The Book of Concord (New Translation): The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church [2 ed.] 9780800627409, 0800627407

Citation preview

dhred

ol 1 ) 1 BN

I

X7

AR Y

\\//..;\'\. NG

VN

=N

N

BB CRYOOIN

(4 ONEESSIONS = 79

JE 1. ]I{ \@ AL

1s

]

Y

[4 U’

R

YIS

Var

e

TSI B

i }\', IS

&

¢

( o\

/'!.‘3\ AR

SN {

@AST

A

D

\(:fi it ]‘w‘ R

7Y

7

L i i

The Book of Concord

The Book of Concord The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church

Edited by

Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert Translated by

Charles Arand, Eric Gritsch, Robert Kolb,

William Russell, James Schaaf ' Jane Strohl, Timothy J. Wengert

Fortress Press

~ Minneapolis

THE BOOK OF CONCORD The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Copyright © 2000 Augsburg Fortress. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Augsburg Fortress, Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440.

Interior design and typesetting by Peregrine Graphics Services. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche (Germany)

[Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche. English]

The Book of Concord : the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church / edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert ; translated by Charles Arand ... [et al.]. . cm. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 0-8006-2740-7 (alk. paper) 1. Lutheran Church—Catechisms and creeds.

1. Kolb, Robert, 1941-

Timothy J. III. Arand, Charles P. IV. Title.

II. Wengert,

BX8069 .A2 2000 238’41—dc21

99-53034

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI 7329.48-1984. Manufactured in the U.S.A. 04

03

02

01

AF1-2740 00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Contents

Foreword

vii

Abbreviations Editors’ Introduction to the Book of Concord Title Page to the Book of Concord (1580) Preface to the Book of Concord (1580)

The Three Ecumenical Creeds The Augsburg Confession (1530) Apology of the Augsburg Confession (September 1531)

107

The Smalcald Articles (1537)

295

Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (1537)

329

The Small Catechism (1529)

345

The Large Catechism (1529)

377

Formula of Concord (1577)

481

Index of Biblical References

661

. Biographical Index

Subject Index

677 695

Foreword

On

the Fourth of July, 1851, the first English translation of the Book of

Concord began rolling off the Henkel Press in Newmarket, Virginia. It was a collaborative effort of Ambrose and Socrates Henkel and several other pastors from the region (including J. Stirewalt, J. R. Moser, and, for the Small Catechism, David Henkel [d. 1831]). They based their work on a 1790 edition

of the German text with some reference to an original printing from Dresden in 1580. They used a nineteenth-century Latin edition to check their work and to provide prefaces. For the Catalog of Testimonies and a historical introduction, they turned to the newest edition: J. T. Miiller, Die symbolische Biicher der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, deutsch und lateinisch (Stuttgart: Liesching, 1848). Despite its wooden translations and high price, this translation helped

mark the beginning of renewed interest in the Lutheran Confessions among

American Lutherans. A second, improved edition came out in 1854.

In 1882, Henry E. Jacobs, then professor at Gettysburg College and later at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, produced a second English version. Again, other teachers of the church (in particular those associated with the General Council) collaborated, including C. P. Krauth (the Augsburg

Confession), C. E. Schaeffer (the Small Catechism), and Adam Martin, also of

Gettysburg College (the Large Catechism). Because Jacobs judged Justus Jonas’s German translation of the Apology, used in 1580 in the Book of Concord, “more of a paraphrase than a translation,” he rendered it instead from the Latin. The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope was similarly translated from the Latin. For his work, Jacobs used the by then standard Miiller edition as the basic text and mentioned using the Henkel edition for help in translating. For the first time Jacobs added paragraph divisions, which Miiller had drawn from an earlier Leipzig edition published by C. A. Hase in 1827. Due to the length of the historical introduction and his desire to provide readers with other historical documents, Jacobs produced a second volume the following year, into which he also placed the Catalog of Testimonies. In 1911, Jacobs also published a revised “People’s Edition” that put a single volume of the Confessions well within the budget of most American Lutherans. In 1917, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod memorialized its theological faculty in St. Louis to prepare a version of the Book of Concord in three lan~ guages to honor the four hundredth anniversary of the Reformation. The result, the preface of which was again dated the Fourth of July, appeared first in 1921 under the title, Concordia Triglotta: The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church, German-Latin-English (St. Louis: Concordia). The editor, Friedrich Bente, used the Miiller text and the earlier edition of J. G. Walch but vii

viil

Foreword

made corrections based on his examination of the 1580 German and 1584 Latin texts and modernized the German spelling. For the English he and his colleague W. H. T. Dau produced a new translation, but one based on the Jacobs version. It included the Catalog of Testimonies and the Saxon Visitation

Articles of 1592.

Most recently, in 1959, Theodore E. Tappert, a professor at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, edited a completely new translation, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: Fortress). His team of translators included professors from Concordia Seminary in St. Louis and Maywood Seminary (now the Lutheran

School of Theology at Chicago). Jaroslav Pelikan translated the Apology from the original Latin, Robert Fischer the Large Catechism, Arthur Carl Piepkorn the Formula of Concord, and Tappert himself the remaining documents. For the first time, translators used the critical edition of the Lutheran Confessions, first published in 1930, Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, second edition (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952). That edition’s extensive index was translated into English for Tappert by his student, Pastor William T. Heil Jr. Tappert’s edition featured a more readable English and very brief introductions and notes; it also reflected the most recent schol-

arship. For the first time, both the German and Latin versions of the Augsburg Confession were rendered into English. The Catalog of Testimonies was expressly omitted as “not among the historic standards of faith commonly acknowledged in the Lutheran Church.” The present translation is an extensive revision of the Tappert edition, although the other translations mentioned have also on occasion been consulted. For the first time, the editors teach in two different Lutheran churches:

Robert Kolb at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod), and Timothy J. Wengert at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America). In addition to our

own translating work (Kolb: the Formula of Concord; Wengert: the Creeds and Small Catechism), we have called on a variety of scholars from our churches:

Eric Gritsch (the Augsburg Confession), Charles Arand (the Apology), William

Russell (the Smalcald Articles), Jane Strohl (the Treatise on the Power and

Primacy of the Pope), and James Schaaf, deceased (the Large Catechism). The index is the work of Sean D. Burke of Philadelphia. Our work was occasioned by several factors. Over the past forty years, English-language usage and style have changed dramatically. Moreover, scholarship on the history and language of the Confessions has burgeoned, especially in the wake of several important Reformation anniversaries in 1960, 1967, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1996, and 1997. Then, too, the training and prepara-

tion of Lutheran seminary students has also undergone a transformation,

requiring more extensive notes and introductions for those students less famil-

iar with the history of this book. The present volume has tried to accommodate all these current needs while

Foreword

X

incorporating the best of previous work as well. We continue, for example, to include the paragraph divisions first introduced by Hase and employed by Tappert..All translators have used the most recent, eleventh edition of Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. In the case of footnote references to the church fathers, we have included not only the standard nine-

teenth-century version of Migne but also, where applicable, references to the most widely available English translations (The Ante-Nicene Fathers and The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers). In the case of Luther, we provide references to Luther’s Works, American edition. As Tappert used the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, we have used the New Revised Standard Version, noting in footnotes where that version departs noticeably from the text cited in the original documents. In addition to the subject index, we have compiled for the first time a biographical index that is more extensive than that in the Bekenntnisschriften and that includes brief descriptions of all historical figures mentioned in the text or notes. Like the versions of Tappert and, to some extent, Jacobs, this translation

employs as its basis the earliest complete edition of every document (with one exception). Substantial additions to printed versions are highlighted with italics. Thus, both the Latin and German versions of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession are found here (with some variations from 1531 explained in the notes), but now in more readable parallel columns. Because all versions of Luther’s Small Catechism published during his lifetime and the version printed in the very first edition of the Book of Concord in 1580 contained Luther’s orders for baptism and marriage, we have inserted them. Readers will notice the greatest change in the text of the Apology in which, based on the latest scholarship, we offer a translation of the revised, octavo Latin version of September 1531, because this version remained the standard among Lutherans until 1584 and was the basis of Justus Jonas’s German translation used in the

