Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from
the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which
have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary
to the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would
graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons
why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their
conscience. Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in
order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange
slanders among the people. Having thus excited the minds of good men,
they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by
the same arts, to increase the discord. For Your Imperial Majesty will
undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us
is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent.
Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the
revilings of enemies. But it can readily be judged that nothing would
serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish
reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies
were observed rightly in the churches.
Article XXII: Of Both Kinds in the Sacrament.
To the laity are given Both Kinds in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper,
because this usage has the commandment of the Lord in Matt. 26, 27:
Drink ye all of it, where Christ has manifestly commanded concerning the
cup that all should drink.
And lest any man should craftily say that this refers only to priests,
Paul in 1 Cor. 11,27 recites an example from which it appears that the
whole congregation did use both kinds. And this usage has long remained
in the Church, nor is it known when, or by whose authority, it was
changed; although Cardinal Cusanus mentions the time when it was
approved. Cyprian in some places testifies that the blood was given
to the people. The same is testified by Jerome, who says: The priests
administer the Eucharist, and distribute the blood of Christ to the
people. Indeed, Pope Gelasius commands that the Sacrament be not divided
(dist. II., De Consecratione, cap. Comperimus). Only custom, not so
ancient, has it otherwise. But it is evident that any custom introduced
against the commandments of God is not to be allowed, as the Canons
witness (dist. III., cap. Veritate, and the following chapters). But
this custom has been received, not only against the Scripture, but also
against the old Canons and the example of the Church. Therefore, if any
preferred to use both kinds of the Sacrament, they ought not to have
been compelled with offense to their consciences to do otherwise. And
because the division of the Sacrament does not agree with the ordinance
of Christ, we are accustomed to omit the procession, which hitherto has
been in use.
Article XXIII: Of the Marriage of Priests.
There has been common complaint concerning the examples of priests who
were not chaste. For that reason also Pope Pius is reported to have said
that there were certain causes why marriage was taken away from priests,
but that there were far weightier ones why it ought to be given back;
for so Platina writes. Since, therefore, our priests were desirous to
avoid these open scandals, they married wives, and taught that it was
lawful for them to contract matrimony. First, because Paul says, 1 Cor.
7, 2. 9: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. Also: It
is better to marry than to burn. Secondly Christ says, Matt. 19,11: All
men cannot receive this saying, where He teaches that not all men are
fit to lead a single life; for God created man for procreation, Gen. 1,
28. Nor is it in man's power, without a singular gift and work of God,
to alter this creation. [For it is manifest, and many have confessed
that no good, honest, chaste life, no Christian, sincere, upright
conduct has resulted (from the attempt), but a horrible, fearful
unrest and torment of conscience has been felt by many until the end.]
Therefore, those who are not fit to lead a single life ought to contract
matrimony. For no man's law, no vow, can annul the commandment and
ordinance of God. For these reasons the priests teach that it is lawful
for them to marry wives.
It is also evident that in the ancient Church priests were married men.
For Paul says, 1 Tim. 3, 2, that a bishop should be chosen who is the
husband of one wife. And in Germany, four hundred years ago for the
first time, the priests were violently compelled to lead a single life,
who indeed offered such resistance that the Archbishop of Mayence, when
about to publish the Pope's decree concerning this matter, was almost
killed in the tumult raised by the enraged priests. And so harsh was
the dealing in the matter that not only were marriages forbidden for the
future, but also existing marriages were torn asunder, contrary to all
laws, divine and human, contrary even to the Canons themselves, made
not only by the Popes, but by most celebrated Synods. [Moreover, many
God-fearing and intelligent people in high station are known frequently
to have expressed misgivings that such enforced celibacy and depriving
men of marriage (which God Himself has instituted and left free to men)
has never produced any good results, but has brought on many great and
evil vices and much iniquity.]
Seeing also that, as the world is aging, man's nature is gradually
growing weaker, it is well to guard that no more vices steal into
Germany.
Furthermore, God ordained marriage to be a help against human infirmity.
The Canons themselves say that the old rigor ought now and then, in the
latter times, to be relaxed because of the weakness of men; which it
is to be wished were done also in this matter. And it is to be expected
that the churches shall at some time lack pastors if marriage is any
longer forbidden.
But while the commandment of God is in force, while the custom of
the Church is well known, while impure celibacy causes many scandals,
adulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments of just
magistrates, yet it is a marvelous thing that in nothing is more
cruelty exercised than against the marriage of priests. God has
given commandment to honor marriage. By the laws of all well-ordered
commonwealths, even among the heathen, marriage is most highly honored.
But now men, and that, priests, are cruelly put to death, contrary to
the intent of the Canons, for no other cause than marriage. Paul, in 1
Tim. 4,3, calls that a doctrine of devils which forbids marriage.
This may now be readily understood when the law against marriage is
maintained by such penalties.
