of Aragon who was called back\nfrom the monastery is well known, and there are also examples in our own\ntimes. [Now, if dispensations have been granted for the sake of securing\ntemporal interests, it is much more proper that they be granted on\naccount of the distress of souls.]\n\nIn the second place, why do our adversaries exaggerate the obligation or\neffect of a vow when, at the same time, they have not a word to say of\nthe nature of the vow itself, that it ought to be in a thing possible,\nthat it ought to be free, and chosen spontaneously and deliberately? But\nit is not unknown to what extent perpetual chastity is in the power\nof man. And how few are there who have taken the vow spontaneously and\ndeliberately! Young maidens and men, before they are able to judge, are\npersuaded, and sometimes even compelled, to take the vow. Wherefore\nit is not fair to insist so rigorously on the obligation, since it is\ngranted by all that it is against the nature of a vow to take it without\nspontaneous and deliberate action.\n\nMost canonical laws rescind vows made before the age of fifteen; for\nbefore that age there does not seem sufficient judgment in a person to\ndecide concerning a perpetual life. Another Canon, granting more to\nthe weakness of man, adds a few years; for it forbids a vow to be made\nbefore the age of eighteen. But which of these two Canons shall we\nfollow? The most part have an excuse for leaving the monasteries,\nbecause most of them have taken the vows before they reached these ages.\n\nFinally, even though the violation of a vow might be censured, yet it\nseems not forthwith to follow that the marriages of such persons must be\ndissolved. For Augustine denies that they ought to be dissolved (XXVII.\nQuaest. I, Cap. Nuptiarum), and his authority is not lightly to be\nesteemed, although other men afterwards thought otherwise.\n\nBut although it appears that God's command concerning marriage delivers\nvery many from their vows, yet our teachers introduce also another\nargument concerning vows to show that they are void. For every service\nof God, ordained and chosen of men without the commandment of God to\nmerit justification and grace, is wicked, as Christ says Matt. 16, 9: In\nvain do they worship Me with the commandments of men. And Paul\nteaches everywhere that righteousness is not to be sought from our own\nobservances and acts of worship, devised by men, but that it comes by\nfaith to those who believe that they are received by God into grace for\nChrist's sake.\n\nBut it is evident that monks have taught that services of man's making\nsatisfy for sins and merit grace and justification. What else is this\nthan to detract from the glory of Christ and to obscure and deny the\nrighteousness of faith? It follows, therefore, that the vows thus\ncommonly taken have been wicked services, and, consequently, are void.\nFor a wicked vow, taken against the commandment of God, is not valid;\nfor (as the Canon says) no vow ought to bind men to wickedness.\n\nPaul says, Gal. 5, 4: Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever\nof you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace. To those,\ntherefore, who want to be justified by their vows Christ is made of\nno effect, and they fall from grace. For also these who ascribe\njustification to vows ascribe to their own works that which properly\nbelongs to the glory of Christ.\n\nNor can it be denied, indeed, that the monks have taught that, by their\nvows and observances, they were justified, and merited forgiveness of\nsins, yea, they invented still greater absurdities, saying that they\ncould give others a share in their works. If any one should be inclined\nto enlarge on these things with evil intent, how many things could he\nbring together whereof even the monks are now ashamed! Over and above\nthis, they persuaded men that services of man's making were a state of\nChristian perfection. And is not this assigning justification to works?\nIt is no light offense in the Church to set forth to the people a\nservice devised by men, without the commandment of God, and to teach\nthat such service justifies men. For the righteousness of faith,\nwhich chiefly ought to be taught in the Church, is obscured when\nthese wonderful angelic forms of worship, with their show of poverty,\nhumility, and celibacy, are east before the eyes of men.