1580 Book of Concord. Variations from the first edition (a quarto printing of May 1531) are noted with cross-references to Tappert’s edition. For the Apology we have used not only the Bekenntnisschriften but also volume 27 of the Corpus "Reformatorum and the recent modern German translation by Christian Peters in Evangelische Bekenntnisse, two volumes (Bielefeld: LutherVerlag, 1997), 1:99-306. From the beginning of this project in 1991, we realized the need for more extensive historical aids. As a result, two other volumes will also be appearing. The first is a compilation of important historical texts, similar to those provided by Jacobs and including once again the Catalog of Testimonies. The second is a historical commentary. Both have been produced under the direction of Robert Kolb and James Nestingen.

In a-project that has spanned a decade and involved many people, it is inevitable that we cannot include all who have given valuable input. From the beginning, however, it has been our goal to include as many English-speaking scholars as possible. In 1993 we presented our plans in a session at the

Foreword

'

X

Sixteenth-Century Studies Conference, meeting in St. Louis. At nearly the same

time, we wrote to more than one hundred Lutheran scholars across the United

States, soliciting their advice. In 1995 a jointly written article, “Translating the Book of Concord for the Twenty-first Century,” published in both Lutheran

Partners, volume 11, number 1 (January/February 1995): 10-13, and Concordia Journal 21 (1995): 305—11, also elicited suggestions from readers. Edited ver-

sions of most of the translations were read critically by Kurt Hendel (the Smalcald

Articles,

Catechisms,

and

Formula

of Concord),

Scott Hendrix

(Augsburg Confession), and Philip Krey (Apology), all of whom made countless helpful suggestions. Robert Bertram reviewed the entire manuscript, and his advice again assisted us greatly. We thank all our readers for all they contributed. Regarding some hard-to-identify Greek passages in the Apology, we have gratefully relied on the expertise of Richard Wetzel of the MelanchthonForschungsstelle in Heidelberg, Germany. We also acknowledge with thanks the work of the editors at Fortress Press, especially Henry French and Michael West, as well as the former editors who first helped us develop the project, Timothy Staveteig and Marshall Johnson. The deans and presidents of our respective institutions also deserve recognition for allowing us to conceive, continue, and complete work on this project in the midst of our other duties. RosEerT KoOLB, St. Louis

TimoTtHY J. WENGERT, Philadelphia Eve of the Conversion of St. Paul, 1999

Abbreviations

Designates material not in the original texts The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. 10 vols. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Apology of the Augsburg Confession

CR

CSEL

Book of Concord Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. 11th ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche: In authentischen Texten mit geschichtlicher Einleitung und Register. Edited by E. F. K. Miiller. Leipzig: A. Deich, 1903. Reprirt, Zurich: Theologische Buchhandlung, 1987. The Augsburg Confession (Confessio Augustana) Corpus Reformatorum. Vols. 1-28: Philippi Melanthonis Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia. Halle and Brunswick: C. A. Schwetschke, 1834—60. Corpus

Scriptorum

Ecclesiasticorum

Vienna: Gerold, 1866—. Enchiridion

Ep

Essays

Examination

FC GCS JPH LC Lenker“ Loci 1521

Latinorum.

vols.

Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An Enchiridion, trans. Luther Poellot. St. Louis: Concordia, 1981. Epitome of the Formula of Concord Ulrich Zwingli. On Providence and Other Essays, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson and William John Hinke. Philadelphia, 1922; reprint, Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth, 1983. Martin Chemnitz. Examination of the Council of Trent, trans. Fred Kramer, 4 vols. St. Louis: Concordia, 1971-86. -Formula of Concord

Die

griecischen

christlichen

Schriftsteller

Jahrunderte. Leipzig: ]. C. Hinrichs, 1897—.

der

ersten

drei

Jan D. Bunting, trans. “The Consenus Tigurinus,” Journal of

Presbyterian History 44 (1966): 45-61. Large Catechism

Sermons of Martin Luther. Edited and translated by John N. Lenker. 8 vols. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989. Melanchthon, Philip. Loci communes theologici of 1521. English translation in Melanchthon and Bucer. Edited by Wilhelm Pauck. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969.

Loci 1543

91+

:

Melanchthon, Philip. Loci communes rerum theologicarum of 1543. English translation: Loci communes 1543, translated by

J. A. O. Preus. St. Louis: Concordia, 1992. xi

Xii

Abbreviations

w

Luther’s Works. American ed. 55 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-86. , 10+ vols. Scheible. Heinz by Edited Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Stuttgart: Frommann/Holzboog, 1977-. Patrologiae cursus completus: Series Graece. 161 vols. Paris & Turnhout, 1857-66. Patrologiae cursus completus: Series Latina. 221 vols. Paris &

MBW MPG MPL NPNF

NRSV RSV SA SC SD Six Sermons

STh Tr Two Natures WA WABr WADB

WATR

Turnout, 1859-1963.

A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaaf. 28 vols. in two series. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980-83. New Revised Standard Version of the Bible Revised Standard Version of the Bible Smalcald Articles Small Catechism Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord Jakob Andreae. Six Christian Sermons on the Divisions Which Have Continued to Surface among the Theologians of the Augsburg Confession from 1548 until This Year 1573, in Andreae and the Formula of Concord: Six Sermons on the Way to Lutheran Unity, by Robert Kolb. St. Louis: Concordia, 1977. 58—134. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope Martin Chemnitz.

The Two Natures in Christ, trans. J. A. O.

Preus. St. Louis: Concordia, 1971. Luther, Martin. Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. [Schriften.] 65 vols. Weimar: H. Bohlau, 1883-1993. Luther, Martin. Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Briefwechsel. 18 vols. Weimar: H. Bohlau, 1930-85. Luther, Martin. Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Bibel. 12 vols. Weimar: H. Bohlau, 1906-61. Luther, Martin. Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Tischredenx. 6 vols. Weimar: H. Bohlau, 1912-21.

The Book of Concord Editors’ Introduction to the Book of Concord From the second century on Christians have expressed the biblical faith in summaries that served to identify the church’s public message. The Greek word symbol—a technical word for creed—identified the function of such summaries of the church’s teaching as its identifying statement of belief, purpose, and mission. The Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds both offered believers guidance for public instruction and witness and also served to regulate and evaluate the public theology of the church’s teachers. They demarcated lines between errors that had attacked the faith and biblical truth. When Emperor Charles V called upon the Lutheran princes and municipal governments to identify their public teaching in 1530 at the Diet of Augsburg, the Wittenberg theologians and their associates from other territories, under the leadership of Martin Luther’s colleague, Philip Melanchthon, composed what they called a “confession of the faith” (after considering the label “defense” [apology]). That document, the Augsburg Confession, became recognized as the public “symbol” of the Evangelical Lutheran movement. It became the legal definition on which the political toleration of its adherents was based through the Religious Peace of Augsburg of 1555. By 1555 the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, and Luther’s Catechisms were also being used alongside the Augsburg Confession to describe and define what the Wittenberg reformers intended as reform and thus to regulate ecclesiastical life in various territories that had accepted the Reformation. The doctrinal controversies of the 1550s and 1560s necessitated further definition of public teaching, however, in the view of many Lutheran governments. Someof them sponsored the composition of additional confessions of faith, while others assembled confessional documents in collections called a corpus doctrinae (body of teaching). Melanchthon and other Wittenberg theologians had first used the term corpus doctrinae for the fundamental summary of the Christian faith, a term akin to “analogy of faith.” Later the term designated documents that could help determine the elements of the analogy of faith, and from 1560 it was employed to entitle a formal collection of such documents. In that year a printer in Leipzig, Ernst Vogelin, published a collec_ tion of the ancient creeds and eleven confessions and theological treatises from Melanchthon’s pen as the Corpus doctrinae Philippicum. That collection became the legal definition of the faith in electoral Saxony in 1566 and in other lands at about the same time. Similar corpora doctrinae were published in a number of other principalities in the 1560s; they usually included Luther’s