But as no law of man can annul the commandment of God, so neither can it
be done by any vow. Accordingly, Cyprian also advises that women who
do not keep the chastity they have promised should marry. His words
are these (Book I, Epistle XI ): But if they be unwilling or unable to
persevere, it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire by
their lusts; they should certainly give no offense to their brethren and
sisters.
And even the Canons show some leniency toward those who have taken vows
before the proper age, as heretofore has generally been the ease.
Article XXIV: Of the Mass.
Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is
retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly
all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in
Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been
added to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed to this end alone
that the unlearned be taught [what they need to know of Christ]. And not
only has Paul commanded to use in the church a language understood by
the people 1 Cor. 14,2. 9, but it has also been so ordained by man's
law. The people are accustomed to partake of the Sacrament together, if
any be fit for it, and this also increases the reverence and devotion of
public worship. For none are admitted except they be first examined. The
people are also advised concerning the dignity and use of the Sacrament,
how great consolation it brings anxious consciences, that they may learn
to believe God, and to expect and ask of Him all that is good. [In this
connection they are also instructed regarding other and false teachings
on the Sacrament.] This worship pleases God; such use of the Sacrament
nourishes true devotion toward God. It does not, therefore, appear that
the Mass is more devoutly celebrated among our adversaries than among
us.
But it is evident that for a long time this also has been the public
and most grievous complaint of all good men that Masses have been basely
profaned and applied to purposes of lucre. For it is not unknown how far
this abuse obtains in all the churches by what manner of men Masses are
said only for fees or stipends, and how many celebrate them contrary to
the Canons. But Paul severely threatens those who deal unworthily with
the Eucharist when he says, 1 Cor.11,27: Whosoever shall eat this bread,
and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the
body and blood of the Lord. When, therefore our priests were admonished
concerning this sin, Private Masses were discontinued among us, as
scarcely any Private Masses were celebrated except for lucre's sake.
Neither were the bishops ignorant of these abuses, and if they had
corrected them in time, there would now be less dissension. Heretofore,
by their own connivance, they suffered many corruptions to creep into
the Church. Now, when it is too late, they begin to complain of the
troubles of the Church, while this disturbance has been occasioned
simply by those abuses which were so manifest that they could be borne
no longer. There have been great dissensions concerning the Mass,
concerning the Sacrament. Perhaps the world is being punished for such
long-continued profanations of the Mass as have been tolerated in the
churches for so many centuries by the very men who were both able and in
duty bound to correct them. For in the Ten Commandments it is written,
Ex. 20, 7: The Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in
vain. But since the world began, nothing that God ever ordained seems to
have been so abused for filthy lucre as the Mass.
There was also added the opinion which infinitely increased Private
Masses, namely that Christ, by His passion, had made satisfaction for
original sin, and instituted the Mass wherein an offering should be
made for daily sins, venial and mortal. From this has arisen the common
opinion that the Mass takes away the sins of the living and the dead by
the outward act. Then they began to dispute whether one Mass said for
many were worth as much as special Masses for individuals, and this
brought forth that infinite multitude of Masses. [With this work men
wished to obtain from God all that they needed, and in the mean time
faith in Christ and the true worship were forgotten.]
Concerning these opinions our teachers have given warning that they
depart from the Holy Scriptures and diminish the glory of the passion of
Christ. For Christ's passion was an oblation and satisfaction, not for
original guilt only, but also for all other sins, as it is written to
the Hebrews, 10, 10: We are sanctified through the offering of Jesus
Christ once for all. Also, 10, 14: By one offering He hath perfected
forever them that are sanctified. [It is an unheard-of innovation in
the Church to teach that Christ by His death made satisfaction only for
original sin and not likewise for all other sin. Accordingly it is hoped
that everybody will understand that this error has not been reproved
without due reason.]
Scripture also teaches that we are justified before God through faith
in Christ, when we believe that our sins are forgiven for Christ's sake.
Now if the Mass take away the sins of the living and the dead by the
outward act justification comes of the work of Masses, and not of faith,
which Scripture does not allow.
But Christ commands us, Luke 22, 19: This do in remembrance of Me;
therefore the Mass was instituted that the faith of those who use the
Sacrament should remember what benefits it receives through Christ, and
cheer and comfort the anxious conscience. For to remember Christ is to
remember His benefits, and to realize that they are truly offered unto
us. Nor is it enough only to remember the history; for this also the
Jews and the ungodly can remember. Wherefore the Mass is to be used to
this end, that there the Sacrament [Communion] may be administered to
them that have need of consolation; as Ambrose says: Because I always
sin, I am always bound to take the medicine. [Therefore this Sacrament
requires faith, and is used in vain without faith.]
