Article XXVIII (XIV): _Of Ecclesiastical Power._
Here the adversaries cry out violently concerning the privileges and
immunities of the ecclesiastical estate, and they add the peroration:
All things are vain which are presented in the present article
against the immunity of the churches and priests. This is mere
calumny; for in this article we have disputed concerning other things.
Besides, we have frequently testified that we do not find fault
with political ordinances, and the gifts and privileges granted by
princes.
But would that the adversaries would hear, on the other hand, the
complaints of the churches and of godly minds! The adversaries
courageously guard their own dignities and wealth; meanwhile, they
neglect the condition of the churches; they do not care that the
churches are rightly taught, and that the Sacraments are duly
administered. To the priesthood they admit all kinds of persons
indiscriminately. [They ordain rude asses; thus the Christian
doctrine perished, because the Church was not supplied with efficient
preachers.] Afterwards they impose intolerable burdens, as though
they were delighted with the destruction of their fellowmen, they
demand that their traditions be observed far more accurately than the
Gospel. Now, in the most important and difficult controversies,
concerning which the people urgently desire to be taught, in order
that they may have something certain which they may follow, they do
not release the minds which are most severely tortured with doubt,
they only call to arms. Besides, in manifest matters [against
manifest truth] they present decrees written in blood, which threaten
horrible punishments to men unless they act clearly contrary to God's
command. Here, on the other hand, you ought to see the tears of the
poor, and hear the pitiable complaints of many good men, which God
undoubtedly considers and regards, to whom one day you will render an
account of your stewardship.
But although in the Confession we have in this article embraced
various topics, the adversaries make no reply [act in true popish
fashion], except that the bishops have the power of rule and coercive
correction, in order to direct their subjects to the goal of eternal
blessedness; and that the power of ruling requires the power to judge,
to define, to distinguish and fix those things which are serviceable
or conduce to the aforementioned end. These are the words of the
_Confutation_, in which the adversaries teach us [but do not prove]
that the bishops have the authority to frame laws [without the
authority of the Gospel] useful for obtaining eternal life. The
controversy is concerning this article.
[Regarding this matter we submit the following:] But we must retain
in the Church this doctrine, namely, that we receive the remission of
sins freely for Christ's sake, by faith. We must also retain this
doctrine, namely, that human traditions are useless services, and
therefore neither sin nor righteousness should be placed in meat
drink, clothing and like things, the use of which Christ wished to be
left free, since He says, Matt. 15, 11: Not that which goeth into the
mouth defileth the man; and Paul, Rom. 14, 17: The kingdom of God is
not meat and drink. Therefore the bishops have no right to frame
traditions in addition to the Gospel, that they may merit the
remission of sins, that they may be services which God is to approve
as righteousness and which burden consciences, as though it were a
sin to omit them. All this is taught by that one passage in Acts, 15,
9ff., where the apostles say [Peter says] that hearts are purified
by faith. And then they prohibit the imposing of a yoke, and show
how great a danger this is, and enlarge upon the sin of those who
burden the Church. Why tempt ye God they say. By this thunderbolt
our adversaries are in no way terrified, who defend by violence
traditions and godless opinions.
For above they have also condemned Article XV, in which we have
stated that traditions do not merit the remission of sins, and they
here say that traditions conduce to eternal life. Do they merit the
remission of sins? Are they services which God approves as
righteousness? Do they quicken hearts! Paul to the Colossians, 2,
20ff., says that traditions do not profit with respect to eternal
righteousness and eternal life; for the reason that food, drink,
clothing and the like are things that perish with the using. But
eternal life [which begins in this life inwardly by faith] is wrought
in the heart by eternal things, i.e., by the Word of God and the Holy
Ghost. Therefore let the adversaries explain how traditions conduce
to eternal life.
Since, however, the Gospel clearly testifies that traditions ought
not to be imposed upon the Church in order to merit the remission of
sins; in order to be services which God shall approve as
righteousness; in order to burden consciences, so that to omit them
is to be accounted a sin, the adversaries will never be able to show
that the bishops have the power to institute such services.
Besides, we have declared in the Confession what power the Gospel
ascribes to bishops. Those who are now bishops do not perform the
duties of bishops according to the Gospel although, indeed, they may
be bishops according to canonical polity, which we do not censure.