2

Editors’ Introduction to the Book of Concord

Smalcald Articles and Catechisms as well as the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, along with one or more other local confessional documents. Two corpora assembled by Martin Chemnitz in 1576, for the principalities of Braunschweig-Liineburg and Braunschweig-Wolfenbiittel, provided a model for the Formula of Concord. The authors of the Formula of Concord responded to objections from followers of Melanchthon who treasured the Corpus doctrinae Philippicum, and therefore they did not use the term corpus doctrinae when they prepared the Formula for publication with the ancient creeds of the church, the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, and Luther’s Smalcald Articles and Catechisms after the completion of the Formula in 1577. One of the leading figures in its composition, Jakob Andreae of the University of Tiibingen, was commissioned to compose a preface for this collection of documents that would speak for the princes who had sponsored the drive for Lutheran reconciliation and unity

which the Formula had climaxed. In it he sketched the history of the conflicts over the interpretation of Luther’s teaching. Andreae’s efforts included tireless travels and diplomatic negotiations that finally brought Elector Ludwig of the Palatinate into concert with the other two leading Evangelical princes of the German Empire, the electors of Saxony and Brandenburg, August and Joachim II. These three, joined by eighty other princely and municipal governments, led 8,188 theologians into subscription of the Formula of Concord by 1580, and the Formula and other confessions were published as the Book of Concord on the fiftieth anniversary of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, on 25 June 1580. The Book of Concord received criticism from certain quarters, particularly the followers of Matthias Flacius Illyricus regarding the doctrine of original sin expressed in the Formula, and from those whose spiritualizing view of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper led them to reject the Formula’s sacramental theology and its Christology. Nonetheless, some two-thirds of German Protestants found in the Book of Concord an authoritative expression of their faith and a hermeneutical basis for interpreting scripture.

CONCORDIA YHWH

Christian, Recapitulated,! Unanimous Confession of the Teaching and Faith by the Undersigned Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Augsburg Confession and by Their Theologians, [Whose Names Are Subscribed at the End of the Book].2 With an Appended Declaration—Well-Grounded in the Word of God as the Only Guiding Principle>—of Several Articles about Which Controversy and Strife Occurred after Dr. Martin Luther’s Blessed Death. Prepared for Publication with the Unanimous Agreement and by Order of the Aforementioned Electors, Princes, and Estates for the Instruction and Admonition of Their Lands, Churches, Schools, and Descendants. 1580

1. Wiederholung:

Latin, repetitio.

By the

1570s a technical term, first used by Philip

+ Melanchthon in the title of the Saxon Confession of 1555, for an exposition and reaffirmation of an earlier confession of faith.

2. The bracketed phrase appears on the title page of the Book of Concord published in Dresden in 1580 by Matthew Stockel and Gimel Bergen. It is not noted in the BSLK. This list of more:-than six thousand names was not included in other editions. 3. Richtschnur. The Latin translates this norma et regula (norm and rule).

3

Preface to the Book of Concord* To each and every person who has opportunity to read this document of ours,

we—the electors, princes, and estates of the Holy Empire of the German Nation named below, who adhere to the Augsburg Confession—extend, in proportion to the requirements of each person’s rank and dignity, our appropriate service, friendship, gracious greeting, and good will—yes, even our humblest and willing service—and herewith announce:’ In these last days of this transitory world the Almighty God, out of immeasurable love, grace, and mercy for the human race, has allowed the light of his holy gospel and his Word that alone grants salvation to appear and shine forth purely, unalloyed and unadulterated out of the superstitious, papistic darkness for the German nation, our beloved fatherland. As a result, a short confession was assembled out of the divine, apostolic, and prophetic Scripture. In 1530 at the Diet of Augsburg it was presented in both German and Latin to the former Emperor of most praiseworthy memory, Charles V, by our pious and Christian predecessors; it was set forth for all estates of the Empire and was disseminated and has resounded publicly throughout all Christendom in the whole wide world. Subsequently many churches and schools professed this confession as the contemporary Symbol® of their faith in the chief controversial articles against the papacy and all sorts of factions. They referred and appealed to it, without any strife or doubt, according to a Christian, unanimous understanding of it. They held fast with constancy to the teaching contained therein: teaching that was well founded on the divine Scripture and briefly summarized in the timehonored, ancient Symbols; teaching that was recognized as that ancient, united consensus believed in by the universal, orthodox churches of Christ and fought for and reaffirmed against many heresies and errors. The following things are common knowledge, obvious and no secret: What kind of very dangerous situations and troublesome disturbances arose in our beloved fatherland, the German nation, soon after the Christian death of that highly enlightened and pious man, Dr. Martin Luther;” how, given the alarm-

ing conditions and destruction of well-ordered government, the enemy of the human race endeavored to scatter his seeds of false doctrine and disunity, to excite harmful and aggravating divisions in churches and schools, and thereby to adulterate the pure teaching of God’s Word, to break the bond of Christian

4. This preface underwent extensive revisions between the fall of 1578 and the spring of 1580, when it was put into its final form by Jakob Andreae and Martin Chemnitz. It served as a preface * for both the Book of Concord and the Formula of Concord it contains. 5. The language of this preface reflects the stilted language of the electoral and princely courts and chancelleries. The greeting is designed for readers who are higher, equal, or lower in rank to the writers. 6: A technical word for creed, borrowed from the Greek.

7. A reference particularly to the Smalcald War.

5

2

3

4

6

Preface to the Book of Concord

love and unity, and in this way to prevent and impede noticeably the course of the holy gospel; and under what guise the enemies of the divine truth took occasion to slander us and our schools and churches, to cover up their own

errors, to turn poor, straying consciences away from the knowledge of Evangelical teaching, and to hold them all the more willingly under the papal yoke and bondage as well as under other errors that conflict with God’s Word. As much as we have now preferred and have desired and besought from the Almighty nothing more than that our churches and schools might have been kept in the teaching of God’s Word and in loving Christian unity and, under the guidance of God’s Word, might have been established and transmitted in a wholesome, Christian manner—just as during the lifetime of Dr. Luther— nevertheless, the same specter has been hung over our churches (because of our own and the ungrateful world’s sins and impenitence) as in the churches during the apostles’ lifetime, where, while they themselves planted the pure, unadulterated Word of God, distorted teachings were introduced by false teachers. Wherefore, having called to mind the office that God has committed to us