Now, forasmuch as the Mass is such a giving of the Sacrament, we hold
one communion every holy-day, and, if any desire the Sacrament, also on
other days, when it is given to such as ask for it. And this custom is
not new in the Church; for the Fathers before Gregory make no mention of
any private Mass, but of the common Mass [the Communion] they speak
very much. Chrysostom says that the priest stands daily at the altar,
inviting some to the Communion and keeping back others. And it appears
from the ancient Canons that some one celebrated the Mass from whom all
the other presbyters and deacons received the body of the Lord; for thus
the words of the Nicene Canon say: Let the deacons, according to their
order, receive the Holy Communion after the presbyters, from the bishop
or from a presbyter. And Paul, 1 Cor. 11, 33, commands concerning
the Communion: Tarry one for another, so that there may be a common
participation.
Forasmuch, therefore, as the Mass with us has the example of the Church,
taken from the Scripture and the Fathers, we are confident that it
cannot be disapproved, especially since public ceremonies, for the most
part like those hitherto in use, are retained; only the number of Masses
differs, which, because of very great and manifest abuses doubtless
might be profitably reduced. For in olden times, even in churches most
frequented, the Mass was not celebrated every day, as the Tripartite
History (Book 9, chap. 33) testifies: Again in Alexandria, every
Wednesday and Friday the Scriptures are read, and the doctors expound
them, and all things are done, except the solemn rite of Communion.
Article XXV: Of Confession.
Confession in the churches is not abolished among us; for it is not
usual to give the body of the Lord, except to them that have been
previously examined and absolved. And the people are most carefully
taught concerning faith in the absolution, about which formerly there
was profound silence. Our people are taught that they should highly
prize the absolution, as being the voice of God, and pronounced by God's
command. The power of the Keys is set forth in its beauty and they are
reminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, also,
that God requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding
from heaven, and that such faith in Christ truly obtains and receives
the forgiveness of sins. Aforetime satisfactions were immoderately
extolled; of faith and the merit of Christ and the righteousness of
faith no mention was made; wherefore, on this point, our churches are by
no means to be blamed. For this even our adversaries must needs concede
to us that the doctrine concerning repentance has been most diligently
treated and laid open by our teachers.
But of Confession they teach that an enumeration of sins is not
necessary, and that consciences be not burdened with anxiety to
enumerate all sins, for it is impossible to recount all sins, as the
Psalm testifies, 19,13: Who can understand his errors? Also Jeremiah,
17 9: The heart is deceitful; who can know it; But if no sins were
forgiven, except those that are recounted, consciences could never find
peace; for very many sins they neither see nor can remember. The ancient
writers also testify that an enumeration is not necessary. For in the
Decrees, Chrysostom is quoted, who says thus: I say not to you that you
should disclose yourself in public, nor that you accuse yourself before
others, but I would have you obey the prophet who says: "Disclose thy
self before God." Therefore confess your sins before God, the true
Judge, with prayer. Tell your errors, not with the tongue, but with the
memory of your conscience, etc. And the Gloss (Of Repentance, Distinct.
V, Cap. Consideret) admits that Confession is of human right only [not
commanded by Scripture, but ordained by the Church]. Nevertheless, on
account of the great benefit of absolution, and because it is otherwise
useful to the conscience, Confession is retained among us.
Article XXVI: Of the Distinction of Meats.
It has been the general persuasion, not of the people alone, but also of
those teaching in the churches, that making Distinctions of Meats, and
like traditions of men, are works profitable to merit grace, and able to
make satisfactions for sins. And that the world so thought, appears from
this, that new ceremonies, new orders, new holy-days, and new fastings
were daily instituted, and the teachers in the churches did exact these
works as a service necessary to merit grace, and did greatly terrify
men's consciences, if they should omit any of these things. From this
persuasion concerning traditions much detriment has resulted in the
Church.
First, the doctrine of grace and of the righteousness of faith has been
obscured by it, which is the chief part of the Gospel, and ought to
stand out as the most prominent in the Church, in order that the merit
of Christ may be well known, and faith, which believes that sins are
forgiven for Christ's sake be exalted far above works. Wherefore Paul
also lays the greatest stress on this article, putting aside the Law
and human traditions, in order to show that Christian righteousness is
something else than such works, to wit, the faith which believes that
sins are freely forgiven for Christ's sake. But this doctrine of Paul
has been almost wholly smothered by traditions, which have produced an
opinion that, by making distinctions in meats and like services, we must
merit grace and righteousness. In treating of repentance, there was no
mention made of faith; only those works of satisfaction were set forth;
in these the entire repentance seemed to consist.
Secondly, these traditions have obscured the commandments of God,
because traditions were placed far above the commandments of God.
Christianity was thought to consist wholly in the observance of certain
holy-days, rites, fasts, and vestures. These observances had won for
themselves the exalted title of being the spiritual life and the
perfect life. Meanwhile the commandments of God, according to each
one's calling, were without honor namely, that the father brought up his
offspring, that the mother bore children, that the prince governed
the commonwealth,--these were accounted works that were worldly and
imperfect, and far below those glittering observances. And this error
greatly tormented devout consciences, which grieved that they were
held in an imperfect state of life, as in marriage, in the office of
magistrate; or in other civil ministrations; on the other hand,
they admired the monks and such like, and falsely imagined that the
observances of such men were more acceptable to God.
