{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_853/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_853","id":"gutenberg_853","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/853","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Protestantism"],"text":"Produced by Karen Janssen, and Project Wittenberg\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CONFUTATIO PONTIFICIA\n\nBy Anonymous\n\nEdited by J. M. Reu.\n\n\nIn Reference To The Matters Presented To His Imperial Majesty By The\nElector Of Saxony And Some Princes And States Of The Holy Roman Empire,\nOn The Subject And Concerning Causes Pertaining To The Christian\nOrthodox Faith, The Following Christian Reply Can Be Given._ August 3,\n1530_.\n\n\n\n\nCONFUTATIO PONTIFICIA, AUGUST 3, 1530\n\nAs His Worshipful Imperial Majesty received several days since a\nConfession of Faith presented by the Elector the duke of Saxony and\nseveral princes and two cities, to which their names were affixed, with\nhis characteristic zeal for the glory of God, the salvation of souls,\nChristian harmony and the public peace, he not only himself read the\nConfession, but also, in order that in a matter of such moment he might\nproceed the more thoroughly and seasonably, he referred the aforesaid\nConfession to several learned, mature, approved and honorable men of\ndifferent nations for their inspection and examination, and earnestly\ndirected and enjoined them to praise and approve what in the Confession\nwas said aright and in accord with Catholic doctrine, but, on the other\nhand, to note that wherein it differed from the Catholic Church, and,\ntogether with their reply, to present and explain their judgment on each\ntopic. This commission was executed aright and according to order. For\nthose learned men with all care and diligence examined the aforesaid\nConfession, and committed to writing what they thought on each topic,\nand thus presented a reply to His Imperial Majesty. This reply His\nWorshipful Imperial Majesty, as becomes a Christian emperor, most\naccurately read and gave to the other electors, princes and estates\nof the Roman Empire for their perusal and examination, which they also\napproved as orthodox and in every respect harmonious with the Gospel and\nHoly Scripture. For this reason, after a conference with the electors,\nprinces and states above named, in order that all dissension concerning\nthis our orthodox holy faith and religion may be removed, His Imperial\nMajesty has directed that a declaration be made at present as follows:\n\nIn reference to the matters presented to His Imperial Majesty by the\nElector of Saxony and some princes and states of the Holy Roman Empire,\non the subject and concerning causes pertaining to the Christian\northodox faith, the following Christian reply can be given:\n\n\n\n\nPart I.\n\nTo Article I.\n\n\nEspecially when in the first article they confess the unity of the\ndivine essence in three persons according to the decree of the Council\nof Nice, their Confession must be accepted, since it agrees in all\nrespects with the rule of faith and the Roman Church. For the Council of\nNice, convened under the Emperor Constantine the Great, has always been\nregarded inviolable, whereat three hundred and eighteen bishops eminent\nand venerable for holiness of life, martyrdom and learning, after\ninvestigating and diligently examining the Holy Scriptures, set forth\nthis article which they here confess concerning the unity of the essence\nand the trinity of persons. So too their condemnation of all heresies\narising contrary to this article must be accepted--viz. the Manichaeans,\nArians, Eunomians, Valentinians, Samosatanes, for the Holy Catholic\nChurch has condemned these of old.\n\n\nTo Article II.\n\n\n\nIn the second article we approve their Confession, in common with the\nCatholic Church, that the fault of origin is truly sin, condemning and\nbringing eternal death upon those who are not born again by baptism and\nthe Holy Ghost. For in this they properly condemn the Pelagians, both\nmodern and ancient, who have been long since condemned by the Church.\nBut the declaration of the article, that Original Sin is that men are\nborn without the fear of God and without trust in God, is to be entirely\nrejected, since it is manifest to every Christian that to be without the\nfear of God and without trust in God is rather the actual guilt of an\nadult than the offence of a recently-born infant, which does not possess\nas yet the full use of reason, as the Lord says \"Your children which\nhad no knowledge between good and evil,\" Deut 1:39. Moreover, the\ndeclaration is also rejected whereby they call the fault of origin\nconcupiscence, if they mean thereby that concupiscence is a sin that\nremains sin in a child even after baptism. For the Apostolic See has\nalready condemned two articles of Martin Luther concerning sin remaining\nin a child after baptism, and concerning the fomes of sin hindering\na soul from entering the kingdom of heaven. But if, according to the\nopinion of St Augustine, they call the vice of origin concupiscence,\nwhich in baptism ceases to be sin, this ought to be accepted, since\nindeed according to the declaration of St. Paul, we are all born\nchildren of wrath (Eph. 2:3), and in Adam we all have sinned (Rom.5:12).\n\n\nTo Article III.\n\n\nIn the third article there is nothing to offend, since the entire\nConfession agrees with the Apostles' Creed and the right rule of\nfaith--viz. the Son of God became incarnate, assumed human nature into\nthe unity of his person, was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered\nwas crucified, died, descended to hell, rose again on the third day,\nascended to heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father.\n\n\nTo Article IV\n\nIn the fourth article the condemnation of the Pelagians, who thought\nthat man can merit eternal life by his own powers without the grace\nof God, is accepted as Catholic and in accordance with the ancient\ncouncils, for the Holy Scriptures expressly testify to this. John the\nBaptist says: \"A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from\nheaven,\" John 3:27 \"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from\nabove, and comes down from the Father of lights,\" James 1:17. Therefore\n\"our sufficiency is of God,\" 2 Cor 3:5. And Christ says: \"No man can\ncome to me, Except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him,\" John 6:44\nAnd Paul: \"What hast thou that thou didst not receive?\" I Cor 4:7. For\nif any one should intend to disapprove of the merits that men acquire\nby the assistance of divine grace, he would agree with the Manichaeans\nrather than with the Catholic Church. For it is entirely contrary to\nholy Scripture to deny that our works are meritorious. For St. Paul says\n\"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept\nthe faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness,\nwhich the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day,\" 2 Tim.\n4:7 & 8. And to the Corinthians he wrote \"We must all appear before the\njudgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in\nhis body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad,\"\n2 Cor. 5:10. For where there are wages there is merit. The Lord said\nto Abraham: \"Fear not, Abraham, I am thy shield and thy exceeding great\nreward,\" Gen 15:l. And Isaiah says: \"Behold, his reward is with him, and\nhis work before him,\" Isa. 40:10; and, chapter 58:7, 8: \"Deal they bread\nto the hungry, and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of\nthe Lord shall go before thee; the glory of the Lord shall gather thee\nup.\" So too the Lord to Cain: \"If thou doest well shalt thou not be\naccepted?\" Gen. 4:7. So the parable in the Gospel declares that we have\nbeen hired for the Lord's vineyard, who agrees with us for a penny a\nday, and says: \"Call the laborers and give them their hire,\" Matt 20:8.\nSo Paul, knowing the mysteries of God, says: \"Every man shall\nreceive his own reward, according to his own labor,\" I Cor. 3:8. 6.\nNevertheless, all Catholics confess that our works of themselves have no\nmerit, but that God's grace makes them worthy of eternal life. Thus St.\nJohn says: \"They shall walk with me in white; for they are worthy,\" Rev.\n3:4. And St Paul says to the Colossians, 1:12: \"Giving thanks unto the\nFather, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of\nthe saints in light.\"\n\n\nTo Article V.\n\nIn the fifth article the statement that the Holy Ghost is given by the\nWord and sacraments, as by instruments, is approved. For thus it is\nwritten, Acts 10:44: \"While Peter yet spoke these words, the Holy Ghost\nfell on all them which heard the word.\" And John 1:33: \"The same is He\nwhich baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.\" The mention, however, that they\nhere make of faith is approved so far as not Faith alone, which some\nincorrectly teach, but faith which worketh by love, is understood,\nas the apostle teaches aright in Gal 5:3. For in baptism there is an\ninfusion, not of faith alone, but also, at the same time, of hope and\nlove, as Pope Alexander declares in the canon Majores concerning baptism\nand its effect; which John the Baptist also taught long before, saying,\nLuke 3:16: \"He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.\"\n\n\nTo Article VI.\n\n\nTheir Confession in the sixth article that faith should bring forth\ngood fruits is acceptable and valid since \"faith without works is dead,\"\nJames 2:17, and all Scripture invites us to works. For the wise man\nsays: \"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might.\" Eccles.\n9:10. \"And the Lord had respect to Abel and to his offering,\" Gen. 4:4.\nHe saw that Abraham would \"command his Children and his household after\nhim to keep the way of the Lord, and to do justice and judgment,\" Gen.\n18:19. And: \"By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou\nhast done this thing I will bless thee and multiply thy seed.\" Gen\n22:16. Thus he regarded the fast of the Ninevites, Jonah 3, and the\nlamentations and tears of King Hezekiah, 4:2; 2 Kings 20. For this\ncause all the faithful should follow the advice of St. Paul: \"As we have\ntherefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto\nthem who are of the household of faith,\" Gal. 6:10. For Christ says:\n\"The night cometh when no man can work.\" John 9:4. But in the same article\ntheir ascription of justification to faith alone is diametrically\nopposite the truth of the Gospel by which works are not excluded;\n\"because glory, honor and peace to every man that worketh good,\" Rom.\n2:10. Why? because David, Ps. 62:12; Christ, Matt. 16:27; and Paul, Rom.\n2:6 testify that God will render to every one according to his works.\nBesides Christ says: \"Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall\nenter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my\nFather,\" Matt. 7:21. 4. Hence however much one may believe, if he work\nnot what is good, he is not a friend of God. \"Ye are my friends,\" says\nChrist, \"if ye do whatsoever I command you,\" John 15:14. On this account\ntheir frequent ascription of justification to faith is not admitted\nsince it pertains to grace and love. For St. Paul says: \"Though I have\nall faith so that I could remove mountains and have not charity, I am\nnothing.