and that we bear, we have not ceased to apply our diligence therein, both so that in our lands and territories the false and misleading doctrines, which have been introduced there and have crept in more and more, might be held in check and so that our subjects might be kept on the right path of divine truth—which at one time was known and confessed—and thus not be led astray. Just as our praiseworthy predecessors and some of us also, on the basis of a final resolution,® approved among ourselves at Frankfurt am Main in 1558 on the occasion of the electoral diet, agreed that we gather in a common assembly and discuss in a thorough and friendly manner several matters that had been interpreted by our adversaries in a most malicious way for us and our churches and schools.’ Subsequently, our sainted predecessors and some of us came together at Naumburg in Thuringial® and took up the oft-mentioned Augsburg 8. Abschied: “recess,” a technical term for a final decree or ordinance of an imperial diet. The original printed draft read “Christian recess,” which Andreae struck out on the basis of objections from the Lower Saxons. Through what he described as an oversight the word was included in some of the drafts sent out for subscription. Substitutes were proposed, including “well-intended” and “princely.” 9. This meeting took place in February and March 1558, in connection with the election of Emperor Ferdinand I. On 18 March they adopted the Frankfurt Book (Latin: the Frankfurt Formula of Peace), based on a theological opinion prepared by Melanchthon (MBW 8425; CR 9:365-72). It included discussions of justification, good works, the Lord’s Supper, and adiaphora; it proposed a method for settling controverted issues; and it contained an agreement for censorship of the press. It was intended to serve as the basis for uniting the Evangelical territories in lieu of a general synod of the churches involved. The ambiguity of this document resulted in attacks from many parties. 10. Faced with the reopening of the Council of Trent (session fifteen began in 1562), Elector August of Saxony, at the urging of Duke Christopher of Wiirttemberg and Duke John Frederick, der Mittlere, of Saxony, summoned

Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate, Landgrave Philip of

Preface to the Book of Concord

7

Confession, which had been submitted to Emperor Charles V in the great imperial assembly at Augsburg in 1530. To this Christian confession, founded upon the witness of the unchangeable truth of the divine Word, we again unanimously subscribed, in order—as much as in us lies—to warn and to protect our descendants in the future from teaching what is impure, false, and contrary to the Word of God. In this way we testified and demonstrated to the Roman Imperial Majesty,!! our most gracious Lord, and to everyone else that it would be our disposition and intention never to accept, defend, or spread

some different or new teaching but rather with divine assistance to remain and persist unwavering in the truth once recognized and confessed at Augsburg in the year 1530. We did this in the confidence and hope that thereby not only the adversaries of the pure, Evangelical teaching might be prevented from making up slanders and smears against us but also that other, good-hearted people might be reminded and encouraged by this our recapitulated and repeated confession to investigate all the more seriously the truth of the divine Word that alone grants salvation, to accept it, and for the salvation and eternal welfare of their souls to remain and persist in it in a Christian way without any further disputation or dissension. Despite all this, we were forced to recognize, not without distress, that this our explanation and recapitulation of our previous Christian confession was scarcely noticed by our adversaries, nor were we or our churches delivered from the distressing calumnies that had been circulated. On the contrary, this well-intentioned action was once again understood and interpreted by those adherents of erroneous opinions, who are opposed to us and our Christian religion, as if we were so uncertain concerning our faith and confession of our religion and had altered it so much and so often, that neither we nor our theologians had any idea which was the true and originally submitted Augsburg Hesse, and Palsgrave Wolfgang, duke of Zweibriicken and Neuburg, to an assembly of Evangelical estates in Naumburg. Meeting in January and February of 1562, Frederick and August urged acceptance of the 1540 edition of the Augsburg Confession (called the Variata because of changes made to it by Philip Melanchthon in preparation for the Regensburg Colloquy of 1541) because it more clearly precluded transubstantiation. While Frederick called this a “good and Christian explanation of the original confession,” others supported the text of 1530, and David Chytraeus even attempted to have the Smalcald Articles officially adopted. A compromise settled on the German text of the Augsburg Confession contained in the Wittenberg quarto edition of 1530-31 and the Latin text of 1531, plus a preface addressed to the emperor drafted by the two electors and a strong disavowal of transubstantiation. This preface committed the signatories to both editions of the Augsburg Confession (where it insisted that in the Variata the 1530 edition “is repeated somewhat more sumptuously and exhaustively and is explained and expanded on the basis of Holy _ Scripture”), as well as to the Apology. The two electors; Duke Christopher; Landgrave Philip; " Margrave Charles of Baden-Durlach and (through their representatives) Margraves John of Brandenburg-Kiistrin and George Frederick of Brandenburg-Ansbach-Bayreuth; Palsgrave Wolfgang; arid the rulers of Pomerania, Anhalt, and Henneberg signed it. Dukes Ulrich of Mecklenburg and John Frederick of Saxony, followed by the Lower Saxon cities, the maritime cities, and others, did not. -

11. Ferdinand L.

8

10

11

12

Preface to the Book of Concord

Confession.!? Because of this unfounded allegation many pious hearts were frightened away and kept from our churches, schools, teaching, faith, and confession. In addition, this further nastiness arose: that under the name of the oft-mentioned Augsburg Confession the contrary teaching about the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ and other erroneous opinions were occasionally introduced into our churches and schools.!? When a number of God-fearing, peace-loving, and learned theologian gl4 noticed this situation, they clearly saw that there was no better way to counter these mendacious calumnies and the ever-expanding religious controversies than thoroughly and accurately, on the basis of God’s Word, to explain and decide the divisions that had arisen in connection with all the disputed articles, to expose and reject false teaching, and clearly to confess the divine truth. In this way the mouths of our adversaries would be stopped by irrefutable reasoning, and correct explanation and direction would be presented to the simple, pious hearts, namely, how they should prepare themselves for such conflicts and how they might through God’s grace be preserved in the future from such false teaching. At first the aforementioned theologians clearly and correctly explained to one another, in extensive writings based upon God’s Word,!> how the oft-mentioned, aggravating divisions could be reconciled and concluded without violating the divine truth and how thereby the pretext and excuse for slander that the adversaries were always looking for could be swept away and removed. Finally they took in hand the disputed articles, examined, evaluated, and explained them in the fear of God, and set forth in a document how the divisions that had arisen were to be decided in a Christian way.! When reports about this Christian work reached some of us, we were not only very pleased by it but we also considered ourselves duty-bound to promote it with Christian earnestness and zeal because of the office that we bear and that God has committed to us. In this connection, we, the Elector of Saxony, etc., with the counsel and

cooperation of some of our religious partners among the electors and princes, called together, for the promotion of harmony among Christians teachers, a

limited number of distinguished, trustworthy, experienced, and learned the-

ologians at the Torgau [Castle] in the year 1576.1” They discussed among

12. A reference to the dispute over changes in the Augsburg Confession (especially the socalled Variata) lodged by both Roman Catholic and Reformed theologians. 13. A reference to the so-called Crypto-Philippist controversies in Saxony during the 1570s. See the introduction to the Formula of Concord. 14. Notably Jakob Andreae and Martin Chemnitz. 15. This process included the Six Sermons of Jakob Andreae. See Robert Kolb, ed., Andreae and the Formula of Concord: Six Sermons on the Way to Lutheran Unity (St. Louis: Concordia, 1977). 16. A process that resulted in the Swabian Concord of 1574, the Swabian-Saxon Concord of

1575, and the Maulbronn Formula of 1576. 17. Invited to this assembly, which met from 9 April to 7 June 1576 and which produced the so-called Torgau Book (which Jakob Andreae then condensed into the Epitome of the Formula of

Preface to the Book of Concord

9

themselves in a Christian fashion the disputed articles and the written accord composed with reference thereto. Finally, with invocation of God Almighty andto his praise and glory and with careful deliberation and meticulous diligence through the particular grace of the Holy Spirit, they wrote down in good order and brought together into one book everything that pertains to and is necessary for this purpose. Thereafter it was sent to a large number of electors, princes, and estates with the request that they themselves and their chief theologians read it thoroughly with particular earnestness and Christian zeal, ponder it from all sides, produce in writing their interpretations and criticisms, and thereupon without reserve make known to us their considered judgment concerning every part of it.