But we are speaking of a bishop according to the Gospel. And we are
pleased with the ancient division of power into power of the order
and power of jurisdiction [that is the administration of the
Sacraments and the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction]. Therefore
the bishop has the power of the order, i.e., the ministry of the Word
and Sacraments; he has also the power of jurisdiction, i.e., the
authority to excommunicate those guilty of open crimes, and again to
absolve them if they are converted and seek absolution. But their
power is not to be tyrannical, i.e., without a fixed law; nor regal,
i.e., above law; but they have a fixed command and a fixed Word of
God, according to which they ought to teach and according to which
they ought to exercise their jurisdiction. Therefore, even though
they should have some jurisdiction, it does not follow that they are
able to institute new services. For services pertain in no way to
jurisdiction. And they have the Word, they have the command, how far
they ought to exercise jurisdiction, namely, if any one would do
anything contrary to that Word which they have received from Christ.
[For the Gospel does not set up a rule independently of the Gospel;
that is quite clear and certain.]
Although in the Confession we also have added how far it is lawful
for them to frame traditions, namely, not as necessary services, but
so that there may be order in the Church, for the sake of
tranquillity. And these traditions ought not to cast snares upon
consciences, as though to enjoin necessary services; as Paul teaches
when he says, Gal. 5, 1: Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty
wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with
the yoke of bondage. The use of such ordinances ought therefore to
be left free, provided that offenses be avoided, and that they be not
judged to be necessary services; just as the apostles themselves
ordained [for the sake of good discipline] very many things which
have been changed with time. Neither did they hand them down in such
a way that it would not be permitted to change them. For they did
not dissent from their own writings, in which they greatly labor lest
the Church be burdened with the opinion that human rites are
necessary services.
This is the simple mode of interpreting traditions, namely, that we
understand them not as necessary services, and nevertheless, for the
sake of avoiding offenses, we should observe them in the proper place.
And thus many learned and great men in the Church have held. Nor
do we see what can be said against this. For it is certain that the
expression Luke 10, 16: He that heareth you heareth Me, does not
speak of traditions, but is chiefly directed against traditions. For
it is not a _mandatum cum libera_ ( a bestowal of unlimited
authority), as they call it, but it is a _cautio de rato_ (a caution
concerning something prescribed), namely, concerning the special
command [not a free, unlimited order and power, but a limited order,
namely, not to preach their own word, but God's Word and the Gospel],
i.e., the testimony given to the apostles that we believe them with
respect to the word of another, not their own. For Christ wishes to
assure us, as was necessary, that we should know that the Word
delivered by men is efficacious, and that no other word from heaven
ought to be sought. He that heareth you heareth Me, cannot be
understood of traditions. For Christ requires that they teach in
such a way that [by their mouth] He Himself be heard, because He says:
He heareth Me. Therefore He wishes His own voice, His own Word, to
be heard, not human traditions. Thus a saying which is most
especially in our favor, and contains the most important consolation
and doctrine, these stupid men pervert to the most trifling matters,
the distinctions of food, vestments, and the like.
They quote also Heb. 13, 17: Obey them that have the rule over you.
This passage requires obedience to the Gospel. For it does not
establish a dominion for the bishops apart from the Gospel. Neither
should the bishops frame traditions contrary to the Gospel, or
interpret their traditions contrary to the Gospel. And when they do
this, obedience is prohibited, according to Gal. 1, 9: If any man
preach any other gospel, let him be accursed.
We make the same reply to Matt. 23, 3: Whatsoever they bid you
observe, that observe, because evidently a universal command is not
given that we should receive all things [even contrary to God's
command and Word], since Scripture elsewhere, Acts 5, 29, bids us
obey God rather than men. When, therefore they teach wicked things,
they are not to be heard. But these are wicked things, namely, that
human traditions are services of God that they are necessary services,
that they merit the remission of sins and eternal life.
They present, as an objection, the public offenses and commotions
which have arisen under pretext of our doctrine. To these we briefly
reply. If all the scandals be brought together, still the one
article concerning the remission of sins, that for Christ's sake
through faith we freely obtain the remission of sins, brings so much
good as to hide all evils. And this, in the beginning, gained for
Luther not only our favor, but also, that of many who are now
contending against us. "For former favor ceases, and mortals are
forgetful," says Pindar. Nevertheless, we neither desire to desert
truth that is necessary to the Church, nor can we assent to the
adversaries in condemning it. For we ought to obey God rather than
men. Those who in the beginning condemned manifest truth, and are
now persecuting it with the greatest cruelty, will give an account
for the schism that has been occasioned. Then, too, are there no
scandals among the adversaries? How much evil is there in the
sacrilegious profanation of the Mass applied to gain! How great
disgrace in celibacy! But let us omit a comparison. This is what we
hare replied to the _Confutation_ for the time being. Now we leave
it to the judgment of all the godly whether the adversaries are right
in boasting that they have actually refuted our Concession from the
Scriptures.