\" 1 Cor. 13:2. Here St. Paul certifies to the princes and the\nentire Church that faith alone does not justify. Accordingly he teaches\nthat love is the chief virtue, Col. 3:14: \"Above all these things put on\ncharity, which is the bond of perfectness.\" Neither are they supported\nby the word of Christ: \"When ye shall have done all these things, say\nWe are unprofitable servants,\" Luke 17:10. For if the doors ought to\nbe called unprofitable, how much more fitting is it to say to those\nwho only believe, When ye shall have believed all things say, We are\nunprofitable servants! This word of Christ, therefore, does not extol\nfaith without works, but teaches that our works bring no profit to God;\nthat no one can be puffed up by our works; that, when contrasted with\nthe divine reward, our works are of no account and nothing. Thus St.\nPaul says: \"I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not\nworthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us,\" Rom.\n8:18. For faith and good works are gifts of God, whereby, through God's\nmercy, eternal life is given. So, too, the citation at this point from\nAmbrose is in no way pertinent, since St. Ambrose is here expressed\ndeclaring his opinion concerning legal works. For he says: \"Without the\nlaw,\" but, \"Without the law of the Sabbath, and of circumcision, and of\nrevenge.\" And this he declares the more clearly on Rom. 4, citing St.\nJames concerning the justification of Abraham without legal works before\ncircumcision. For how could Ambrose speak differently in his comments\nfrom St. Paul in the text when he says: \"Therefore by the deeds of the\nlaw there shall no flesh be justified in his sight?\" Therefore, finally,\nhe does not exclude faith absolutely, but says: \"We conclude that a man\nis justified by faith without the deeds of the law.\"\n\n\nTo Article VII.\n\nThe seventh article of the Confession, wherein it is affirmed that\nthe Church is the congregation of saints, cannot be admitted without\nprejudice to faith if by this definition the wicked and sinners be\nseparated from the Church. For in the Council of Constance this article\nwas condemned among the articles of John Huss of cursed memory, and it\nplainly contradicts the Gospel. For there we read that John the Baptist\ncompared the Church to a threshing-floor, which Christ will cleanse with\nhis fan, and will gather the wheat into his garner, but will burn the\nchaff with unquenchable fire, Matt. 3:12. Wherefore this article of\nthe Confession is in no way accepted, although we read in it their\nconfession that the Church is perpetual, since here the promise of\nChrist has its place, who promises that the Spirit of truth will abide\nwith it forever John 14:16. And Christ himself promises that he will be\nwith the church alway unto the end of the world. They are praised also,\nin that they do not regard variety of rites as separating unity of\nfaith, if they speak of special rites. For to this effect Jerome says:\n\"Every province abounds in its own sense\" (of propriety). But if they\nextend this part of the Confession to universal Church rites, tis also\nmust be utterly rejected, and we must say with St. Paul: \"We have no\nsuch custom,\" 1 Cor. 11:16. \"For by all believers universal rites must\nbe observed,\" St. Augustine, whose testimony they also use, well taught\nof Januarius; for we must presume that such rites were transmitted from\nthe apostles.\n\n\nTo Article VIII.\n\nThe eighth article of the Confession, concerning wicked ministers of the\nChurch and hypocrites--viz. that their wickedness does not injure the\nsacraments and the Word--is accepted with the Holy Roman Church, and\nthe princes commend it, condemning on this topic the Donatists and\nthe ancient Origenists, who maintained that it was unlawful to use the\nministry of the wicked in the Church--a heresy which the Waldenses and\nPoor of Lyons revived. Afterwards John Wicliff in England and John Huss\nin Bohemia adopted this.\n\n\nTo Article IX.\n\nThe ninth article, concerning Baptism--viz. that it is necessary to\nsalvation, and that children ought to be baptized--is approved and\naccepted, and they are right in condemning the Anabaptists, a most\nseditious class of men that ought to be banished far from the boundaries\nof the Roman Empire in order that illustrious Germany may not suffer\nagain such a destructive and sanguinary commotion as she experienced\nfive tears ago in the slaughter of so many thousands.\n\n\n\nTo Article X.\n\n\nThe tenth article gives no offense in its words, because they confess\nthat in the Eucharist, after the consecration lawfully made, the Body\nand Blood of Christ are substantially and truly present, if only they\nbelieve that the entire Christ is present under each form, so that\nthe Blood of Christ is no less present under the form of bread by\nconcomitance than it is under the form of the wine, and the reverse.\nOtherwise, in the Eucharist the Body of Christ is dead and bloodless,\ncontrary to St. Paul, because \"Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth\nno more,\" Rom. 6:9. One matter is added as very necessary to the article\nof the Confession--viz. that they believe the Church, rather than some\nteaching otherwise and incorrectly, that by the almighty Word of God in\nthe consecration of the Eucharist the substance of the bread is changed\ninto the Body of Christ. For thus in a general council it has been\ndetermined, canon Firmiter, concerning the exalted Trinity, and\nthe Catholic faith. They are praised therefor, for condemning the\nCapernaites, who deny the truth of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus\nChrist in the Eucharist.\n\n\nTo Article XI.\n\n\nThe eleventh article their acknowledgment that private absolution with\nconfession should be retained in the Church is accepted as catholic and\nin harmony with our faith, because absolution is supported by the word\nof Christ. For Christ says to his apostles, John 20:23: \"Whosoever sins\nye remit, they are remitted unto them.\" Nevertheless, two things must\nhere be required of them: one, that they compel an annual confession\nto be observed by their subjects, according to the constitution, canon\nOmnis Utriusque, concerning penance and remission and the custom of the\nChurch universal. Another that through their preachers they cause their\nsubjects to be faithfully admonished when they are about to confess that\nalthough they cannot state all their sins individually, nevertheless, a\ndiligent examination of their conscience being made, they make an entire\nconfession of their offences--viz. of all which occur to their memory in\nsuch investigation. But in regard to the rest that have been forgotten\nand have escaped our mind it is lawful to make a general confession,\nand to say with the Psalmist, Ps. 19:17: \"Cleanse me, Lord, from secret\nfaults.\"\n\n\nTo Article XII.\n\n\nIn the twelfth article their confession that such as have fallen may\nfind remission of sins at the time when they are converted, and that\nthe Church should give absolution unto such as return to repentance, is\ncommended, since they most justly condemn the Novatians who deny that\nrepentance can be repeated, in opposition both to the prophet who\npromises grace to the sinner at whatever hour he shall mourn, Ezek.\n18:21, and the merciful declaration of Christ our Saviour, replying to\nSt. Peter, that not until seven times, but until seventy times seven in\none day, he should forgive his brother sinning against him, Matt. 18:22.\nBut the second part of this article is utterly rejected. For when they\nascribe only two parts to repentance, they antagonize the entire Church,\nwhich from the time of the apostles has held and believed that there are\nthree parts of repentance--contrition, confession and satisfaction. Thus\nthe ancient doctors, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Gregory, Augustine,\ntaught in attestation of the Holy Scriptures, especially from 2 Kings\n12, concerning David, 2 Chron 3:1, concerning Manasseh, Ps. 31, 37, 50,\n101, etc. Therefore Pope Leo X of happy memory justly condemned\nthis article of Luther, who taught: \"That there are three parts of\nrepentance--viz. confession, contrition, and satisfaction--has no\nfoundation in Scripture or in Holy Christian doctors.\" This part of the\narticle, therefore can in no way be admitted; so, too, neither can that\nwhich asserts that faith is the second part of repentance, since it is\nknown to all that faith precedes repentance; for unless one believes\nhe will not repent. Neither is that part admitted which makes light of\npontifical satisfactions, for it is contrary to the Gospel, contrary\nto the apostles, contrary to the fathers, contrary to the councils,\nand contrary to the universal Catholic Church. John the Baptist cries:\n\"Bring forth fruits meet for repentance,\" Matt. 3:8. St. Paul teaches:\n\"As ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness, even so now\nyield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness,\" Rom 6:19.\nHe likewise preached to the Gentiles that they should repent and be\nConverted to God, bringing forth fruits meet for repentance, Acts 20:21.\nSo Christ himself also began to teach and preach repentance: \"Repent,\nfor the kingdom of heaven is at hand,\" Matt. 4:17. Afterward he\ncommanded the apostles to pursue this mode of preaching and teaching,\nLuke 24:47, and St. Peter faithfully obeyed him in his first sermon,\nActs 2:38. So Augustine also exhorts that \"every one exercise toward\nhimself severity, so that, being judged of himself, he shall not be\njudged of the Lord,\" as St. Paul says. 1 Cor. 11:31. Pope Leo surnamed\nthe Great, said \"The Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,\ngave to those set over the churches the authority to assign to those who\nconfess the doing of penance, and through the door of reconciliation to\nadmit to the communion of the sacraments those who have been cleansed by\na salutary satisfaction.\" Brose says: \"The amount of the penance must\nbe adapted to the trouble of the conscience.\" Hence divere penitential\ncanons were appointed in the holy Synod of Nice, in accordance with The\ndiversity of satisfactions, Jovinian the heretic, thought, however,\nthat all sins are equal and accordingly did not admit a diversity of\nsatisfactions. Moreover, satisfactions should not be abolished in the\nChurch, contrary to the express Gospel and the decrees of councils and\nfathers, but those absolved by the priest ought to perform the penance\nenjoined, following the declaration of St. Paul: He \"gave himself for\nus, to redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar\npeople, zealous of good works,\" Tit. 2:14. Christ thus made satisfaction\nfor us, that we might be zealous of good works, fulfilling the\nsatisfaction enjoined.\n\n\nTo Article XIII.\n\n\nThe thirteenth article gives no offence, but is accepted, while they say\nthat the sacraments were instituted not only to be marks of profession\namong men, but rather to be signs and testimonies of God's will toward\nus; nevertheless, we must request them that what they here ascribe to\nthe sacraments in general they confess also specifically concerning the\nseven sacraments of the Church and take measures for the observance of\nthem by their subjects.\n\n\nTo Article XIV.