After the requested judgments and considerations had been received—in which were found all kinds of Christian, necessary, and useful memoranda on how the Christian teaching, set forth in the explanation that had been sent out, might with God’s Word be protected against all dangerous misunderstanding, so that in the future no impure teaching might be hidden under it and instead an unalloyed explanation of the truth might also be transmitted to our descendants—only then on the basis of these memoranda was the above-mentioned Book of Christian Concord, which follows hereafter, completed.

Whereupon—although for a variety of special, unavoidable circamstances not all among us, as well as some among other estates, have as yet been able to undertake this'8—some of us have had this book read aloud to each and every theologian and minister of church or school in our lands and territories and have had them reminded and exhorted to consider diligently and earnestly the doctrine contained therein. When they had found that the explanation of the dissensions which had arisen conformed to and agreed with first of all the Word of God and then with the Augsburg Confession as well, the above-mentioned persons to whom it had been presented, freely and with due consideration, accepted, approved, and subscribed to this Book of Concord (with great joy and heartfelt thanks to God Almighty) as the correct,!® Christian understanding of the Augsburg Confession, and they publicly attested to the same with hearts and hands and voices. For this reason this Christian accord is called and also is the unanimous and concordant confession not only of a few of our theologians but generally of each and every one of our ministers of church and school in our lands and territories. Concord), were Andreae

(chair), Chemnitz, Chytraeus, Andrew Musculus, Nicholas Selnecker,

Christopher Korner, Caspar Heyderich, Paul Crell, Maximilian Mérlin, Wolfgang Harder, Daniel Griser, Nicholas Jagenteufel, John Cornicaelius, John Schiitz, Martin Mirus, George Listenius, and

Peter Glaser. 18. The electors of Saxony and Brandenburg insisted that this clause be added in order to leave the way open for uncommitted estates to adopt the Formula of Concord. 19. recht. The electors of Saxony and Brandenburg, responding to objections about the use of this word, later insisted that the Formula was not intended to be a norm for the Augsburg Confession.

13

14

16

10

Preface to the Book of Concord

The above-mentioned and well-intentioned final resolutions reached by us

and by our praiseworthy predecessors at Frankfurt am Main and Naumburg

did not on their own accomplish the desired goal of Christian unity. On the contrary, some people even wanted to draw on them for confirmation of their erroneous teaching, despite the fact that the desire to introduce, gloss over, or confirm some new false or erroneous teaching or to deviate in the smallest detail from the Augsburg Confession submitted in the year 1530 never entered our minds or hearts.2® Moreover, those among us who were present at the aforementioned negotiations in Naumburg reserved the right and offered, in the event that our confession were in the future attacked by someone or that at any time the need arose, to provide further exposition on this account. For these reasons we have, as the final explanation of our conviction, now reached Christian unanimity and agreement among ourselves in this planned Book of Concord and Recapitulation of our Christian Faith and Confession.?! So that no one may any longer be led astray by the unfounded calumny of our adversaries—as if we did not know which were the correct Augsburg Confession—and in order that our dear descendants may actually be fully informed and given final certainty about which Christian confession we and the churches and schools of our lands have professed and appealed to, we have in this same book professed exclusively and only, in accordance with the pure, infallible, and unchangeable Word of God, that?? Augsburg Confession which

was presented to Emperor Charles V at the great imperial assembly at Augsburg in the year 1530 as it has been both available in the archives of our sainted predecessors, who themselves submitted it to Emperor Charles V at the just-mentioned imperial diet, and recently collated very diligently by well-certified persons with the actual original presented to the emperor that has remained in the custody of the Holy Empire,?® of which both the German and Latin copies were afterward found to have the same meaning everywhere. For the following reason, too, we have seen to it that the Confession presented then was incorporated into our Explanation and Book of Concord below: so that everyone may see that it has been our intent to tolerate no other teaching in

our lands, churches, and schools than what was once professed at Augsburg in 1530 by the above-mentioned electors, princes, and estates. By means of God’s grace we, too, intend to persist in this same confession until our blessed end and to appear before the judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ with a joyful, undaunted heart and conscience. And we further hope that from now on our

20. Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate attempted to secure legal status under the Religious Peace of Augsburg for the Calvinist sacramental teaching that he was introducing into his churches by appealing to the revised version of the Augsburg Confession (Variata). 21. The terms echo in large measure the extended title of the Book of Concord. 22. The words “first and unaltered” were stricken, in view of the objection that they implied a rejection of the Variata of 1540 or of the Naumburg Agreement of 1561. 23. This copy of the German text, in the archives of the archbishop of Mainz, was later found not to be the original. See the introduction to the Augsburg Confession, below.

Preface to the Book of Concord

11

adversaries will spare us, our churches, and their ministers that tiresome charge, in which they pretend that we are uncertain of our faith and for that

reason have to make a new confession almost every year or month.

As far as the second edition of the Augsburg Confession, mentioned in the

Naumburg negotiations, is concerned, it is apparent to us and is open to every-

17

one and concealed to no one that some have dared to hide and conceal their error concerning the Holy Supper and other impure teaching under the words of this same second edition and to pull the wool over the eyes of the simple folk in their public writings and in their printed publications, despite the fact that such erroneous teaching is expressly rejected in the confession presented at Augsburg and that a much different teaching can be proved from it. Therefore we have desired hereby to attest and demonstrate publicly that, then as now, it was never our will or intention to gloss over, cover up, or to confirm as conso-

nant with Evangelical teaching any false or impure teaching that might be con-

cealed therein, inasmuch as we never understood nor accepted the second edi-

tion as conflicting with the first Augsburg Confession as it was presented.?* Nor have we desired the other very profitable writings of Master Philip Melanchthon, as well as of [John] Brenz, Urbanus Rhegius, [John Bugenhagen|

of Pomerania, and others, to be rejected or condemned, insofar as they are in

agreement with the norm incorporated in the [Formula of] Concord.> Furthermore, although some theologians, like Luther himself, were drawn (against their will) by their adversaries from treating the Holy Supper into a dispute over the personal union of the two natures in Christ, our theologians declare within the Book of Concord itself and in the norm comprehended therein that, according to our firm intent and that of this book, in the treatment of the Lord’s Supper Christians must be directed to no other basis and foundation than this one, namely, to the Words of Institution of Christ’s testa-

ment. He is almighty and truthful and thus able to accomplish what he has ordained and promised in his Word. The surest approach, which is also edifying for the common laity who cannot comprehend this dispute, is to remain on this basis as long as it is not challenged and not to enter into this dispute on

some other basis, but instead to persist with simple faith in the simple words of Christ.26 However, when the adversaries attack our simple faith and understanding of the words of Christ’s testament and censure it as unbelief and

24. Duke Julius III of Braunschweig-Wolfenbiittel and the faculty of the University of Helmstedt with their leader, Tilemann Hesshus, objected to this entire section on the grounds that

it endorsed the Variata and the Naumburg Agreement. 25. The final clause was added at the insistence of the Lower Saxon cities, the Pomeranians, and the theologians of Braunschweig-Wolfenbiittel, who wanted an endorsement of the works of Melanchthon and others but only as they conformed to the Formula or to the works of Luther. 26. Some, including Hesshus, opposed the Formula of Concord, because according to them it

introduced in Article VII the omnipresence of Christ’s human nature as a secondary basis for the sacramental union. The Saxon and Brandenburg theologians responded that only the attack on the Words of Institution constrained them to discuss the person of Christ.