\n\nFurthermore, the precepts of God and the true service of God are\nobscured when men hear that only monks are in a state of perfection. For\nChristian perfection is to fear God from the heart, and yet to conceive\ngreat faith, and to trust that for Christ's sake we have a God who has\nbeen reconciled, to ask of God, and assuredly to expect His aid in all\nthings that, according to our calling, are to be done; and meanwhile,\nto be diligent in outward good works, and to serve our calling. In these\nthings consist the true perfection and the true service of God. It does\nnot consist in celibacy, or in begging, or in vile apparel. But the\npeople conceive many pernicious opinions from the false commendations of\nmonastic life. They hear celibacy praised above measure; therefore they\nlead their married life with offense to their consciences. They hear\nthat only beggars are perfect; therefore they keep their possessions and\ndo business with offense to their consciences. They hear that it is an\nevangelical counsel not to seek revenge; therefore some in private life\nare not afraid to take revenge, for they hear that it is but a counsel,\nand not a commandment. Others judge that the Christian cannot properly\nhold a civil office or be a magistrate.\n\nThere are on record examples of men who, forsaking marriage and the\nadministration of the Commonwealth, have hid themselves in monasteries.\nThis they called fleeing from the world, and seeking a kind of life\nwhich would be more pleasing to God. Neither did they see that God ought\nto be served in those commandments which He Himself has given and not\nin commandments devised by men. A good and perfect kind of life is that\nwhich has for it the commandment of God. It is necessary to admonish men\nof these things.\n\nAnd before these times, Gerson rebukes this error of the monks\nconcerning perfection, and testifies that in his day it was a new saying\nthat the monastic life is a state of perfection.\n\nSo many wicked opinions are inherent in the vows, namely, that they\njustify, that they constitute Christian perfection, that they keep the\ncounsels and commandments, that they have works of supererogation. All\nthese things, since they are false and empty, make vows null and void.\n\n\n\n\nArticle XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power.\n\nThere has been great controversy concerning the Power of Bishops, in\nwhich some have awkwardly confounded the power of the Church and the\npower of the sword. And from this confusion very great wars and tumults\nhave resulted, while the Pontiffs, emboldened by the power of the Keys,\nnot only have instituted new services and burdened consciences with\nreservation of cases and ruthless excommunications, but have also\nundertaken to transfer the kingdoms of this world, and to take the\nEmpire from the Emperor. These wrongs have long since been rebuked in\nthe Church by learned and godly men. Therefore our teachers, for the\ncomforting of men's consciences, were constrained to show the difference\nbetween the power of the Church and the power of the sword, and taught\nthat both of them, because of God's commandment, are to be held in\nreverence and honor, as the chief blessings of God on earth.\n\nBut this is their opinion, that the power of the Keys, or the power of\nthe bishops, according to the Gospel, is a power or commandment of\nGod, to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer\nSacraments. For with this commandment Christ sends forth His Apostles,\nJohn 20, 21 sqq.: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. Receive\nye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto\nthem; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. Mark 16, 15: Go\npreach the Gospel to every creature.\n\nThis power is exercised only by teaching or preaching the Gospel and\nadministering the Sacraments, according to their calling either to many\nor to individuals. For thereby are granted, not bodily, but eternal\nthings, as eternal righteousness, the Holy Ghost, eternal life. These\nthings cannot come but by the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments,\nas Paul says, Rom. 1, 16: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation\nto every one that believeth. Therefore, since the power of the Church\ngrants eternal things, and is exercised only by the ministry of the\nWord, it does not interfere with civil government; no more than the art\nof singing interferes with civil government. For civil government deals\nwith other things than does the Gospel. The civil rulers defend not\nminds, but bodies and bodily things against manifest injuries, and\nrestrain men with the sword and bodily punishments in order to preserve\ncivil justice and peace.\n\nTherefore the power of the Church and the civil power must not be\nconfounded. The power of the Church has its own commission to teach\nthe Gospel and to administer the Sacraments. Let it not break into the\noffice of another; Let it not transfer the kingdoms of this world; let\nit not abrogate the laws of civil rulers; let it not abolish lawful\nobedience; let it not interfere with judgments concerning civil\nordinances or contracts; let it not prescribe laws to civil rulers\nconcerning the form of the Commonwealth. As Christ says, John 18, 33: My\nkingdom is not of this world; also Luke 12, 14: Who made Me a judge or\na divider over you? Paul also says, Phil. 3, 20: Our citizenship is in\nheaven; 2 Cor. 10, 4: The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but\nmighty through God to the casting down of imaginations.