\n\nWhen, in the fourteenth article, they confess that no one ought to\nadminister in the Church the Word of God and the sacraments unless he be\nrightly called, it ought to be understood that he is rightly called\nwho is called in accordance with the form of law and the ecclesiastical\nordinances and decrees hitherto observed everywhere in the Christian\nworld, and not according to a Jeroboitic (cf. 1 Kings 12:20) call, or\na tumult or any other irregular intrusion of the people. Aaron was\nnot thus called. Therefore in this sense the Confession is received;\nnevertheless, they should be admonished to persevere therein, and to\nadmit in their realms no one either as pastor or as preacher unless he\nbe rightly called.\n\n\nTo Article XV.\n\n\nIn the fifteenth article their confession that such ecclesiastical rites\nare to be observed as may be observed without sin, and are profitable\nfor tranquility and good order in the Church, is accepted, and they\nmust be admonished that the princes and cities see to it that the\necclesiastical rites of the Church universal be observed in their\ndominions and districts, as well as those which have been kept devoutly\nand religiously in every province even to us, and if any of these have\nbeen intermitted that they restore them, and arrange, determine and\neffectually enjoin upon their subjects that all things be done in their\nchurches according to the ancient form. Nevertheless, the appendix to\nthis article must be entirely removed, since it is false that human\nordinances instituted to propitiate God and make satisfactions for sins\nare opposed to the Gospel, as will be more amply declared hereafter\nconcerning vows, the choice of food and the like.\n\n\nTo Article XVI.\n\nThe sixteenth article, concerning civil magistrates, is received with\npleasure, as in harmony not only with civil law, but also with canonical\nlaw, the Gospel, the Holy Scriptures, and the universal norm of faith,\nsince the apostle enjoins that \"every soul be subject unto the higher\npowers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are\nordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth\nthe ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves\ndamnation,\" Rom. 13:1. And the princes are praised for condemning the\nAnabaptists, who overthrow all civil ordinances and prohibit Christians\nthe use of the magistracy and other civil offices, without which no\nstate is successfully administered.\n\n\nTo Article XVII.\n\nThe confession of the seventeenth article is received, since from the\nApostles' Creed and the Holy Scripture the entire Catholic Church knows\nthat Christ will come at the last day to judge the quick and the dead.\nTherefore they justly condemn here the Anabaptists, who think there\nwill be an end of punishments to condemned men and devils, and imagine\ncertain Jewish kingdoms of the godly, before the resurrection of the\ndead, in this present world, the wicked being everywhere suppressed.\n\n\nTo Article XVIII.\n\nIn the eighteenth article they confess the power of the Free Will--viz.\nthat it has the power to work a civil righteousness, but that it has\nnot, without the Holy Ghost, the virtue to work the righteousness of\nGod. This confession is received and approved. For it thus becomes\nCatholics to pursue the middle way, so as not, with the Pelagians, to\nascribe too much to the free will, nor, with the godless Manichaeans,\nto deny it all liberty; for both are not without fault. Thus Augustine\nsays: \"With sure faith we believe, and without doubt we preach, that\na free will exists in men. For it is an inhuman error to deny the free\nwill in man, which every one experiences in himself, and is so often\nasserted in the Holy Scriptures.\" St. Paul says: \"Having power over his\nown will.\" 1 Cor. 7:37. Of the righteous the wise man says: \"Who might\noffend, and hath not offended? or done evil, and hath not done it?\"\nEccles. 31:10. God said to Cain: \"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be\naccepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto\nthee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him,\" Gen. 4:7.\nThrough the prophet Isaiah he says: \"If ye be willing and obedient ye\nshall eat the good of the land. But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall\nbe devoured with the sword.\" This also Jeremiah has briefly expressed:\n\"Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil, as thou couldest,\" Jer. 3:5.\nWe add also Ezek. 18:31ff.: \"Cast away from you all your transgressions\nwhereby ye have transgressed; and make ye a new heart, and a new spirit;\nfor why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the\ndeath of him that dieth, saith the Lord God; wherefore turn yourselves\nand live.\" Also St. Paul: \"The spirits of the prophets are subject to\nthe prophets,\" 1 Cor. 14:32. Likewise 2 Cor. 9:7: \"Every man according\nas he purposeth in his heart; not grudgingly or of necessity.\" finally,\nChrist overthrew all the Manichaeans with one word when he said: \"Ye\nhave the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them\ngood.\" Mark 14:7; and to Jerusalem Christ says: \"How often would I have\ngathered thy children together, even as a hen gathered her chickens\nunder her wings, and ye would not!\" Matt. 23:37.\n\n\nTo Article XIX.\n\nThe nineteenth article is likewise approved and accepted. For God,\nthe supremely good, is not the author of evils, but the rational and\ndefectible will is the cause of sin; wherefore let no one impute his\nmidsdeeds and crimes to God, but to himself, according to Jer. 2:19:\n\"Thine own wickedness shall correct thee and thy backslidings shall\nreprove thee;\" and Hos. 13:9: \"O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;\nbut in me is thy help.\" And David in the spirit acknowledged that God is\nnot one that hath pleasure in wickedness, Ps. 5:4.\n\n\nTo Article XX.\n\nIn the twentieth article, which does not contain so much the confession\nof the princes and cities as the defense of the preachers, there is only\none thing that pertains to the princes and cities--viz. concerning good\nworks, that they do not merit the remission of sins, which, as it has\nbeen rejected and disapproved before, is also rejected and disapproved\nnow. For the passage in Daniel is very familiar: \"Redeem thy sins with\nalms,\" Dan. 4:24; and the address of Tobit to his son: \"Alms do deliver\nfrom death and suffereth not to come into darkness,\" Tobit 4:10; and\nthat of Christ: \"Give alms of such things as ye have, and behold all\nthings are clean unto you,\" Luke 11:41. If works were not meritorious\nwhy would the wise man say: \"God will render a reward of the labors of\nhis saints\"? Wisd. 10:17. Why would St. Peter so earnestly exhort to\ngood works, saying: \"Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence by\ngood works to make your calling and election sure\"? 2 Pet. 1:19. Why\nwould St. Paul have said: \"God is not unrighteous to forget your work\nand labor of love, which ye have showed towards his name\"? Heb. 6:10.\nNor by this do we reject Christ's merit but we know that our works are\nnothing and of no merit unless by virtue of Christ's passion. We know\nthat Christ is \"the way, the truth and the life,\". John 14:6. But\nChrist, as the Good Shepherd, who \"began to do and teach,\" Acts 1:1, has\ngiven us an example that as he has done we also should do, John 13:15.\nHe also went through the desert by the way of good works, which all\nChristians ought to pursue, and according to his command bear the cross\nand follow him. Matt. 10:38; 16:24. He who bears not the cross, neither\nis nor can be Christ's disciple. That also is true which John says: \"He\nthat saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he\nwalked,\" 1 John 2:6. Moreover, this opinion concerning good works was\ncondemned and rejected more than a thousand years ago in the time of\nAugustine.\n\n\nTo Article XXI.\n\nIn the last place, they present the twenty-first article, wherein they\nadmit that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow\ntheir faith and good works, but not that they be invoked and aid be\nsought of them. It is certainly wonderful that the princes especially\nand the cities have allowed this error to be agitated in their\ndominions, which has been condemned so often before in the Church, since\neleven hundred years ago St. Jerome vanquished in this area the heretic\nVigilantius. Long after him arose the Albigenses, the Poor Men of\nLyons, the Picards, the Cathari old and new: all of whom were condemned\nlegitimately long ago. Wherefore this article of the Confession, so\nfrequently condemned, must be utterly rejected and in harmony with the\nentire universal Church be condemned; for in favor of the invocation of\nsaints we have not only the authority of the Church universal but also\nthe agreement of the holy fathers, Augustine, Bernard, Jerome, Cyprian,\nChrysostom, Basil, and this class of other Church teachers. Neither is\nthe authority of Holy Scripture absent from this Catholic assertion, for\nChrist taught that the saints should be honored: \"If any man serve me,\nhim will my Father honor,\" John 12:26. If, therefore, God honors saints,\nwhy do not we, insignificant men, honor them? Besides, the Lord was\nturned to repentance by Job when he prayed for his friends, Job 42:8.\nWhy, therefore, would not God, the most pious, who gave assent to Job,\ndo the same to the Blessed Virgin when she intercedes? We read also in\nBaruch 3:4: \"O Lord Almighty, thou God of Israel, hear now the prayers\nof the dead Israelites.\" Therefore the dead also pray for us. Thus did\nOnias and Jeremiah in the Old Testament. For Onias the high priest was\nseen by Judas Maccabaeus holding up his hands and praying for the whole\nbody of the Jews. Afterwards another man appeared, remarkable both for\nhis age and majesty, and of great beauty about him, concerning whom\nOnias replied: \"This is a love of the brethren and of the people Israel,\nwho prayeth much for the people and for the Holy city--to wit,\nJeremiah the prophet.\" 2 Macc. 15:12-14. Besides, we know from the Holy\nScriptures that the angels pray for us. Why, then, would we deny this of\nthe saints? \"O Lord of hosts,\" said the angels, \"how long wilt thou not\nhave mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou\nhast had indignation? And the Lord answered the angel that talked with\nme comfortable words.\" Zech. 1:12, 13. Job likewise testifies: \"If there\nbe an angel with him speaking, one among a thousand, to show unto man\nhis uprightness, he will pity him and say, Deliver him from going down\nto the pit.\" Job 33:23, 24. This is clear besides from the words of that\nholy soul, John the Evangelist, when he says: \"The four beasts and the\nfour and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having each one of\nthem harps and golden vials, full of odors which are the prayers of\nsaints,\" Rev. 5:8; and afterwards: \"An angel stood at the altar, having\na golden censer, and there was given unto him much incense, that he\nshould offer it with the prayers of al saints upon the golden altar\nwhich was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came\nup with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the\nangel's hand.\" Lastly, St. Cyprian the martyr more than twelve hundred\nand fifty years ago wrote to Pope Cornelius, Book I, Letter 1, asking\nthat \"if any depart first, his prayer for our brethren and sisters may\nnot cease.