18

12

19

Preface to the Book of Concord

reproach us as if our simple understanding and faith contradicted the articles of our Christian creed—especially regarding the incarnation of the Son of God, his ascension into heaven, and his sitting at the right hand of the almighty power and majesty of God?”’—and therefore were false and incorrect, it should be shown and demonstrated through truthful explanation of the articles of our Christian creed that our above-mentioned, simple understanding of the words of Christ is not in conflict with these same articles. Regarding the phrases and modi loquendi, that is, the manner and form of speaking used in the Book of Concord concerning the majesty of the human nature in the person of Christ—in that the human nature is placed at and exalted to the right hand of God®®—in order to remove all misunderstanding and scandal (since the word “abstract”® has not been used with a univocal

20

meaning by teachers in the schools and churches), our theologians declare with clear and direct words that the said divine Majesty is not ascribed to the human nature of Christ outside of the personal union nor does it possess this majesty in and of itself even in the personal union®! “essentially, formally, dispositionally, as a subject”? (to use scholastic terminology), as if we were teaching at some place or time that the divine and human natures, together with their respective properties, were mixed with each other and that the human nature were equated with the divine according to its essence and properties and in this way negated. On the contrary, our theologians declare that the human nature possesses this majesty, as the teachers of the ancient church put it, “by reason and dispensation of the hypostatic union,” that is, on account of the personal union, which is an inscrutable mystery. In regard to the condemnations, criticisms, and rejections of false, impure teaching (particularly in the article concerning the Lord’s Supper),** which had to be expressly and distinctly set forth in this explanation and thorough settlement of the disputed articles so that all would be able to protect themselves from them, and which can in no way be avoided for many other reasons: it is likewise not our will or intention thereby to mean persons who err naively> 27. This phrase was added at the urging of Julius IIL. 28. A technical term and a part of a long-standing complex of debates in theology and rhetoric, in which Luther also took part, over the kind of language used in theological discourse. 29. The printed draft added, “When it is said in this connection that the human nature of

Christ is almighty, all-knowing, present everywhere, etc.”

30. This refers to a dispute between Johannes Wigand and Tilemann Hesshus over the use of

this word in the analysis of the relation between the characteristics of the divine and human nature and to attacks on the Formula of Concord by theologians from Hesse and Anhalt. 31.“even . .. union” were added by Andreae and Chemnitz in the final revision. 32. Using the Latin: essentialiter, formaliter, habitualiter, subjective. Hesshus called for the elimination of all such Latin terms, as did Dukes Julius III and Christopher.

33, Using the Latin: ratione et dispensatione hypostaticae unionis. See below, SD VIII, 73. 34, See below, SD VII, 112-27.

35. The faculty of the University of Helmstedt objected that the error and the one erring were inseparable. Hesshus even argued that such leniency was inappropriate at this time.

Preface to the Book of Concord

13

and do not blaspheme the truth of the divine Word, much less whole churches, inside the Holy Empire of the German Nation or out.* Instead, it is our will and intention thereby to condemn only the false and seductive teachings and

the stiff-necked teachers and blasphemers of the same, whom we will by no

means tolerate in our lands, churches, and schools, because they contradict the expressed Word of God and cannot coexist with it. We do this so that pious hearts may be warned against them, since we have no doubt at all that many pious, innocent people, even within the churches, are to be found who up until now have not come to agreement with us in everything. They walk in the simplicity of their hearts, do not understand the matter correctly, but take no pleasure in the blasphemies against the Holy Supper as it is celebrated in our churches according to Christ’s institution and about which is unanimously taught according to the words of his testament. It is further hoped that when they are correctly instructed in this teaching, they with us and our churches and schools, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will give themselves over to and turn toward the infallible truth of the divine Word. As, then, it is the

obligation of theologians and ministers of the church to remind and warn those who err naively and ignorantly about the danger to their souls (lest one blind person is led astray by another),?” for this reason we also herewith testify in the presence of almighty God and the whole of Christendom, that it is not for or persecution of at all our disposition or intention to cause any hardship poor, oppressed Christians by this Christian accord. For as we bear a particular sympathy for them out of Christian love, so also we have a loathing and hearty dislike for the raging of their persecutors.’® We do not want any share at all in this bloodshed, account for which will be demanded without doubt from the hands of their persecutors on the great day of the Lord before the solemn and severe judgment throne of God—for which they will have to give a hard accounting.

Because, as stated above, our disposition and intention have always been

directed toward this, that in our lands, territories, schools, and churches no

other teaching be permitted than that alone which is based upon the holy, divine Scripture and is embodied, treated, and advanced in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology (rightly understood), and besides this nothing be permitted that might spread in opposition to it (to which purpose this present accord was also established, intended, and put in operation): therefore we desired herewith to testify publicly once more before God and all people, that 36. This phrase corresponded to the concerns of Pomeranian theologians who pointed out that “the queen in England [Elizabeth I] and the king in Navarre (later Henry IV, king of France] had prayed . . ., in their own name and that of their coreligionists in France, Spain, England, the Low Countries and Switzerland, not to condemn them and their adherents” until they had been heard at a general synod in Germany. 37. This allusion to Matthew 15:14 was added at the insistence of Duke Julius III.

38. An attempt to prevent the Formula of Concord from being used against the French Calvinists, who had been subjected to persecution by the French crown for more than twenty years.

21

14

22

Preface to the Book of Concord

we with the oft-mentioned present explanation of the disputed articles have made no new or different confession than the one presentedat Augsburg in 1530 to Emperor Charles V of Christian memory. On the contrary, we have desired to direct and earnestly to exhort our churches and schools first of all to the Holy Scripture and the Creeds and then to the aforementioned Augsburg Confession, in order that especially the youth who are being trained for service in the church and for the holy ministry may be instructed faithfully and diligently, so that among our descendants the pure teaching and confession of the faith may be kept and spread through the help and assistance of the Holy Spirit until the glorious return of our only redeemer and savior, Jesus Christ. On the basis of the preceding and what follows,* we were constrained not to suspend or postpone the printing and publication of this book any longer. We are certain of our Christian confession and faith on the basis of the divine, prophetic, and apostolic Scripture and have been adequately assured of this in our hearts and Christian consciences through the grace of the Holy Spirit. The most acute and urgent necessity demands that in the face of so many invasive errors, aggravated scandals, dissensions, and protracted divisions a Christian explanation and accord of all the disputes that have arisen come into being— one well founded in God’s Word and one according to which the pure teaching will be differentiated from the false and everything will not be left free and open to restless, contentious people, who do not want to be bound to any fixed

form of pure teaching so as to excite scandalous disputes at will and to introduce and defend absurd errors from which can only result that in the end right teaching will be entirely obscured and lost and that nothing else will be transmitted to future generations than uncertain opinions and dubious, disputable imaginations and views. Then, too, we acknowledge, on the basis of the divine injunction regarding the office we bear, our obligation to the temporal and eternal welfare of our own selves and our subjects to do and to continue to do all that may be useful and necessary for the increase and expansion of God’s praise and glory, for the spread of that Word of his that alone brings salvation, for the peace and tranquillity of Christian schools and churches, and also for

the needful comfort and instruction of poor, confused consciences. It is fur-

thermore not unknown to us that many good-hearted, Christian persons of high and low rank are sighing anxiously and have a particular longing for this salutary work of Christian concord. Finally, from the very beginning of work on this our Christian accord it was never and still is not our disposition and intention to keep this salutary and highly necessary work of concord hidden in the dark and secret from everyone or to place the light of divine truth under a bushel%? or a table. Nor do we doubt in the least that all pious hearts, which 39. The following paragraph (a single extended sentence in German) lists reasons for publishing the Book of Concord against the charge by some, including representatives of Reformed churches in Geneva, Zurich, and Heidelberg, that the publication of such a document could only follow a free general council. 40. An allusion to Matthew 5:15.