Thirdly, traditions brought great danger to consciences; for it was
impossible to keep all traditions, and yet men judged these observances
to be necessary acts of worship. Gerson writes that many fell into
despair, and that some even took their own lives, because they felt that
they were not able to satisfy the traditions, and they had all the while
not heard any consolation of the righteousness of faith and grace. We
see that the summists and theologians gather the traditions, and
seek mitigations whereby to ease consciences, and yet they do not
sufficiently unfetter, but sometimes entangle, consciences even more.
And with the gathering of these traditions, the schools and sermons
have been so much occupied that they have had no leisure to touch upon
Scripture, and to seek the more profitable doctrine of faith, of the
cross, of hope, of the dignity of civil affairs of consolation of
sorely tried consciences. Hence Gerson and some other theologians have
grievously complained that by these strivings concerning traditions
they were prevented from giving attention to a better kind of doctrine.
Augustine also forbids that men's consciences should be burdened with
such observances, and prudently advises Januarius that he must know that
they are to be observed as things indifferent; for such are his words.
Wherefore our teachers must not be looked upon as having taken up this
matter rashly or from hatred of the bishops, as some falsely suspect.
There was great need to warn the churches of these errors, which had
arisen from misunderstanding the traditions. For the Gospel compels
us to insist in the churches upon the doctrine of grace, and of the
righteousness of faith; which, however, cannot be understood, if men
think that they merit grace by observances of their own choice.
Thus, therefore, they have taught that by the observance of human
traditions we cannot merit grace or be justified, and hence we must
not think such observances necessary acts of worship. They add hereunto
testimonies of Scripture. Christ, Matt. 15, 3, defends the Apostles who
had not observed the usual tradition, which, however, evidently pertains
to a matter not unlawful, but indifferent, and to have a certain
affinity with the purifications of the Law, and says, 9: In vain do they
worship Me with the commandments of men. He, therefore, does not exact
an unprofitable service. Shortly after He adds: Not that which goeth
into the mouth defileth a man. So also Paul, Rom. 14, 17: The kingdom of
God is not meat and drink. Col. 2, 16: Let no man, therefore, judge
you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the
Sabbath-day; also: If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the
world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances:
Touch not, taste not, handle not! And Peter says, Acts 15, 10: Why tempt
ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our
fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace
of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Here Peter
forbids to burden the consciences with many rites, either of Moses or
of others. And in 1 Tim. 4,1.3 Paul calls the prohibition of meats a
doctrine of devils; for it is against the Gospel to institute or to do
such works that by them we may merit grace, or as though Christianity
could not exist without such service of God.
Here our adversaries object that our teachers are opposed to discipline
and mortification of the flesh, as Jovinian. But the contrary may be
learned from the writings of our teachers. For they have always taught
concerning the cross that it behooves Christians to bear afflictions.
This is the true, earnest, and unfeigned mortification, to wit, to be
exercised with divers afflictions, and to be crucified with Christ.
Moreover, they teach that every Christian ought to train and subdue
himself with bodily restraints, or bodily exercises and labors that
neither satiety nor slothfulness tempt him to sin, but not that we may
merit grace or make satisfaction for sins by such exercises. And such
external discipline ought to be urged at all times, not only on a few
and set days. So Christ commands, Luke 21, 34: Take heed lest your
hearts be overcharged with surfeiting; also Matt. 17, 21: This kind
goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. Paul also says, 1 Cor. 9, 27:
I keep under my body and bring it into subjection. Here he clearly shows
that he was keeping under his body, not to merit forgiveness of sins
by that discipline, but to have his body in subjection and fitted
for spiritual things, and for the discharge of duty according to
his calling. Therefore, we do not condemn fasting in itself, but the
traditions which prescribe certain days and certain meats, with peril of
conscience, as though such works were a necessary service.
Nevertheless, very many traditions are kept on our part, which conduce
to good order in the Church, as the Order of Lessons in the Mass and
the chief holy-days. But, at the same time, men are warned that such
observances do not justify before God, and that in such things it should
not be made sin if they be omitted without offense. Such liberty in
human rites was not unknown to the Fathers. For in the East they kept
Easter at another time than at Rome, and when, on account of this
diversity, the Romans accused the Eastern Church of schism, they were
admonished by others that such usages need not be alike everywhere. And
Irenaeus says: Diversity concerning fasting does not destroy the
harmony of faith; as also Pope Gregory intimates in Dist. XII, that
such diversity does not violate the unity of the Church. And in the
Tripartite History, Book 9, many examples of dissimilar rites are
gathered, and the following statement is made: It was not the mind
of the Apostles to enact rules concerning holy-days, but to preach
godliness and a holy life [, to teach faith and love].
Article XXVII: Of Monastic Vows.