\" For if this holy man had not ascertained that after this\nlife the saints pray for the living, he would have given exhortation to\nno purpose. Neither is their Confession strengthened by the fact that\nthere is one Mediator between God and men, 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 John 2:1. For\nalthough His Imperial Majesty, with the entire Church, confesses that\nthere is one Mediator of redemption, nevertheless the mediators of\nintercession are many. Thus Moses was both mediator and agent between\nGod and men, Deut. 5:31, for he prayed for the children of Israel, Ex.\n17:11; 32:11f. Thus St. Paul prayed for those with whom he was sailing,\nActs 27; so, too, he asked that he be prayed for by the Romans, Rom.\n15:30, by the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 1:11, and by the Colossians, Col. 4:3.\nSo while Peter was kept in prison prayer was made without ceasing of\nthe Church unto God for him, Acts 12:5. Christ, therefore, is our chief\nAdvocate, and indeed the greatest; but since the saints are members of\nChrist, 1 Cor. 12:27 and Eph. 5:30, and conform their will to that of\nChrist, and see that their Head, Christ, prays for us, who can doubt\nthat the saints do the very same thing which they see Christ doing? With\nall these things carefully considered, we must ask the princes and the\ncities adhering to them that they reject this part of the Confession\nand agree with the holy universal and orthodox Church and believe and\nconfess, concerning the worship and intercession of saints, what the\nentire Christian world believes and confesses, and was observed in all\nthe churches in the time of Augustine. \"A Christian people.\" he says,\n\"celebrates the memories of martyrs with religious observance, that it\nshare in their merits and be aided by their prayers.\"\n\n\n\nPart II\n\nReply to the Second Part of the Confession.\n\n\nOf Lay Communion under One Form. As in the Confessions of the princes\nand cities they enumerate among the abuses that laymen commune only\nunder one form, and as, therefore, in their dominions both forms are\nadministered to laymen, we must reply, according to the custom of the\nHoly Church, that this is incorrectly enumerated among the abuses, but\nthat, according to the sanctions and statutes of the same Church it is\nrather an abuse and disobedience to administer to laymen both forms. For\nunder the one form of bread the saints communed in the primitive Church,\nof whom Luke says: \"They continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine\nand fellowship, and in breaking of bread.\" Acts 2:42. Here Luke mentions\nbread alone. Likewise Acts 20:7 says: \"Upon the first day of the week,\nwhen the disciples came together to break bread.\" Yea, Christ, the\ninstitutor of this most holy sacrament, rising again from the dead,\nadministered the Eucharist only under one form to the disciples going to\nEmmaus, where he took bread and blessed it, and brake and gave to them,\nand they recognized him in the breaking of bread. Luke 24:30, 31: where\nindeed Augustine, Chrysostome, Theophylact and Bede some of whom many\nags ago and not long after the times of the apostles affirm that it\nwas the Eucharist. Christ also (John 6) very frequently mentions bread\nalone. St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, in his\nEpistle to the Ephesians mentions the bread alone in the communion\nof the Eucharist. Ambrose does likewise in his books concerning the\nsacraments, speaking of the communion of Laymen. In the Council of\nRheims, laymen were forbidden from bearing the sacrament of the Body to\nthe sick, and no mention is there made of the form of wine. Hence it is\nunderstood that the viaticum was given the sick under only one form. The\nancient penitential canons approve of this. For the Council of Agde put\na guilty priest into a monastery and granted him only lay communion. In\nthe Council of Sardica, Hosius prohibits certain indiscreet persons\nfrom receiving even lay communion, unless they finally repent. There has\nalways been a distinction in the Church between lay communion under\none form and priestly communion under both forms. This was beautifully\npredicted in the Old Testament concerning the descendants of Eli: \"It\nshall come to pass,\" says God, 1 Kings 2; 1 Sam. 2:36, \"that everyone\nthat is left in thine house shall come and crouch to him for a piece of\nsilver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, 'Put me, I pray thee,\ninto one of the priests' office' (Vulgate reads: \"Ad unam partem\nsacerdotalem.\"), 'that I may eat a piece of bread.'\" Here Holy Scripture\nclearly shows that the posterity of Eli, when removed from the office\nof the priesthood, will seek to be admitted to one sacerdotal part, to a\npiece of bread. So our laymen also ought, therefore, to be content\nwith one sacerdotal part, the one form. For both the Roman pontiffs\nand cardinals and all bishops and priests, save in the mass and in the\nextreme hour of life for a viaticum, as it is called in the Council of\nNice, re content with taking one form, which they would not do if they\nthought that both forms would be necessary for salvation. Although,\nhowever, both forms were of old administered in many churches to laymen\n(for then it was free to commune under one or under both forms), yet\non account of many dangers the custom of administering both forms has\nceased. For when the multitude of the people is considered where there\nare old and young, tremulous and weak and inept, if great care be not\nemployed and injury is done the Sacrament by the spilling of the liquid.\nBecause of the great multitude there would be difficulty also in giving\nthe chalice cautiously for the form of wine, which also when kept for\na long time would sour and cause nausea or vomition to those who would\nreceive it; neither could it be readily taken to the sick without danger\nof spilling. For these reasons and others the churches in which the\ncustom had been to give both forms to laymen were induced, undoubtedly\nby impulse of the Holy Ghost, to give thereafter but one form, from the\nconsideration chiefly that the entire Christ is under each form, and\nis received no less under one form than under two. In the Council of\nConstance, of such honorable renown, a decree to this effect appeared,\nand so too the Synod of Basle legitimately decreed. And although it\nwas formerly a matter of freedom to use either one or both forms in the\nEucharist, nevertheless, when the heresy arose which taught that both\nforms were necessary, the Holy Church, which is directed by the Holy\nGhost, forbade both forms to laymen. For thus the Church is sometimes\nwont to extinguish heresies by contrary institutions; as when some\narose who maintained that the Eucharist is properly celebrated only when\nunleavened bread is used, the Church for a while commanded that it be\nadministered with leavened bread; and when Nestorius wished to establish\nthat the perpetual Virgin Mary was mother only of Christ, not of God,\nthe Church for a time forbade her to be called Christotokos, mother of\nChrist. Wherefore we must entreat the princes and cities not to permit\nthis schism to be introduced into Germany, into the Roman Empire, or\nthemselves to be separated from the custom of the Church Universal.\nNeither do the arguments adduced in this article avail, for while Christ\nindeed instituted both forms of the Sacrament, yet it is nowhere found\nin the Gospel that he enjoined that both forms be received by the laity.\nFor what is said in Matt. 26:27: \"Drink ye all of it,\" was said to the\ntwelve apostles, who were priests, as is manifest from Mark 14:23, where\nit is said: \"And they all drank of it.\" This certainly was not fulfilled\nhitherto with respect to laymen; whence the custom never existed\nthroughout the entire Church that both forms were given to laymen,\nalthough it existed perhaps among the Corinthians and Carthaginians\nand some other Churches. As to their reference to Gelasius, Canon\nComperimus, of Consecration. Dist. 2, if they examine the document they\nwill find that Gelasius speaks of priests, and not of laymen. Hence\ntheir declaration that the custom of administering but one form is\ncontrary to divine law must be rejected. But most of all the appendix\nto the article must be rejected, that the procession with the Eucharist\nmust be neglected or omitted, because the sacrament is thus divided. For\nthey themselves know, or at least ought to know, that by the Christian\nfaith Christ has not been divided, but that the entire Christ is under\nboth forms, and that the Gospel nowhere forbids the division of the\nsacramental forms; as is done on Parasceve (Holy or Maundy Thursday) by\nthe entire Church of the Catholics, although the consecration is made\nby the celebrant in both forms, who also ought to receive both. Therefore\nthe princes and cities should be admonished to pay customary reverence\nand due honor to Christ the Son of the living God, our Savior and\nGlorifier, the Lord of heaven and earth, since they believe and\nacknowledge that he is truly present--a matter which they know has been\nmost religiously observed by their ancestors, most Christian princes.\n\n\nII. Of the Marriage of Priests.\n\nTheir enumeration among abuses, in the second place, of the celibacy\nof the clergy, and the manner in which their priests marry and persuade\nothers to marry, are verily matters worthy of astonishment, since they\ncall sacerdotal celibacy an abuse, when that which is directly contrary,\nthe violation of celibacy and the illicit transition to marriage,\ndeserves to be called the worst abuse in priests. For that priests ought\nnever to marry Aurelius testifys in the second Council of Carthage,\nwhere he says: \"Because the apostles taught thus by example, and\nantiquity itself has preserved it, let us also maintain it.\" And a\nlittle before a canon to this effect is read: \"Resolved, That the\nbishops, presbyters and deacons, or those who administer the sacraments,\nabstain, as guardians of chastity, from wives.\" From these words it is\nclear that this tradition has been received from the apostles, and not\nrecently devised by the Church. Augustine, following Aurelius in the\nlast question concerning the Old and New Testaments, writes upon these\nwords, and asks: \"If perhaps it be said, if it is lawful and good to\nmarry, why are not priests permitted to have wives?\" Pope Caliztus, a\nholy man and a martyr, decided thirteen hundred years ago that priest\nshould not marry. The like is read also in the holy Councils of\nCaesarea, Neocaesarea, Africa, Agde, Gironne, Meaux, and Orleans.\nThus the custom has been observed from the time of the Gospel and the\napostles that one who has been put into the office of priests has never\nbeen permitted, according to law, to marry. It is indeed true that on\naccount of lack of ministers of God in the primitive Church married men\nwere admitted to the priesthood, as is clear from the Apostolic Canons\nand the reply of Paphnutius in the Council of Nice; nevertheless, those\nwho wished to contract marriage were compelled to do so before receiving\nthe subdiaconate, as we read in the canon Si quis corum Dist. 32.