Preface to the Book of Concord

15

carry in them an upright love for the divine truth and Christian, God-pleasing unity, will together with us take Christian pleasure in this salutary, highly necessary, and Christian work and will in this matter spare no effort in the promotion of God’s glory and of the common welfare, both eternal and temporal. In conclusion, to repeat once again for the last time, we are minded not to manufacture anything new through this work of concord nor to depart in either substance or expression to the smallest degree from the divine truth, acknowledged and professed at one time by our blessed predecessors and us, as based upon the prophetic and apostolic Scripture and comprehended in the three Creeds, in the Augsburg Confession presented in 1530 to Emperor Charles V of kindest memory, in the Apology that followed it, and in the Smalcald Articles and the Large and Small Catechisms of that highly enlightened man, Dr. Luther. On the contrary, by the grace of the Holy Spirit we intend to persist and remain unanimously in this truth and to regulate all religious controversies and their explanations according to it. In addition, we have determined and intend to live in genuine peace and unity with our colleagues, the electors, princes, and estates in the Holy Roman Empire and also with other Christian potentates, according to the content of the ordinances of the Holy Empire and to the special treaties that we have with them and to demonstrate to all according to their appropriate rank every affection, service, or friendship. Likewise, we desire furthermore to agree in a friendly way among ourselves earnestly, using whatever means possible, to maintain this work of concord in our

lands,

according

to our

own

and

each

community’s

23

24

circumstances,

through diligent visitation in the churches and schools, through supervision of the presses, and through other salutary means. And should the present controversies about our Christian religion again surface or new ones arise, we agree that to protect against all kinds of scandal they be settled and reconciled in a timely way before given a chance to spread. In testimony whereof we have with united hearts subscribed our names hereto and ordered our privy seals impressed hereon.*! Lubwig, count palatine on the Rhine, elector Aucust, duke of Saxony, elector

JouN GEORGE, margrave of Brandenburg, elector

JoacHiMm FREDERICK, margrave of Brandenburg, administrator of the archdiocese of Magdeburg: Joun, bishop of Meissen

EBERHART, bishop of Litbeck, administrator of the diocese of Verden

PuiLip Lubwig, count palatine [of Pfalz-Neuburg] Duke FreperICK WiLLIAM of Saxe[-Altenburg] and Duke John of Saxe

[-Weimar] through their guardian

41. The signatories are listed in order of rank, with divisions between those princes with standing in the empire, those who were counts or barons, and the imperial cities.

25

16

Preface to the Book of Concord

Duke Joun CasiMir of Saxe[-Coburg] and Duke John Ernest of Saxe

[-Eisenach] through their guardians ' GEORGE FREDERICK, margrave of Brandenburg[-Ansbach-Bayreuth]

Jurius, duke of Braunschweig[-Wolfenbiittel] and Liineburg

OrTo, duke of Braunschweig and Liineburg[-Harburg] HeNrY THE YOUNGER, duke of Braunschweig[-Wolfenbiittel] and Liineburg

WiLLIAM THE YOUNGER, duke of Braunschweig and Liineburg[-Hanover]

WOLFGANG, duke of Braunschweig[-Grubenhagen| and Liineburg ULricH, duke of Mecklenburg[-Giistrow]

Duke JonN, Duke SicisMmunD August of Mecklenburg [in Ivernack], through their guardians Lupwig, duke of Wiirttemberg

MARGRAVE ERNEST of Baden[-Durlach] and Margrave James of Baden

[-Hachberg], through their guardians GEORGE ERNEST, count and lord of Henneberg[-Schleusingen] FREDERICK, count of Wiirttemberg and Montbéliard

John Giinther, count of Schwarzburg[-Sonderhausen]

WILLIAM, count of Schwarzburg|[-Frankenhausen] ALBERT, count of Schwarzburg[-Rudolstadt] EmicH, count of Leiningen

PHiLIP, count of Hanau([-Lichtenburg]

GoDFREY, count of Ottingen

GEORGE, count and lord of Castell[-Riidenhausen]

HEeNRY, count and lord of Castell[-Remlingen]

JouN HOYER, count of Mansfeld[-Artern] Bruno, count of Mansfeld[-Bronstedt] Hover CHRISTOPHER, count of Mansfeld|-Eisleben] PeTER ERNEST THE YOUNGER, count of Mansfeld[-Eisleben] CHRISTOPHER, count of Mansfeld

OrTo, count of Hoya[-Nienburg] and Burghausen

JonN, count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst

ALBERT GEORGE, count of Stolberg

WoLrGANG ERNEST, count of Stolberg LubwIG, count of Gleichen[-Blankenhain] CHARLES, count of Gleichen[-Blankenhain]

ERrNEST, count of Regenstein Bopo, count of Regenstein Lupwig, count of Lowenstein HENRY, baron of Limpurg[-Schmiedelfeld], semperfre GEORGE, baron of Schénburg[-Waldenburg] WOLFGANG, baron of Schénburg|-Penig-Remissa]

142

42. The German juridical designation for the highest level of free baron, from sendbar frei, one who comes to an assembly freely. Later, as here, a noble title.

Preface to the Book of Concord

ANARCK FREDERICK, baron of Wildenfels The Mayor and Council of the City of Liibeck The Mayor and Council of the City of Landau The Mayor and Council of the City of Miinster in St. Georgental The Council of the City of Goslar The Mayor and Council of the City of Ulm The Mayor and Council of the City of Esslingen The Council of the City of Reutlingen The Mayor and Council of the City of Nordlingen The Mayor and Council of the City of Rothenburg ob der Tauber The Mayor and Council of the City of Schwébisch Hall The Mayor and Council of the City of Heilbronn The Mayor and Council of the City of Memmingen The Mayor and Council of the City of Lindau The Mayor and Council of the City of Schweinfurt The Council of the City of Donauworth The Chamberlain and Council of the City of Regensburg The Mayor and Council of the City of Wimpfen The Mayor and Council of the City of Giengen The Mayor and Council of the City of Bopfingen The Mayor and Council of the City of Aalen The Mayor and Council of the City of Kaufbeuren The Mayor and Council of the City of Isny The Mayor and Council of the City of Kempten The Council of the City of Hamburg The Council of the City of Gottingen The Council of the City of Braunschweig The Mayor and Council of the City of Liineburg The Mayor and Council of the City of Leutkirch The entire government of the city of Hildesheim The Mayor and Council of the City of Hameln The Mayor and Councilors of the City of Hannover The Council of Miihlhausen The Council of Erfurt The Council of the City of Einbeck The Council of the City of Northeim

17

The Three Ecumenical Creeds Editors’ Introduction to the Three Ecumenical Creeds The Book of Concord viewed itself in light of the creeds of the ancient church. Each of the Lutheran confessional documents in the Book of Concord quotes from or mentions at least one of the three ecumenical creeds. The documents’ authors understood that they were united with the faith of the whole Christian church. The compilers of the Book of Concord itself understood the Augsburg Confession as a creed or, using the Greek and Latin term they preferred, “symbol” of their time, reflecting the same faith as found in the three ecumenical creeds.! The Augsburg Confession itself even follows in general the order of the

Creed, moving from God and creation (CA I-II) to Christ (CA III-1V), the

Holy Spirit (CA V-VI), and finally the church, sacraments, and resurrection (CA VII-XV, XVII).?2

Inclusion of the ecumenical creeds in sixteenth-century books of doctrine dates back at least to the Corpus doctrinae Philippicum of 1560, a collection of Philip Melanchthon’s writings that became the basic doctrinal text for electoral Saxony.> This practice continued in later Lutheran collections as well. Their inclusion underscored the deep conviction among Evangelical theologians that the Reformation, far from breaking with the ancient church, upheld and recovered the chief teachings of the universal Christian faith. Throughout the history of the church, people have witnessed to that gospel, as the creeds themselves bear testimony.