What is taught on our part concerning Monastic Vows, will be better
understood if it be remembered what has been the state of the
monasteries, and how many things were daily done in those very
monasteries, contrary to the Canons. In Augustine's time they were
free associations. Afterward, when discipline was corrupted, vows
were everywhere added for the purpose of restoring discipline, as in a
carefully planned prison.
Gradually, many other observances were added besides vows. And these
fetters were laid upon many before the lawful age, contrary to the
Canons.
Many also entered into this kind of life through ignorance, being unable
to judge their own strength, though they were of sufficient age. Being
thus ensnared, they were compelled to remain, even though some could
have been freed by the kind provision of the Canons. And this was more
the case in convents of women than of monks, although more consideration
should have been shown the weaker sex. This rigor displeased many good
men before this time, who saw that young men and maidens were thrown
into convents for a living. They saw what unfortunate results came of
this procedure, and what scandals were created, what snares were cast
upon consciences! They were grieved that the authority of the Canons in
so momentous a matter was utterly set aside and despised. To these evils
was added such a persuasion concerning vows as, it is well known, in
former times displeased even those monks who were more considerate. They
taught that vows were equal to Baptism; they taught that by this kind of
life they merited forgiveness of sins and justification before God. Yea,
they added that the monastic life not only merited righteousness before
God but even greater things, because it kept not only the precepts, but
also the so-called "evangelical counsels."
Thus they made men believe that the profession of monasticism was far
better than Baptism, and that the monastic life was more meritorious
than that of magistrates, than the life of pastors, and such like,
who serve their calling in accordance with God's commands, without any
man-made services. None of these things can be denied; for they appear
in their own books. [Moreover, a person who has been thus ensnared and
has entered a monastery learns little of Christ.]
What, then, came to pass in the monasteries? Aforetime they were schools
of theology and other branches, profitable to the Church; and thence
pastors and bishops were obtained. Now it is another thing. It is
needless to rehearse what is known to all. Aforetime they came together
to learn; now they feign that it is a kind of life instituted to
merit grace and righteousness; yea, they preach that it is a state of
perfection, and they put it far above all other kinds of life ordained
of God. These things we have rehearsed without odious exaggeration, to
the end that the doctrine of our teachers on this point might be better
understood.
First, concerning such as contract matrimony, they teach on our part
that it is lawful for all men who are not fitted for single life
to contract matrimony, because vows cannot annul the ordinance and
commandment of God. But the commandment of God is 1 Cor. 7, 2: To avoid
fornication, let every man have his own wife. Nor is it the commandment
only, but also the creation and ordinance of God, which forces those to
marry who are not excepted by a singular work of God, according to the
text Gen. 2, 18: It is not good that the man should be alone. Therefore
they do not sin who obey this commandment and ordinance of God.
What objection can be raised to this? Let men extol the obligation of a
vow as much as they list, yet shall they not bring to pass that the vow
annuls the commandment of God. The Canons teach that the right of the
superior is excepted in every vow; [that vows are not binding against
the decision of the Pope;] much less, therefore, are these vows of force
which are against the commandments of God.
Now, if the obligation of vows could not be changed for any cause
whatever, the Roman Pontiffs could never have given dispensation for it
is not lawful for man to annul an obligation which is simply divine. But
the Roman Pontiffs have prudently judged that leniency is to be observed
in this obligation, and therefore we read that many times they have
dispensed from vows. The case of the King of Aragon who was called back
from the monastery is well known, and there are also examples in our own
times. [Now, if dispensations have been granted for the sake of securing
temporal interests, it is much more proper that they be granted on
account of the distress of souls.]
In the second place, why do our adversaries exaggerate the obligation or
effect of a vow when, at the same time, they have not a word to say of
the nature of the vow itself, that it ought to be in a thing possible,
that it ought to be free, and chosen spontaneously and deliberately? But
it is not unknown to what extent perpetual chastity is in the power
of man. And how few are there who have taken the vow spontaneously and
deliberately! Young maidens and men, before they are able to judge, are
persuaded, and sometimes even compelled, to take the vow. Wherefore
it is not fair to insist so rigorously on the obligation, since it is
granted by all that it is against the nature of a vow to take it without
spontaneous and deliberate action.
Most canonical laws rescind vows made before the age of fifteen; for
before that age there does not seem sufficient judgment in a person to
decide concerning a perpetual life. Another Canon, granting more to
the weakness of man, adds a few years; for it forbids a vow to be made
before the age of eighteen. But which of these two Canons shall we
follow? The most part have an excuse for leaving the monasteries,
because most of them have taken the vows before they reached these ages.
Finally, even though the violation of a vow might be censured, yet it
seems not forthwith to follow that the marriages of such persons must be
dissolved. For Augustine denies that they ought to be dissolved (XXVII.
Quaest. I, Cap. Nuptiarum), and his authority is not lightly to be
esteemed, although other men afterwards thought otherwise.