\nThis custom of the primitive Church the Greek Church has preserved and\nretained to this day. But when, by the grace of God, the Church has\nincreased so that there was no lack of ministers in the Church, Pope\nSiricius, eleven hundred and forty years ago, undoubtedly not without\nthe Holy Ghost, enjoined absolute continence upon the priests, Canon\nPlurimus, Dist. 82--an injunction which Popes Innocent I., Leo the Great\nand Gregory the Great approved and ratified, and which the Latin Church\nhas everywhere observed to this day. From these facts it is regarded\nsufficiently clear that the celibacy of the clergy is not an abuse, and\nthat it was approved by fathers so holy at such a remote time, and was\nreceived by the entire Latin Church. Besides, the priests of the old\nlaw, as in the case of Zacharias, were separated from their wives at\ntimes when they discharged their office and ministered in the temple.\nBut since the priest of the new law ought always to be engaged in the\nministry, it follows that he ought always to be continent. Furthermore,\nmarried persons should not defraud one the other of conjugal duties\nexcept for a time that they may give themselves to prayer. 1 Cor.\n75. But since a priest ought always to pray, he ought always to be\ncontinent. Besides, St. Paul says: \"But I would have you without\ncarefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to\nthe Lord, that he may please the Lord. But he that is married careth for\nthe things that are of the world, how he may please his wife,\" 1 Cor.\n7:32, 33. Therefore let the priest who should please God continually\nflee from anxiety for a wife, and not look back with Lot's wife, Gen.\n19:26. Moreover, sacerdotal continence was foreshadowed also in the Old\nTestament, for Moses commanded those who were to receive the law not\nto approach their wives until the third day, Ex 19:15. Much less,\ntherefore, should the priests, who are about to receive Christ as our\nLegislator, Lord and Savior, approach wives. Priests were commanded\nlikewise to wear linen thigh-bandages, to cover the shame of the flesh\n(Ex. 28:42); which, says Beda, was a symbol of future continence among\npriests. Also, when Ahimelech was about to give the blessed bread to the\nservants of David he asked first if they had kept themselves from women\nand David replied that they had for three days. 1 Kings 21 (1 Sam.\n21:4, 5). Therefore, they who take the living Bread which came down from\nheaven, John 6:32ff., should always be pure with respect to them. They\nwho ate the Passover had their loins girded, Ex. 12:11. Wherefore the\npriests, who frequently eat Christ our Passover, ought to gird their\nloins by continence and cleanliness, as the Lord commands them: \"Be ye\nclean,\" he says, \"that bear the vessels of the Lord,\" Isa. 52:11. \"Ye\nshall be holy, for I am holy,\" Lev. 19:2. Therefore let priests serve\nGod \"in holiness and righteousness all their days.\" Luke 1:75. Hence the\nholy martyr Cyprian testifies that it was revealed to him by the Lord,\nand he was most solemnly enjoined, to earnestly admonish the clergy\nnot to occupy a domicile in common with women. Hence, since sacerdotal\ncontinence has been commanded by the pontiffs and revealed by God\nand promised to God, by the priest in a special vow, it must not be\nrejected. For this is required by the excellency of the sacrifice they\noffer, the frequency of prayer, and liberty and purity of spirit, that\nthey care how to please God, according to the teaching of St. Paul. And\nbecause this is manifestly the ancient heresy of Jovinian, which the\nRoman Church condemned and Jerome refuted in his writings, and St.\nAugustine said that this heresy was immediately extinguished and did not\nattain to the corruption and abuse of priests, the princes ought not to\ntolerate it to the perpetual shame and disgrace of the Roman Empire,\nbut should rather conform themselves to the Church universal, and not be\ninfluenced by those things which are suggested to them. For as to what\nPaul says, 1 Cor. 7:2: \"To avoid fornication, let every man have his own\nwife,\" Jerome replies that St. Paul is speaking of one who has not made\na vow, as Athanasius and Vulgarius understand the declaration of St.\nPaul: \"If a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.\" (1 Cor. 7:28), that here\na virgin is meant who has not been consecrated to God. So in reference\nto: \"It is better to marry than to burn\" (1 Cor. 7:9), the pointed reply\nof Jerome against Jovinian is extant. For the same St. Paul says (1 Cor.\n7:1): \"It is good for a man not to touch a woman.\" For a priest has\nthe intermediate position of neither marrying nor burning, but of\nrestraining himself by the grace of God, which he obtains of God by\ndevout prayer and chastising of the flesh, by fasting and vigils.\nFurthermore, when they say that Christ taught that all men are not fit\nfor celibacy, it is indeed true, and on this account not all are fit for\nthe priesthood; but let the priest pray, and he will be ble to receive\nChrist's word concerning continence, as St. Paul says: \"I can do\nall things through Christ which strengtheneth me,\" Phil. 4:13. For\ncontinence is a gift of God, Wisd. 8:21. Besides, when they allege\nthat this is God's ordinance and command, Gen. 1:28, Jerome replied\nconcerning these words a thousand years ago: \"It was necessary first to\nplant the forest, and that it grow, in order that that might be which\ncould afterwards be cut down.\" Then the command was given concerning\nthe procreation of offspring, that the earth should be replenished, but\nsince it has been replenished so that there is a pressure of nations,\nthe commandment does not pertain in like manner upon those able to be\ncontinent. In vain, too, do they boast of God's express order. Let them\nshow, if they can, where God has enjoined priests to marry. Besides, we\nfind in the divine law that vows once offered should be paid, Ps. 49 and\n75; Eccles. 5, Ps. 50:14, 76:11; Eccles. 5:4. Why, therefore, do they\nnot observe this express divine law? They also pervert St. Paul, as\nthough he teaches that one who is to be chosen bishop should be married\nwhen he says: \"Let a bishop be the husband of one wife;\" which is not\nto be understood as though he ought to be married, for then Martin,\nNicolaus, Titus, John the Evangelist, yea Christ, would not have been\nbishops. Hence Jerome explains the words of St. Paul, \"that a bishop\nbe the husband of one wife,\" as meaning that he be not a bigamist.\nThe truth of this exposition is clear, not only from the authority of\nJerome, which ought to be great with every Catholic, but also from St.\nPaul, who writes concerning the selection of widows: \"Let not a widow be\ntaken into the number under three score years, having been the wife of\none man,\" 1 Tim. 5:9. Lastly, the citation of what was done among the\nGermans is the statement of a fact, but not of a law, for while there was\na contention between the Emperor Henry IV, and the Roman Pontiff, and\nalso between his son and the nobles of the Empire, both divine and\nhuman laws were equally confused, so that at the time the laity rashly\nattempted to administer sacred things, to use filth instead of holy oil,\nto baptize, and to do much else foreign to the Christian religion. The\nclergy likewise went beyond their sphere--a precedent which cannot be\ncited as law. Neither was it regarded unjust to dissolve sacrilegious\nmarriages which had been contracted to no effect in opposition to vows\nand the sanction of fathers and councils; as even today the marriages of\npriests with their so-called wives are not valid. In vain, therefore,\ndo they complain that the world is growing old, and that as a remedy for\ninfirmity rigor should be relaxed, for those who are consecrated to God\nhave other remedies of infirmities; as, for instance, let them avoid\nthe society of women, shun idleness, macerate the flesh by fasting and\nvigils, keep the outward senses, especially sight and hearing, from\nthings forbidden, turn away their eyes from beholding vanity, and\nfinally dash their little ones--i.e. their carnal thoughts--upon a rock\n(and Christ is the Rock), suppress their passions, and frequently\nand devoutly resort to God in prayer. These are undoubtedly the most\neffectual remedies for incontinence in ecclesiastics and servants of\nGod. St. Paul said aright that the doctrine of those who forbid marriage\nis a doctrine of demons. Such was the doctrine of Tatian and Marcoin,\nwhom Augustine and Jerome have mentioned. But the Church does not\nthus forbid marriage, as she even enumerates marriage among the seven\nsacraments; with which, however, it is consistent that on account of\ntheir superior ministry she should enjoin upon ecclesiastics superior\npurity. For it is false that there is an express charge concerning\ncontracting marriage, for then John the Evangelist, St. James,\nLaurentius, Titus, Martin, Catharine, Barbara, etc., would have sinned.\nNor is Cyprian influenced by these considerations to speak of a virgin\nwho had made a solemn vow, but of one who had determined to live\ncontinently, as the beginning of Letter XI., Book I sufficiently shows.\nFor the judgement of St. Augustine is very explicit: \"It is damnable for\nVirgins who make a vow not only to marry, but even to wish to marry.\"\nHence the abuse of marriage and the breaking of vows in the clergy are\nnot to be tolerated.\n\n\nIII. Of the Mass.\n\n\nWhatever in this article is stated concerning the most holy office\nof the mass that agrees with the Holy Roman and Apostolic Church is\napproved, but whatever is added that is contrary to the observance\nof the general and universal orthodox Church is rejected, because\nit grievously offends God, injures Christian unity, and occasions\ndissensions, tumults and seditions in the Holy Roman Empire. Now, as to\nthese things which they state in the article: First, it is displeasing\nthat, in opposition to the usage of the entire Roman Church, they\nperform ecclesiastical rites not in the Roman but in the German\nlanguage, and this they pretend that they do upon the authority of St.\nPaul, who taught that in the Church a language should be used which is\nunderstood by the people, 1 Cor. 14:19. But if this were the meaning of\nthe words of St. Paul, it would compel them to perform the entire mass\nin German, which even they do not do. But since the priest is a person\nbelonging to the entire Church, and not only to his surroundings, it is\nnot wonderful that the priest celebrates the mass in the Latin language\nin a Latin Church. It is profitable to the hearer, however, if he hear\nthe mass in faith of the Church; and experience teaches that among the\nGermans there has been greater devotion at mass in Christ's believers who\ndo not understand the Latin language than in those who today hear the\nmass in German. And if the words of the apostle be pondered, it is\nsufficient that the one replying occupy the place of the unlearned\nto say Amen, the very thing that the canons prescribe. Neither is it\nnecessary that he hear or understand all the words of the mass, and even\nattend to it intelligently; for it is better to understand and to attend\nto its end, because the mass is celebrated in order that the Eucharist\nmay be offered in memory of Christ's passion. And it is an argument in\nfavor of this that, according to the general opinion of the fathers,\nthe apostles and their successors until the times of the Emperor Hadrian\ncelebrated the mass in the Hebrew language alone, which was indeed\nunknown to the Christians, especially the converted heathen. But even\nif the mass had been celebrated in the primitive Church in a tongue\nunderstood by the people, nevertheless this would not be necessary now,\nfor many were daily converted who were ignorant of the ceremonies and\nunacquainted with the mysteries; and hence it was of advantage for them\nto understand the words of the office; but now Catholics imbibe from\ntheir cradles the manners and customs of the Church, whence they readily\nknow what should be done at every time in the Church. Moreover, as to\ntheir complaints concerning the abuse of masses, there is none of\nthose who think aright but does not earnestly desire that the abuses be\ncorrected. __But that they who wait at the altar live of the altar is\nnot an abuse, but pertains equally to both divine and human law.