\n\nAfter this manner our teachers discriminate between the duties of both\nthese powers, and command that both be honored and acknowledged as gifts\nand blessings of God. If bishops have any power of the sword, that power\nthey have, not as bishops, by the commission of the Gospel, but by\nhuman law having received it of kings and emperors for the civil\nadministration of what is theirs. This, however, is another office than\nthe ministry of the Gospel.\n\nWhen, therefore, the question is concerning the jurisdiction of bishops,\ncivil authority must be distinguished from ecclesiastical jurisdiction.\nAgain, according to the Gospel or, as they say, by divine right, there\nbelongs to the bishops as bishops, that is, to those to whom has been\ncommitted the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments, no jurisdiction\nexcept to forgive sins, to judge doctrine, to reject doctrines contrary\nto the Gospel, and to exclude from the communion of the Church wicked\nmen, whose wickedness is known, and this without human force, simply by\nthe Word. Herein the congregations of necessity and by divine right must\nobey them, according to Luke 10, 16: He that heareth you heareth Me.\nBut when they teach or ordain anything against the Gospel, then the\ncongregations have a commandment of God prohibiting obedience, Matt.\n7, 15: Beware of false prophets; Gal. 1, 8: Though an angel from heaven\npreach any other gospel, let him be accursed; 2 Cor. 13, 8: We can do\nnothing against the truth, but for the truth. Also: The power which the\nLord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction. So, also, the\nCanonical Laws command (II. Q. VII. Cap., Sacerdotes, and Cap. Oves).\nAnd Augustine (Contra Petiliani Epistolam): Neither must we submit to\nCatholic bishops if they chance to err, or hold anything contrary to the\nCanonical Scriptures of God.\n\nIf they have any other power or jurisdiction, in hearing and judging\ncertain cases, as of matrimony or of tithes, etc., they have it by human\nright, in which matters princes are bound, even against their will,\nwhen the ordinaries fail, to dispense justice to their subjects for the\nmaintenance of peace.\n\nMoreover, it is disputed whether bishops or pastors have the right to\nintroduce ceremonies in the Church, and to make laws concerning meats,\nholy-days and grades, that is, orders of ministers, etc. They that give\nthis right to the bishops refer to this testimony John 16, 12. 13:\nI have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.\nHowbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into\nall truth. They also refer to the example of the Apostles, who commanded\nto abstain from blood and from things strangled, Acts 15, 29. They refer\nto the Sabbath-day as having been changed into the Lord's Day, contrary\nto the Decalog, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they\nmake more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath-day. Great, say\nthey, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the\nTen Commandments!\n\nBut concerning this question it is taught on our part (as has been shown\nabove) that bishops have no power to decree anything against the Gospel.\nThe Canonical Laws teach the same thing (Dist. IX). Now, it is against\nScripture to establish or require the observance of any traditions, to\nthe end that by such observance we may make satisfaction for sins, or\nmerit grace and righteousness. For the glory of Christ's merit suffers\ninjury when, by such observances, we undertake to merit justification.\nBut it is manifest that, by such belief, traditions have almost\ninfinitely multiplied in the Church, the doctrine concerning faith and\nthe righteousness of faith being meanwhile suppressed. For gradually\nmore holy-days were made, fasts appointed, new ceremonies and services\nin honor of saints instituted, because the authors of such things\nthought that by these works they were meriting grace. Thus in times past\nthe Penitential Canons increased, whereof we still see some traces in\nthe satisfactions.\n\nAgain, the authors of traditions do contrary to the command of God when\nthey find matters of sin in foods, in days, and like things, and burden\nthe Church with bondage of the law, as if there ought to be among\nChristians, in order to merit justification a service like the\nLevitical, the arrangement of which God had committed to the Apostles\nand bishops. For thus some of them write; and the Pontiffs in some\nmeasure seem to be misled by the example of the law of Moses. Hence are\nsuch burdens, as that they make it mortal sin, even without offense\nto others, to do manual labor on holy-days, a mortal sin to omit the\nCanonical Hours, that certain foods defile the conscience that fastings\nare works which appease God that sin in a reserved case cannot be\nforgiven but by the authority of him who reserved it; whereas the Canons\nthemselves speak only of the reserving of the ecclesiastical penalty,\nand not of the reserving of the guilt.