But although it appears that God's command concerning marriage delivers
very many from their vows, yet our teachers introduce also another
argument concerning vows to show that they are void. For every service
of God, ordained and chosen of men without the commandment of God to
merit justification and grace, is wicked, as Christ says Matt. 16, 9: In
vain do they worship Me with the commandments of men. And Paul
teaches everywhere that righteousness is not to be sought from our own
observances and acts of worship, devised by men, but that it comes by
faith to those who believe that they are received by God into grace for
Christ's sake.
But it is evident that monks have taught that services of man's making
satisfy for sins and merit grace and justification. What else is this
than to detract from the glory of Christ and to obscure and deny the
righteousness of faith? It follows, therefore, that the vows thus
commonly taken have been wicked services, and, consequently, are void.
For a wicked vow, taken against the commandment of God, is not valid;
for (as the Canon says) no vow ought to bind men to wickedness.
Paul says, Gal. 5, 4: Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever
of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace. To those,
therefore, who want to be justified by their vows Christ is made of
no effect, and they fall from grace. For also these who ascribe
justification to vows ascribe to their own works that which properly
belongs to the glory of Christ.
Nor can it be denied, indeed, that the monks have taught that, by their
vows and observances, they were justified, and merited forgiveness of
sins, yea, they invented still greater absurdities, saying that they
could give others a share in their works. If any one should be inclined
to enlarge on these things with evil intent, how many things could he
bring together whereof even the monks are now ashamed! Over and above
this, they persuaded men that services of man's making were a state of
Christian perfection. And is not this assigning justification to works?
It is no light offense in the Church to set forth to the people a
service devised by men, without the commandment of God, and to teach
that such service justifies men. For the righteousness of faith,
which chiefly ought to be taught in the Church, is obscured when
these wonderful angelic forms of worship, with their show of poverty,
humility, and celibacy, are east before the eyes of men.
Furthermore, the precepts of God and the true service of God are
obscured when men hear that only monks are in a state of perfection. For
Christian perfection is to fear God from the heart, and yet to conceive
great faith, and to trust that for Christ's sake we have a God who has
been reconciled, to ask of God, and assuredly to expect His aid in all
things that, according to our calling, are to be done; and meanwhile,
to be diligent in outward good works, and to serve our calling. In these
things consist the true perfection and the true service of God. It does
not consist in celibacy, or in begging, or in vile apparel. But the
people conceive many pernicious opinions from the false commendations of
monastic life. They hear celibacy praised above measure; therefore they
lead their married life with offense to their consciences. They hear
that only beggars are perfect; therefore they keep their possessions and
do business with offense to their consciences. They hear that it is an
evangelical counsel not to seek revenge; therefore some in private life
are not afraid to take revenge, for they hear that it is but a counsel,
and not a commandment. Others judge that the Christian cannot properly
hold a civil office or be a magistrate.
There are on record examples of men who, forsaking marriage and the
administration of the Commonwealth, have hid themselves in monasteries.
This they called fleeing from the world, and seeking a kind of life
which would be more pleasing to God. Neither did they see that God ought
to be served in those commandments which He Himself has given and not
in commandments devised by men. A good and perfect kind of life is that
which has for it the commandment of God. It is necessary to admonish men
of these things.
And before these times, Gerson rebukes this error of the monks
concerning perfection, and testifies that in his day it was a new saying
that the monastic life is a state of perfection.
So many wicked opinions are inherent in the vows, namely, that they
justify, that they constitute Christian perfection, that they keep the
counsels and commandments, that they have works of supererogation. All
these things, since they are false and empty, make vows null and void.
Article XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power.
There has been great controversy concerning the Power of Bishops, in
which some have awkwardly confounded the power of the Church and the
power of the sword. And from this confusion very great wars and tumults
have resulted, while the Pontiffs, emboldened by the power of the Keys,
not only have instituted new services and burdened consciences with
reservation of cases and ruthless excommunications, but have also
undertaken to transfer the kingdoms of this world, and to take the
Empire from the Emperor. These wrongs have long since been rebuked in
the Church by learned and godly men. Therefore our teachers, for the
comforting of men's consciences, were constrained to show the difference
between the power of the Church and the power of the sword, and taught
that both of them, because of God's commandment, are to be held in
reverence and honor, as the chief blessings of God on earth.
But this is their opinion, that the power of the Keys, or the power of
the bishops, according to the Gospel, is a power or commandment of
God, to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer
Sacraments. For with this commandment Christ sends forth His Apostles,
John 20, 21 sqq.: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. Receive
ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. Mark 16, 15: Go
preach the Gospel to every creature.
This power is exercised only by teaching or preaching the Gospel and
administering the Sacraments, according to their calling either to many
or to individuals. For thereby are granted, not bodily, but eternal
things, as eternal righteousness, the Holy Ghost, eternal life. These
things cannot come but by the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments,
as Paul says, Rom. 1, 16: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation
to every one that believeth. Therefore, since the power of the Church
grants eternal things, and is exercised only by the ministry of the
Word, it does not interfere with civil government; no more than the art
of singing interferes with civil government. For civil government deals
with other things than does the Gospel. The civil rulers defend not
minds, but bodies and bodily things against manifest injuries, and
restrain men with the sword and bodily punishments in order to preserve
civil justice and peace.