__ \"Who\ngoeth a warfare any time at his own charge?\" says Paul. \"Do ye not know\nthat they which minister about holy things live of the things of the\ntemple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?\"\n1 Cor 9:7,13. Christ says: \"The laborer is worthy of his hire.\" Luke\n10:7. But worthy of censure, above all things, is the discontinuance\nof the private mass in certain places, as though those having fixed and\nprescribed returns are sought no less than the public masses on\naccount of gain. But by this abrogation of masses the worship of God is\ndiminished, honor is withdrawn from the saints, the ultimate will of the\nfounder is overthrown and defeated, the dead deprived of the rights due\nthem, and the devotion of the living withdrawn and chilled. Therefore\nthe abrogation of private masses cannot be conceded and tolerated.\nNeither can their assumption be sufficiently understood that Christ by\nhis passion has made satisfaction for original sin, and has instituted\nthe mass for actual sin; for this has never been heard by Catholics,\nand very many who are now asked most constantly deny that they have\nso taught. For the mass does not abolish sins, which are destroyed by\nrepentance as their peculiar medicine, but abolishes the punishment due\nsin, supplies satisfactions, and confers increase of grace and salutary\nprotection of the living, and, lastly, brings the hope of divine\nconsolation and aid to all our wants and necessities. Again, their\ninsinuations that in the mass Christ is not offered must be altogether\nrejected, as condemned of old and excluded by the faithful. For\nAugustine says this was a very ancient heresy of the Arians, who denied\nthat in the mass an oblation was made for the living and the dead. For\nthis is opposed both to the Holy Scriptures and the entire Church. For\nthrough Malachi the Lord predicted the rejection of the Jews, the call\nof the Gentiles and the sacrifice of the evangelical law: \"I have no\npleasure in you, he saith, neither will I accept an offering at your\nhand. For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the\nsame, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place\nincense shall be offered unto my name and a pure offering.\" Mal 1:10,\n11. But no pure offering has already been offered to God in every place,\nexcept in the sacrifice of the altar of the most pure Eucharist. This\nauthority St. Augustine and other Catholics have used in favor of the\nmass against faithless Jews, and certainly with Catholic princes it\nshould have greater influence than all objections of the adversaries.\nBesides, in speaking of the advent of the Messiah the same prophet\nsays: \"And he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and\nsilver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.\nThen shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the\nLord, as in the days of old and as in former years,\" Mal. 3:3, 4. Here\nin the spirit the prophet foresaw the sons of Levi--i.e. evangelical\npriests, says Jerome--about to offer sacrifices, not in the blood of\ngoats, but in righteousness, as in the days of old. Hence these words\nare repeated by the Church in the canon of the mass under the influence\nof the same Spirit under whose influence they were written by the\nprophet. The angel also said to Daniel: \"Many shall be purified and\nmade white and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly, and none of the\nwicked shall understand.\" And again: \"The wise shall understand; and\nfrom the time that the daily sacrifices shall be taken away, and the\nabomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two\nhundred and ninety days,\" Dan. 12:10, 11. Christ testifies that this\nprophecy is to be fulfilled, but that it has not been as yet fulfilled,\nMatt. 24:15. Therefore the daily sacrifice of Christ will cease\nuniversally at the advent of the abomination--i.e. of Antichrist--just\nas it has already ceased, particularly in some churches, and thus will\nbe unemployed in the place of desolation--viz. when the churches will\nbe desolated, in which the canonical hours will not be chanted or the\nmasses celebrated or the sacraments administered, and there will be no\naltars, no images of saints, no candles, no furniture. Therefore all\nprinces and faithful subjects of the Roman Empire ought to be encouraged\nnever to admit or pass over anything that may aid the preparers\nof Antichrist in attaining such a degree of wickedness, when the\nwoman--i.e. the Catholic Church--as St. John saw in the Spirit, will\nflee into the wilderness, where she will have a place prepared of God,\nthat she may be nourished there twelve hundred and sixty days, Rev.\n12:6. Finally, St. Paul says, Heb. 5:1: \"Every high priest taken from\namong men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he\nmay offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.\" But since the external\npriesthood has not ceased in the new law, but has been changed to a\nbetter, therefore even today the high priest and the entire priesthood\noffer in the Church an external sacrifice, which is only one, the\nEucharist. To this topic that also is applicable which is read,\naccording to the new translation, in Acts 13:1, 2: Barnabas, Simeon,\nLucius of Cyrene, Manaen and Saul sacrificed--i.e. they offered an\noblation, which can and ought justly to be understood not of an oblation\nmade to idols, but of the mass, since it is called by the Greeks\nliturgy. And that in the primitive Church the mass was a sacrifice\nthe holy fathers copiously testify, and they support this opinion. For\nIgnatius, a pupil of St. John the Apostle, says: \"It is not allowable\nwithout a bishop either to offer a sacrifice or to celebrate masses.\"\nAnd Irenaeus, a pupil of John, clearly testifies that \"Christ taught the\nnew oblation of the New Testament, which the Church, receiving from\nthe apostles, offers to God throughout the entire world.\" This bishop,\nbordering upon the times of the apostles, testifies that the new\nevangelical sacrifice was offered throughout the entire world. Origin,\nCyprian, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, Basil, Hilary, etc., teach and\ntestify the same, whose words for brevity's sake are omitted. Since,\ntherefore, the Catholic Church throughout the entire Christian world\nhas always taught, held and observed as it today holds and observes, the\nsame ought today to be held and observed inviolably. Nor does St. Paul\nin Hebrews oppose the oblation of the mass when he says that by one\noffering we have once been justified through Christ. For St. Paul is\nspeaking of the offering of a victim--i.e. of a bloody sacrifice, of\na lamb slain, viz. upon the cross--which offering was indeed once made\nwhereby all sacraments, and even the sacrifice of the mass, have\ntheir efficacy. Therefore he was offered but once with the shedding of\nblood--viz. upon the cross; today he is offered in the mass as a peace\nmaking and sacramental victim. Then he was offered in a visible\nform capable of suffering; today he is offered in the mass veiled in\nmysteries, incapable of suffering, just as in the Old Testament he was\nsacrificed typically and under a figure. Finally, the force of the\nword shows that the mass is a sacrifice, since \"mass\" is nothing but\n\"oblation,\" and has received its name from the Hebrew word misbeach,\naltar--in Greek thysiasterion, on account of the oblation. It has been\nsufficiently declared above that we are justified not properly by faith,\nbut by love. But if any such statement be found in the Holy Scriptures,\nCatholics know that it is declared concerning fides formata, which works\nby love (Gal. 5), and because justification is begun by faith, because\nit is the substance of things hoped for. Heb. 11:1. Neither is it denied\nthat the mass is a memorial of Christ's passion and God's benefits,\nsince this is approved b the figure of the paschal lamb, that was at the\nsame time a victim and a memorial, Ex. 12:13, 14, and is represented not\nonly by the Word and sacraments, but also by holy postures and vestments\nin the Catholic Church; but to the memory of the victim the Church\noffers anew the Eucharist in the mysteries to God the Father Almighty.\nTherefore the princes and cities are not censured for retaining one\ncommon mass in the Church, provided they do this according to the sacred\ncanon, as observed by all Catholics. But in abrogating all other masses\nthey have done what the Christian profession does not allow. Nor\ndoes any one censure the declaration that of old all who were present\ncommuned. Would that all were so disposed as to be prepared to\npartake of this bread worthily every day! But if they regard one mass\nadvantageous, how much more advantageous would be a number of masses, of\nwhich they nevertheless have unjustly disapproved. When all these\nthings are properly considered we must ask them to altogether annul and\nrepudiate this new form of celebrating the mass that has been devised,\nand has been already so frequently changed, and to resume the primitive\nform for celebrating it according to the ancient rite and custom of the\nchurches of Germany and all Christendom, and to restore the abrogated\nmasses according to the ultimate will of their founders; whereby they\nwould gain advantage and honor for themselves and peace and tranquility\nfor all Germany.\n\n\nIV. Of Confession.\n\n\nAs to confession, we must adhere to the reply and judgement given above\nin Article XI. For the support which they claim from Chrysostom is\nfalse, since they pervert to sacramental and sacerdotal confession what\nhe says concerning public confession, as his words clearly indicate when\nin the beginning he says: \"I do not tell thee to disclose thyself to the\npublic or to accuse thyself before others.\" Thus Gratian and thus Peter\nLombard replied three hundred years ago; and the explanation becomes\nstill more manifest from other passages of Chrysostom. For in his\ntwenty-ninth sermon he says of the penitent: \"In his heart is\ncontrition, in his mouth confession, in his entire work humility. This\nis perfect and fruitful repentance.\" Does not this most exactly display\nthe three parts of repentance? So in his tenth homily on Matthew,\nChrysostom teaches of a fixed time for confession, and that after\nthe wounds of crimes have been opened they should be healed, penance\nintervening. But how will crimes lie open if they are not disclosed to\nthe priest by confession? Thus in several passages Chrysostom himself\nrefutes this opinion, which Jerome also overthrows, saying: \"If\nthe serpent the devil have secretly bitten any one, and without the\nknowledge f another have infected him with the poison of sin, if he who\nhas been struck be silent and do not repent, and be unwilling to confess\nhis wound to his brother and instructor, the instructor, who has a\ntongue wherewith to cure him, will not readily be able to profit him.