\n\nWhence have the bishops the right to lay these traditions upon the\nChurch for the ensnaring of consciences, when Peter, Acts 15, 10,\nforbids to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, and Paul says,\n2 Cor. 13, 10, that the power given him was to edification not to\ndestruction? Why, therefore, do they increase sins by these traditions?\n\nBut there are clear testimonies which prohibit the making of such\ntraditions, as though they merited grace or were necessary to salvation.\nPaul says, Col. 2, 16-23: Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or\nin respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days.\nIf ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as\nthough living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (touch not;\ntaste not; handle not, which all are to perish with the using) after the\ncommandments and doctrines of men! which things have indeed a show of\nwisdom. Also in Titus 1, 14 he openly forbids traditions: Not giving\nheed to Jewish fables and commandments of men that turn from the truth.\n\nAnd Christ, Matt. 15, 14. 13, says of those who require traditions:\nLet them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind; and He rejects such\nservices: Every plant which My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be\nplucked up.\n\nIf bishops have the right to burden churches with infinite traditions,\nand to ensnare consciences, why does Scripture so often prohibit to\nmake, and to listen to, traditions? Why does it call them \"doctrines\nof devils\"? 1 Tim. 4, 1. Did the Holy Ghost in vain forewarn of these\nthings?\n\nSince, therefore, ordinances instituted as things necessary, or with an\nopinion of meriting grace, are contrary to the Gospel, it follows that\nit is not lawful for any bishop to institute or exact such services. For\nit is necessary that the doctrine of Christian liberty be preserved in\nthe churches, namely, that the bondage of the Law is not necessary to\njustification, as it is written in the Epistle to the Galatians, 5, 1:\nBe not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. It is necessary that\nthe chief article of the Gospel be preserved, to wit, that we obtain\ngrace freely by faith in Christ, and not for certain observances or acts\nof worship devised by men.\n\nWhat, then, are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of\nGod? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make\nordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby\nwe should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences\nbe bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin\nto break them without offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor. 11, 5,\nthat women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14, 30,\nthat interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc.\n\nIt is proper that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake\nof love and tranquillity, so far that one do not offend another, that\nall things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion, 1\nCor. 14, 40; comp. Phil. 2, 14; but so that consciences be not burdened\nto think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin\nwhen they break them without offense to others; as no one will say that\na woman sins who goes out in public with her head uncovered provided\nonly that no offense be given.\n\nOf this kind is the observance of the Lord's Day, Easter, Pentecost, and\nlike holy-days and rites. For those who judge that by the authority of\nthe Church the observance of the Lord's Day instead of the Sabbath-day\nwas ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has\nabrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has\nbeen revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And yet,\nbecause it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people\nmight know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church\ndesignated the Lord's Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have\nbeen chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have\nan example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither\nof the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary. There are monstrous\ndisputations concerning the changing of the law, the ceremonies of the\nnew law, the changing of the Sabbath-day, which all have sprung from the\nfalse belief that there must needs be in the Church a service like to\nthe Levitical, and that Christ had given commission to the Apostles and\nbishops to devise new ceremonies as necessary to salvation. These errors\ncrept into the Church when the righteousness of faith was not taught\nclearly enough. Some dispute that the keeping of the Lord's Day is not\nindeed of divine right, but in a manner so. They prescribe concerning\nholy-days, how far it is lawful to work. What else are such disputations\nthan snares of consciences? For although they endeavor to modify the\ntraditions, yet the mitigation can never be perceived as long as the\nopinion remains that they are necessary, which must needs remain where\nthe righteousness of faith and Christian liberty are not known.