Therefore the power of the Church and the civil power must not be
confounded. The power of the Church has its own commission to teach
the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments. Let it not break into the
office of another; Let it not transfer the kingdoms of this world; let
it not abrogate the laws of civil rulers; let it not abolish lawful
obedience; let it not interfere with judgments concerning civil
ordinances or contracts; let it not prescribe laws to civil rulers
concerning the form of the Commonwealth. As Christ says, John 18, 33: My
kingdom is not of this world; also Luke 12, 14: Who made Me a judge or
a divider over you? Paul also says, Phil. 3, 20: Our citizenship is in
heaven; 2 Cor. 10, 4: The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but
mighty through God to the casting down of imaginations.
After this manner our teachers discriminate between the duties of both
these powers, and command that both be honored and acknowledged as gifts
and blessings of God. If bishops have any power of the sword, that power
they have, not as bishops, by the commission of the Gospel, but by
human law having received it of kings and emperors for the civil
administration of what is theirs. This, however, is another office than
the ministry of the Gospel.
When, therefore, the question is concerning the jurisdiction of bishops,
civil authority must be distinguished from ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
Again, according to the Gospel or, as they say, by divine right, there
belongs to the bishops as bishops, that is, to those to whom has been
committed the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments, no jurisdiction
except to forgive sins, to judge doctrine, to reject doctrines contrary
to the Gospel, and to exclude from the communion of the Church wicked
men, whose wickedness is known, and this without human force, simply by
the Word. Herein the congregations of necessity and by divine right must
obey them, according to Luke 10, 16: He that heareth you heareth Me.
But when they teach or ordain anything against the Gospel, then the
congregations have a commandment of God prohibiting obedience, Matt.
7, 15: Beware of false prophets; Gal. 1, 8: Though an angel from heaven
preach any other gospel, let him be accursed; 2 Cor. 13, 8: We can do
nothing against the truth, but for the truth. Also: The power which the
Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction. So, also, the
Canonical Laws command (II. Q. VII. Cap., Sacerdotes, and Cap. Oves).
And Augustine (Contra Petiliani Epistolam): Neither must we submit to
Catholic bishops if they chance to err, or hold anything contrary to the
Canonical Scriptures of God.
If they have any other power or jurisdiction, in hearing and judging
certain cases, as of matrimony or of tithes, etc., they have it by human
right, in which matters princes are bound, even against their will,
when the ordinaries fail, to dispense justice to their subjects for the
maintenance of peace.
Moreover, it is disputed whether bishops or pastors have the right to
introduce ceremonies in the Church, and to make laws concerning meats,
holy-days and grades, that is, orders of ministers, etc. They that give
this right to the bishops refer to this testimony John 16, 12. 13:
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into
all truth. They also refer to the example of the Apostles, who commanded
to abstain from blood and from things strangled, Acts 15, 29. They refer
to the Sabbath-day as having been changed into the Lord's Day, contrary
to the Decalog, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they
make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath-day. Great, say
they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the
Ten Commandments!
But concerning this question it is taught on our part (as has been shown
above) that bishops have no power to decree anything against the Gospel.
The Canonical Laws teach the same thing (Dist. IX). Now, it is against
Scripture to establish or require the observance of any traditions, to
the end that by such observance we may make satisfaction for sins, or
merit grace and righteousness. For the glory of Christ's merit suffers
injury when, by such observances, we undertake to merit justification.
But it is manifest that, by such belief, traditions have almost
infinitely multiplied in the Church, the doctrine concerning faith and
the righteousness of faith being meanwhile suppressed. For gradually
more holy-days were made, fasts appointed, new ceremonies and services
in honor of saints instituted, because the authors of such things
thought that by these works they were meriting grace. Thus in times past
the Penitential Canons increased, whereof we still see some traces in
the satisfactions.
Again, the authors of traditions do contrary to the command of God when
they find matters of sin in foods, in days, and like things, and burden
the Church with bondage of the law, as if there ought to be among
Christians, in order to merit justification a service like the
Levitical, the arrangement of which God had committed to the Apostles
and bishops. For thus some of them write; and the Pontiffs in some
measure seem to be misled by the example of the law of Moses. Hence are
such burdens, as that they make it mortal sin, even without offense
to others, to do manual labor on holy-days, a mortal sin to omit the
Canonical Hours, that certain foods defile the conscience that fastings
are works which appease God that sin in a reserved case cannot be
forgiven but by the authority of him who reserved it; whereas the Canons
themselves speak only of the reserving of the ecclesiastical penalty,
and not of the reserving of the guilt.
Whence have the bishops the right to lay these traditions upon the
Church for the ensnaring of consciences, when Peter, Acts 15, 10,
forbids to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, and Paul says,
2 Cor. 13, 10, that the power given him was to edification not to
destruction? Why, therefore, do they increase sins by these traditions?