\nFor if the sick man be ashamed to confess to the physician, the medicine\nis not adapted to that of which he is ignorant.\" Let the princes and\ncities, therefore, believe these authors rather than a single gloss upon\na decree questioned and rejected by those who are skilled in divine\nlaw. Wherefore, since a full confession is, not to say, necessary for\nsalvation, but becomes the nerve of Christian discipline and the entire\nobedience, they must be admonished to conform to the orthodox Church.\nFor, according to the testimony of Jerome, this was the heresy of the\nMontanist, who were condemned over twelve hundred years ago because they\nwere ashamed to confess their sins. It is not becoming, therefore, to\nadopt the error of the wicked Montanus, but rather the rite of the holy\nfathers and the entire Church--viz. that each one teach, according to\nthe norm of the orthodox faith, that confession, the chief treasure in\nthe Church, be made in conformity to the rite kept among them also in\nthe Church.\n\n\nV. Of the Distinction of Meats.\n\nWhat they afterwards assert concerning the distinction of meats and like\ntraditions, of which they seem to make no account, must be rejected. For\nwe know from the apostle that all power is of God, and especially that\necclesiastical power has been given by God for edification: for this\nreason, from the Christian and devout heart of the holy Church the\nconstitutions of the same holy, catholic and apostolic Church should\nbe received as are useful to the Church, as well for promoting divine\nworship as for restraining the lust of the flesh, while they enable us\nthe more readily to keep the divine commands, and when well considered\nare found in the Holy Scriptures; and he who despises or rashly resists\nthem grievously offends God, according to Christ's word: \"He that\nheareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he\nthat despiseth me, despiseth Him that sent me.\" Luke 10:16. A prelate,\nhowever, is despised when his statutes are despised, according to St.\nPaul, not only when he says: \"He that despiseth, despiseth not man, but\nGod, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit,\" 1 Thess. 4:8, but\nalso to the bishops: \"Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves and to all\nthe flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to rule\n(Vulgate) the Church of God,\" Acts 20:28. If prelates, therefore, have\nthe power to rule, they will have the power also to make statutes for\nthe salutary government of the Church and the growth of subjects. For\nthe same apostle enjoined upon the Corinthians that among them all\nthings should be done in order, 1 Cor. 14:40; but this cannot be done\nwithout laws. On that account he said to the Hebrews: \"Obey them that\nhave the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your\nsouls, as they that must give an account,\" Heb. 13:17. Here St. Paul\nreckons not only obedience, but also the reason for obedience. We see\nthat St. Paul exercised this power, as, in addition to the Gospel, he\nprescribed so many laws concerning the choice of a bishop, concerning\nwidows, concerning women, that they have their heads veiled, that they\nbe silent in the church, and concerning even secular matters, 1 Thess.\n4:1, 2, 6; concerning civil courts, 1 Cor. 6:1ff. And he says to the\nCorinthians very clearly: \"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.\"\n1 Cor. 7.12, and again he says elsewhere: \"Stand fast and hold the\ntraditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle,\"\n2 Thess. 2:15. Wherefore, the princes and cities must be admonished to\nrender obedience to ecclesiastical statutes and constitutions, lest when\nthey withdraw obedience that is due God, obedience may be withdrawn also\nfrom them by their subjects, as their subjects attempted in the recent\ncivil insurrection, not to allow themselves to be seduced by false\ndoctrines. Most false also is their declaration that the righteousness\nof faith is obscured by such ordinances; nay, he is rather mad and\ninsane who would observe them without faith. For they are given to\nbelievers, and not to Turks or Ishmaelites. \"For what have I to do to\njudge them that are without?\" 1 Cor. 5:12. Moreover, in extolling here\nfaith above all things they antagonize St. Paul, as we have said above,\nand do violence to St. Paul, whom they pervert to evangelical works when\nhe speaks of legal works, as all these errors have been above refuted.\nFalse also is it that ecclesiastical ordinances obscure God's commands,\nsince they prepare man for these, as fasts suppress the lust of the\nflesh and help him from falling into luxury. False also is it that it is\nimpossible to observe ordinances, for the Church is not a cruel mother\nwho makes no exceptions in the celebration of festivals and in fasting\nand the like. Furthermore, they falsely quote Augustine in reply to the\ninquiries of Januarius, who is diametrically opposed to them. For\nin this place he most clearly states that what has been universally\ndelivered by the Church be also universally observed. But in indifferent\nthings, and those whose observance and non-observance are free, the holy\nfather Augustine states that, according to the authority of St. Ambrose,\nthe custom of each church should be observed. \"When I come back to\nRome,\" he says, \"I fast on the Sabbath, but when here I do not fast.\"\nBesides, they do violence to the Scriptures while they endeavor\nto support their errors. For Christ (Matt. 15) does not absolutely\ndisapprove of human ordinances, but of those only that were opposed to\nthe law of God, as is clearly acknowledged in Mark 7:8, 9. Here also\nMatt. 15:3 says: \"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by\nyour tradition?\" So Paul (Col. 2) forbids that any one be judged in meat\nor in drink, or in respect to the Sabbath, after the Jewish manner; for\nwhen the Church forbids meats it does not judge them to be unclean,\nas the Jews in the Synagogue thought. So the declaration of Christ\nconcerning that which goeth into the mouth (Matt. 15:11) is cited here\nwithout a sure and true understanding of it since its intention was to\nremove the error of the Jews, who thought that food touched by unwashen\nhands becomes unclean, and rendered one eating it unclean, as is\nmanifest from the context. Nor does the Church bring back to these\nobservances Moses with his heavy hands. In like manner they do violence\nto St. Paul, for 1 Tim. 4:1, 4, he calls that a doctrine of demons that\nforbids meats, as the Tatianites, Marcionites and Manichaeans thought\nthat meats were unclean, as is clear from the words that follow, when\nSt. Paul adds: \"Every creature of God is good.\" But the church does\nnot forbid meats on the ground that they are evil or unclean, but as an\neasier way to keep God's commandments; therefore the opposite arguments\nfail. If they would preach the cross and bodily discipline and fasts,\nthat in this way the body be reduced to subjection, their doctrine would\nbe commendable; but their desire that these be free is condemned and\nrejected as alien to the faith and discipline of the Church. Nor does\nthe diversity of rites support them, for this is properly allowed in\nregard to particular matters, in order that each individual province\nmay have its own taste satisfied, as Jerome says; but individual\necclesiastical rites should be universally observed, and special rites\nshould be observed each in their own province. Also, they make no\nmention of Easter for the Roman pontiffs reduced the Asiatics to a\nuniform observance of Easter with the universal Church. In this way\nIrenaeus must be understood, for without the loss of faith some vigils\nof the apostles were not celebrated with fasting throughout Gaul, which\nGermany nevertheless observes in fasts. The princes and cities must also\nbe admonished to follow the decision of Pope Gregory, for he enjoins\nthat the custom of each province be observed if it employs nothing\ncontrary to the Catholic faith, Canon Quoniam, Distinct xii. Hence we\nare not ignorant that there is a various observance of dissimilar rites\nin unity of faith, which should be observed in every province as it has\nbeen delivered and received from the ancients, without injury, however,\nto the universal rites of the entire Catholic Church.\n\n\nVI. Of Monastic Vows.\n\nAlthough many and various matters have been introduced in this article\nby the suggestion of certain persons (Another text, Cod. Pflug., reads\n\"Preachers\"), nevertheless, when all are taken into consideration with\nmature thought, since monastic vows have their foundation in the Holy\nScriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and most holy men, renowned\nand admirable by miracles, have lived in these religious orders with\nmany thousand thousands, and for so many centuries their ordinances and\nrules of living have been received and approved throughout the entire\nChristian world by the Catholic Church, it is in no way to be tolerated\nthat vows are licentiously broken without any fear of God. For, in the\nOld Testament, God approved the vows of the Nazarenes, Num 6:2ff, and\nthe vows of the Rechabites, who neither drank wine or ate grapes, Jer.\n36:6, 19; while he strictly requires that the vow once made be paid,\nDeut. 23:21f; \"It is ruin to a man after vows to retract,\" Prov. 20:25;\n\"The vows of the just are acceptable,\" Prov. 15:8. God also teaches\nspecifically through the prophet that monastic vows please him. For\nin Isa. 56:4, 5 it is read as follows: \"Thus saith the Lord unto the\neunuchs that keep my Sabbath, and choose the things that pease me and\ntake hold of my covenant, Even unto them will I give in mine house\nand within my walls a place and a name better than that of sons and of\ndaughters. I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be\ncut off.\" But to what eunuchs does God make these promises? To those,\nundoubtedly, whom Christ praises, \"which have made themselves eunuchs\nfor the kingdom of heaven's sake,\" Matt. 19:12; to those, undoubtedly,\nwho, denying their own, come after Christ and deny themselves and follow\nhim, Luke 9:23, so that they are governed no longer by their own will,\nbut by that of their rule and superior. In like manner, according to the\ntestimony of the apostle, those virgins do better who, contemning\nthe world and spurning its enticements, vow and maintain virginity in\nmonasteries, than those who place their necks beneath the matrimonial\nburden. For thus St. Paul says, 1 Cor. 7:28: \"He that giveth her in\nmarriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth\nbetter.\" Also, concerning a widow, he continues: \"She is happier if she\nso abide, after my judgment.