\n\nThe Apostles commanded Acts 15, 20 to abstain from blood. Who does\nnow observe it? And yet they that do it not sin not; for not even the\nApostles themselves wanted to burden consciences with such bondage; but\nthey forbade it for a time, to avoid offense. For in this decree we must\nperpetually consider what the aim of the Gospel is.\n\nScarcely any Canons are kept with exactness, and from day to day many\ngo out of use even among those who are the most zealous advocates of\ntraditions. Neither can due regard be paid to consciences unless this\nmitigation be observed, that we know that the Canons are kept without\nholding them to be necessary, and that no harm is done consciences, even\nthough traditions go out of use.\n\nBut the bishops might easily retain the lawful obedience of the people\nif they would not insist upon the observance of such traditions as\ncannot be kept with a good conscience. Now they command celibacy; they\nadmit none unless they swear that they will not teach the pure doctrine\nof the Gospel. The churches do not ask that the bishops should restore\nconcord at the expense of their honor; which, nevertheless, it would\nbe proper for good pastors to do. They ask only that they would release\nunjust burdens which are new and have been received contrary to the\ncustom of the Church Catholic. It may be that in the beginning there\nwere plausible reasons for some of these ordinances; and yet they are\nnot adapted to later times. It is also evident that some were adopted\nthrough erroneous conceptions. Therefore it would be befitting\nthe clemency of the Pontiffs to mitigate them now, because such a\nmodification does not shake the unity of the Church. For many human\ntraditions have been changed in process of time, as the Canons\nthemselves show. But if it be impossible to obtain a mitigation of such\nobservances as cannot be kept without sin, we are bound to follow the\napostolic rule, Acts 5, 29, which commands us to obey God rather than\nmen.\n\nPeter, 1 Pet. 5, 3, forbids bishops to be lords, and to rule over the\nchurches. It is not our design now to wrest the government from the\nbishops, but this one thing is asked, namely, that they allow the Gospel\nto be purely taught, and that they relax some few observances which\ncannot be kept without sin. But if they make no concession, it is for\nthem to see how they shall give account to God for furnishing, by their\nobstinacy, a cause for schism.\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\nThese are the chief articles which seem to be in controversy. For\nalthough we might have spoken of more abuses, yet, to avoid undue\nlength, we have set forth the chief points, from which the rest may be\nreadily judged. There have been great complaints concerning indulgences,\npilgrimages, and the abuse of excommunications. The parishes have been\nvexed in many ways by the dealers in indulgences. There were endless\ncontentions between the pastors and the monks concerning the parochial\nright, confessions, burials, sermons on extraordinary occasions, and\ninnumerable other things. Issues of this sort we have passed over so\nthat the chief points in this matter, having been briefly set forth,\nmight be the more readily understood. Nor has anything been here said\nor adduced to the reproach of any one. Only those things have been\nrecounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order\nthat it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has\nbeen received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For\nit is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and\nungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.\n\nThe above articles we desire to present in accordance with the edict of\nYour Imperial Majesty, in order to exhibit our Confession and let men\nsee a summary of the doctrine of our teachers. If there is anything that\nany one might desire in this Confession, we are ready, God willing, to\npresent ampler information according to the Scriptures.\n\nYour Imperial Majesty's faithful subjects:\n\n     John, Duke of Saxony, Elector.\n     George, Margrave of Brandenburg.\n     Ernest, Duke of Lueneberg.\n     Philip, Landgrave of Hesse.\n     John Frederick, Duke of Saxony.\n     Francis, Duke of Lueneburg.\n     Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt.\n     Senate and Magistracy of Nuremburg.\n     Senate of Reutlingen.","title":"The Augsburg Confession: The confession of faith, which was submitted to His Imperial Majesty Charles V at the diet of Augsburg in the year 1530","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":14463}