But there are clear testimonies which prohibit the making of such
traditions, as though they merited grace or were necessary to salvation.
Paul says, Col. 2, 16-23: Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or
in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days.
If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as
though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (touch not;
taste not; handle not, which all are to perish with the using) after the
commandments and doctrines of men! which things have indeed a show of
wisdom. Also in Titus 1, 14 he openly forbids traditions: Not giving
heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men that turn from the truth.
And Christ, Matt. 15, 14. 13, says of those who require traditions:
Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind; and He rejects such
services: Every plant which My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be
plucked up.
If bishops have the right to burden churches with infinite traditions,
and to ensnare consciences, why does Scripture so often prohibit to
make, and to listen to, traditions? Why does it call them "doctrines
of devils"? 1 Tim. 4, 1. Did the Holy Ghost in vain forewarn of these
things?
Since, therefore, ordinances instituted as things necessary, or with an
opinion of meriting grace, are contrary to the Gospel, it follows that
it is not lawful for any bishop to institute or exact such services. For
it is necessary that the doctrine of Christian liberty be preserved in
the churches, namely, that the bondage of the Law is not necessary to
justification, as it is written in the Epistle to the Galatians, 5, 1:
Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. It is necessary that
the chief article of the Gospel be preserved, to wit, that we obtain
grace freely by faith in Christ, and not for certain observances or acts
of worship devised by men.
What, then, are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of
God? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make
ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby
we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences
be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin
to break them without offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor. 11, 5,
that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14, 30,
that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc.
It is proper that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake
of love and tranquillity, so far that one do not offend another, that
all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion, 1
Cor. 14, 40; comp. Phil. 2, 14; but so that consciences be not burdened
to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin
when they break them without offense to others; as no one will say that
a woman sins who goes out in public with her head uncovered provided
only that no offense be given.
Of this kind is the observance of the Lord's Day, Easter, Pentecost, and
like holy-days and rites. For those who judge that by the authority of
the Church the observance of the Lord's Day instead of the Sabbath-day
was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has
abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has
been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And yet,
because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people
might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church
designated the Lord's Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have
been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have
an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither
of the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary. There are monstrous
disputations concerning the changing of the law, the ceremonies of the
new law, the changing of the Sabbath-day, which all have sprung from the
false belief that there must needs be in the Church a service like to
the Levitical, and that Christ had given commission to the Apostles and
bishops to devise new ceremonies as necessary to salvation. These errors
crept into the Church when the righteousness of faith was not taught
clearly enough. Some dispute that the keeping of the Lord's Day is not
indeed of divine right, but in a manner so. They prescribe concerning
holy-days, how far it is lawful to work. What else are such disputations
than snares of consciences? For although they endeavor to modify the
traditions, yet the mitigation can never be perceived as long as the
opinion remains that they are necessary, which must needs remain where
the righteousness of faith and Christian liberty are not known.
The Apostles commanded Acts 15, 20 to abstain from blood. Who does
now observe it? And yet they that do it not sin not; for not even the
Apostles themselves wanted to burden consciences with such bondage; but
they forbade it for a time, to avoid offense. For in this decree we must
perpetually consider what the aim of the Gospel is.
Scarcely any Canons are kept with exactness, and from day to day many
go out of use even among those who are the most zealous advocates of
traditions. Neither can due regard be paid to consciences unless this
mitigation be observed, that we know that the Canons are kept without
holding them to be necessary, and that no harm is done consciences, even
though traditions go out of use.
But the bishops might easily retain the lawful obedience of the people
if they would not insist upon the observance of such traditions as
cannot be kept with a good conscience. Now they command celibacy; they
admit none unless they swear that they will not teach the pure doctrine
of the Gospel. The churches do not ask that the bishops should restore
concord at the expense of their honor; which, nevertheless, it would
be proper for good pastors to do. They ask only that they would release
unjust burdens which are new and have been received contrary to the
custom of the Church Catholic. It may be that in the beginning there
were plausible reasons for some of these ordinances; and yet they are
not adapted to later times. It is also evident that some were adopted
through erroneous conceptions. Therefore it would be befitting
the clemency of the Pontiffs to mitigate them now, because such a
modification does not shake the unity of the Church. For many human
traditions have been changed in process of time, as the Canons
themselves show. But if it be impossible to obtain a mitigation of such
observances as cannot be kept without sin, we are bound to follow the
apostolic rule, Acts 5, 29, which commands us to obey God rather than
men.
Peter, 1 Pet. 5, 3, forbids bishops to be lords, and to rule over the
churches. It is not our design now to wrest the government from the
bishops, but this one thing is asked, namely, that they allow the Gospel
to be purely taught, and that they relax some few observances which
cannot be kept without sin. But if they make no concession, it is for
them to see how they shall give account to God for furnishing, by their
obstinacy, a cause for schism.