\" No one is ignorant of the holiness of the\nhermit Paul, of Basil, Anthony, Benedict, Bernard, Dominic, Franciscus,\nWiliam, Augustine, Clara, Bridget, and similar hermits, who indeed\ndespised the entire realm of the world and all the splendor of the age\non account of love to our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, the heresy of\nthe Lampetians was condemned in most ancient times, which the heretic\nJovinian attempted in vain to revive at Rome. Therefore, all things\nmust be rejected which in this article have been produced against\nmonasticism--viz. that monasteries succeeded vows. Of the nunneries it\nis sufficiently ascertained that, though pertaining to the weaker sex,\nhow in most cloisters the holy nuns persevered far more constantly to\nvows once uttered, even under these princes and cities, than th majority\nof monks; even to this day it has been impossible to move them from\ntheir holy purpose by any prayers, blandishments, threats, terrors,\ndifficulties or distresses. Wherefore, those matters are not to be\nadmitted which are interpreted unfavorably, since it has been expressly\ndeclared in the Holy Scriptures that the monastic life, when kept with\nproper observance, as may by the grace of God be rendered by any monks,\nmerits eternal life; and indeed Christ has promised to them a much\nmore bountiful reward, saying: \"Every one that hath forsaken houses,\nor brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children\nor lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundred-fold, and shall\ninherit everlasting life,\" Matt. 19:29. That monasteries, as they show,\nwere formerly literary schools, is not denied; nevertheless, there is\nno ignorance of the fact that these were at first schools of virtues and\ndiscipline, to which literature was afterwards added. But since no one\nputting his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom\nof heaven, Luke 9:62, all marriages and breaking of vows by monks and\nnuns should be regarded as condemned, according to the tenor not only of\nthe Holy Scriptures, but also of the laws and canons, \"having damnation,\nbecause they have cast off their first faith,\" as St. Paul says, 1 Tim.\n5:12. Moreover, that vows are not contrary to the ordinance of God\nas been declared with reference to the second article of the alleged\nabuses. That they attempt to defend themselves by dispensations of\nthe Pope is of no effect. For although the Pope has perhaps made a\ndispensation for the king of Aragon, who, we read, returned to the\nmonastery after having had offspring, or for any other prince on account\nof the peace of the entire kingdom or province, to prevent the exposure\nof the entire kingdom or province to wars, carnage, pillae, debauchery,\nconflagrations, murders,--nevertheless, in private persons who abandon\nvows in apostasy such grounds for dispensations cannot be urged. For\nthe assumption is repelled that the vow concerns a matter that is\nimpossible. For continence, which so many thousands of men and virgins\nhave maintained, is not impossible. For although the wise man says\n(Wisd. 8:21): \"I knew that I could not otherwise be continent, unless\nGod gave it me,\" nevertheless Christ promised to give it. \"Seek,\" he\nsays, \"and ye shall find,\" 11:9; Matt 18:28; and St. Paul says: \"God is\nfaithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able,\nbut will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be\nable to bear it,\" 1 Cor. 10:13. They are also poor defenders of their\ncause when they admit that the violation of a vow is irreprehensible,\nand it must be declared that by law such marriages are censured and\nshould be dissolved, C. Ut. Continentiae, xxvii. Q. 1, as also by the\nancient statutes of emperors. But when they allege in their favor C.\nNuptiarum, They accomplish nothing, for it speaks of a simple not of a\nreligious vow, which the Church observes also to this day. The marriages\nof monks, nuns, or priests, have therefore never been ratified. Futile\nalso is their statement that a votive life is an invention of men, for\nit has been founded upon the Holy Scriptures, inspired into the most\nholy fathers by the Holy Ghost. Nor does it deny honor to Christ, since\nmonks observe all things for Christ's sake and imitate Christ. False,\ntherefore, is the judgement whereby they condemn monastic service as\ngodless, whereas it is most Christian. For the monks have not fallen\nfrom God's grace, as the Jews of whom St. Paul speaks, Gal. 5:4, when\nthey still sought justification by the law of Moses; but the monks\nendeavor to live more nearly to the Gospel, that theymay merit eternal\nlife. Therefore, the allegations here made against monasticism are\nimpious. Moreover, the malicious charge that is still further added,\nthat those in religious orders claim to be in a state of perfection,\nhas never been heard of by them; for those in these orders claim not for\nthemselves a state of perfection, but only a state in which to acquire\nperfection--because their regulations are instruments of perfection, and\nnot perfection itself. In this manner Gerson must be received, who does\nnot deny that religious orders are states wherein to acquire perfection\nas he declares in his treatises, \"Against the Proprietors of the Rule of\nSt. Augustine\", \"Of Evangelical Counsels\", \"Of Perfection of Heart\",\nand in other places. For this reason the princes and cities should be\nadmonished to strive rather for the reformation of the monasteries by\ntheir legitimate superiors than for their subversion--rather for the\ngodly improvement of the monks than that they be abolished; as their\nmost religious ancestors, most Christian princes, have done. But if\nthey will not believe holy and most religious fathers defending\nmonastic vows, let them hear at least His Imperial Highness, the Emperor\nJustinian, in \"Authentica,\" De Monachis, Coll. ii.\n\n\nVII. Of Ecclesiastical Power.\n\n\nAlthough many things are introduced here in the topic of Ecclesiastical\nPower, with greater bitterness than is just, yet it must be declared\nthat to most reverend bishops and priests, and to the entire clergy, all\necclesiastical power is freely conceded that belongs to them by law\nor custom. Besides, it is proper to preserve for them all immunities,\nprivileges, preferments and prerogatives granted them by Roman emperors\nand kings. Nor can those things that have been granted ecclesiastics by\nimperial munificence or gift be allowed to be infringed by any princes\nor any other subject of the Roman Empire. For it is most abundantly\nproved that ecclesiastical power in spiritual things has been founded\nupon divine right, of which St. Paul indeed says: \"For though I should\nboast somewhat more of our authority which the Lord hath given us for\nedification, and not for your destruction,\" 2 Cor. 10:8, and afterwards:\n\"Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I\nshould use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given\nme to edification, and not to destruction,\" 2 Cor. 13:10. Paul also\ndisplays his coercitive disposition when he says: \"What will ye? Shall\nI come unto you with a rod, or in love and in the spirit of meekness?\"\n1 Cor. 4:21. And of judicial matters he writes to Timothy: \"Against an\nelder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses,\" 1\nTim. 5:19. From these passages it is very clearly discerned that bishops\nhave the power not only of the ministry of the Word of God, but also of\nruling and coercitive correction in order to direct subjects to the goal\nof eternal blessedness. But for the power of ruling there is required\nthe power to judge, to define, to discriminate and to decide what is\nexpedient or conducive to the aforesaid goal. In vain, therefore, and\nfutile is all that is inserted in the present article in opposition to\nthe immunity of churches and schools. Accordingly, all subjects of the\nRoman Empire must be forbidden from bringing the clergy before a civil\ntribunal, contrary to imperial privileges that have been conceded: for\nPope Clement the Martyr says: \"If any of the presbyters have trouble\nwith one another, let whatever it be adjusted before the presbyters of\nthe Church.\" Hence Constantine the Great, the most Christian Emperor,\nwas unwilling in the holy Council of Nice to give judgement even in\nsecular cases. \"Ye are gods,\" he says, \"appointed by the true God. Go,\nsettle the case among yourselves, be cause it is not proper that\nwe judge gods.\" As to what is further repeated concerning Church\nregulations has been sufficiently replied to above. Nor does Christian\nliberty, which they bring forth as an argument, avail them, since this\nis not liberty, but prodigious license, which, inculcated on the people,\nexcites them to fatal and most dangerous sedition. For Christian liberty\nis not opposed to ecclesiastical usages since they promote what is good,\nbut it is opposed to the servitude of the Mosaic law and the servitude\nof sin. \"Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin,\" says Christ,\nJohn 8:34. Hence their breaking fasts, their free partaking of meats,\ntheir neglect of canonical hours, their omission of confession--viz. at\nEaster--and their commission and omission of similar things, are not a\nuse of liberty, but an abuse thereof, contrary to the warnings of St.\nPaul, who earnestly warned them, saying: \"Brethren, ye have been called\nunto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by\nlove serve one another.\" Gal. 5:13. Hence no one ought to conceal\nhis crimes under the pretext of Gospel liberty, which St. Peter\nalso forbade: \"As free, and not using your liberty for an cloak of\nmaliciousness, but as the servant of God,\" 1 Pet. 2:16. As to what they\nhave added concerning abuses, all the princes and estates of the Empire\nundoubtedly know that not even the least is approved either by His\nImperial Majesty or by any princes or any Christian man, but that both\nthe princes and the estates of the Empire desire to strive with a common\npurpose and agreement, in order that, the abuses being removed and\nreformed, the excesses of both estates may be either utterly abolished\nor reformed for the better, and that the ecclesiastical estate, which\nhas been weakened in many ways, and the Christian religion, which has\ngrown cold and relaxed in some, may be restored and renewed to its\npristine glory and distinction. To this, as is evident to all, His\nImperial Majesty has thus far devoted the greatest care and labor, and\nkindly promises in the future to employ for this cause all his means and\nzeal.\n\n\nConclusion\n\n\nFrom the foregoing--viz. the Confession and its Reply--since His\nImperial Majesty perceives that the Elector, the princes and the cities\nagree on many points with the Catholic and Roman Church, and dissent\nfrom the godless dogmas that are disseminated all over Germany, and the\npamphlets circulated everywhere, and that they disapprove of and condemn\nthem,--His Holy Imperial Majesty is fully convinced, and hopes that the\nresult will be, that when the Elector, princes and cities have heard\nand understood this Reply they will agree with united minds in regard to\nthose matters also in which they perhaps have not agreed hitherto with\nthe Roman Catholic Church, and that in all other things above mentioned\nthey will obediently conform to the Catholic and Roman Church and\nthe Christian faith and religion. For such conduct on their part His\nImperial Majesty will be peculiarly grateful, and will bestow his\nspecial favor upon them all in common, and also, as opportunity offers,\nupon them individually. For (which may God forbid) if this admonition,\nso Christian and indulgent, be unheeded, the Elector, princes and cities\ncan judge that a necessary cause is afforded His Imperial Majesty that,\nas becometh a Roman Emperor and Christian Caesar and a defender and\nadvocate of the Catholic and Christian Church, he must care for such\nmatters as the nature of the charge committed to him and his integrity\nof conscience require.","title":"The Confutatio Pontificia","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":15553}