The Apostles’ Creed The text of the Apostles’ Creed took its present shape in the eighth century. It represents a final redaction of the Old Roman Creed, first attested in the West in the early third century. The Latin church used the Old Roman Creed as its baptismal creed.* Its content and function matched those of similar creeds used 1. See Ep, Rule and Norm, 4, and SD, Rule and Norm, 5. Already Rufinus used the Greek loanword, symbolon, to describe creedal statements. Cyprian had employed it in reference to the baptismal questions regarding faith in the triune God. 2. A similar, creedal order may also be found in the Smalcald Articles. 3. It included the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, as well as Melanchthon’s theological textbook, the Loci communes of 1543, and other texts that he had composed. 4. That is, it provided answers to the three questions in the baptismal liturgy concerning faith in the triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This dialogue is the origin of the term symbolum,

19

20

The Three Ecumenical Creeds

in other churches throughout the Roman Empire. Parts of this older creed opposed or was opposed by certain gnostic alternatives to orthodox Christianity by stressing the identity of the creator with the Father of Jesus Christ, Christ’s birth in the flesh, the crucifixion, and the resurrection of the “flesh.” Unlike in the Eastern church, where local baptismal creeds slowly gave way to the Nicene Creed, the Apostles’ Creed maintained its authority and widespread use, supported especially by its place in Western baptismal liturgies. As early as Rufinus’s exposition of the Old Roman Creed in 404 and most likely earlier, the legend was propagated of the Creed’s apostolic origins, where each apostle contributed a separate article. Already in the fifteenth century, this story had come under attack. It is more accurate to say that the Creed reflects the appropriation of apostolic teaching by the early church. The Nicene Creed In 325 the emperor Constantine, troubled by disunity in the church caused by the christological dispute between bishops such as Athanasius of Alexandria and the Arians, called for a synod of bishops to meet in Nicea to formulate a unified response. To a baptismal creed, similar either to one presented by Eusebius of Caesarea or to a creed of Jerusalem, the council added certain antiArian phrases.’ In 381 the Council of Constantinople included certain refinements and expanded the section on the Holy Spirit to combat the Pneumatomachians’ rejection of the Holy Spirit’s full divinity.® The Councils of

Ephesus

(431)

and

Chalcedon

(451)

Constantinopolitan Creed,” generally known

reaffirmed

this

“Niceno-

as the Nicene Creed. In the

Eastern church and, more gradually, in the West, the creed came to have a cen-

tral place in the eucharistic liturgy. Influenced by Augustine’s trinitarian theology that emphasized the equality of the three persons of the Trinity, the Western church, beginning in Spain, later added the filioque clause to the third article (“who proceeds from the Father and the Son”) against the continued influence of Arianism in the West.” By the time of the Great Schism in the eleventh century, this had become a matter of controversy between the Eastern and Western churches. The former insisted that the original language preserved the uniqueness of the three persons. The latter insisted that the filioque clearly reflected the true unity of the Trinity. or symbol, as the name for such creeds. The creed was the token of the Trinity and the Christian confession of it.

5. Of the Son the Arians claimed that “there was [a time] when he was not” To this the Creed of

Nicea responded with such terms as “of one being with the Father” and “true God from true God” 6. “Pneumatomachians” was the name for those in the fourth century who denied the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. Basil of Caesarea opposed them in the 370s. 7. This became widespread at the beginning of the ninth century under the reign of Charlemagne. Only the church at Rome, especially under Leo IIL, resisted this move for nearly two centuries.

The Three Ecumenical Creeds

21

The Athanasian Creed This Latin profession of faith, certainly not written by Athanasius as the reformers, following medieval tradition, still thought, originated in the Western church and reflects Augustinian and Ambrosian trinitarian theology. Often called the Quicunque vult after its first line, it most likely arose in southern Gaul (France) during the fifth century and gained popularity in the West at the time of Charlemagne. (At this same time, other important texts, such as the Apostles’ Creed and the Te Deum, were also gaining ascendancy in the West.) Its lengthy form, complete with anathemas against heretical teaching, resembles less the spare contours of the other two creeds and more an expanded comment on particular theological issues or a confession of faith. This translation employs the texts of the creeds in the original languages, referring to the German or Latin versions used in the Book of Concord where important variations occur.

I. The Three Chief Creeds! or

Confessions of Faith in Christ Which Are with One Accord Used in the Churches The first confession or creed is the common confession of the Apostles, in which the foundation is laid for the Christian faith. It reads as follows:? I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.’ And* in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord: who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,> suffered® under Pontius Pilate, was 1. Symbola: “symbols,” the technical word for creed, borrowed from the Greek.

2. In English-speaking Lutheran churches, there are several different versions of this creed and the Nicene Creed now in common use: the traditional one (see Lutheran Worship [St. Louis: Concordia, 1982], 141-43), the translation of the International Consultation on English Texts (see

the Lutheran Book of Worship [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1978], 64—65), and the translation of the English Language Liturgical Consultation (see With One Voice: A Lutheran Resource for Worship [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995], 54-55). The present translation is based on the Latin form used in the Book of Concord and first attested before 753 (BSLK 21), noting important divergences among the various translations, the German version in the Book of Concord and the Latin and Greek versions of the so-called Old Roman Creed, the use of which as a Roman bap-

tismal creed dates back to the third or fourth century. 3. This final phrase is lacking in the Old Roman Creed. 4. Contemporary English translations expressly include the inferred “I believe” at the beginning of this article. 5. The Old Roman Creed reads “born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.” 6. Lacking in the Old Roman Creed.

22

|

The Three Ecumenical Creeds

crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to hell.” On the third day he rose again from the dead.® He ascended into the heavens.® He is seated at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty.!® From there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe!! in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic!? Church, the communion of saints,!? the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh,'* and the life ever-

lasting.!> Amen.

The Second Confession or the Nicene Creed!®

We!” believe in one God, the Father Almighty,!® maker of heaven and earth, of all things, seen and unseen. And? in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only?® Son of God, begotten from the

7. Ad inferna in the Latin version of the Book of Concord; ad inferos in most other Latin versions. These words are lacking in the Old Roman Creed. They first appear in a formula from the fourth century. In the sixteenth century the phrase was universally understood as a designation for hell. See FC IX. In fact, this term, which literally means the world below, is a translation of the

Greek for Hades, the place of the dead. Thus the text of the English Language Liturgical Consultation reads “he descended to the dead.” 8. In the contemporary English translations the words “from the dead” are lacking. 9. The German and English translations use the singular. 10. The word “almighty” is lacking in the Old Roman Creed and is not used in the contemporary English translations. 11. These words are lacking in the Old Roman Creed. 12. catholica: this word, lacking in many texts of the Old Roman Creed, is translated “Christian” in both the German (already before the Reformation) and the traditional English version. 13. communio sanctorum: lacking in the Old Roman Creed (a fact the Reformers were also aware of; see LC, Creed, 47), it could also be translated “communion things,” that is, in the sacraments.

or participation in holy ‘

14. carnis: “flesh,” following the Old Roman Creed and followed by the German. See Luther’s comment in LC, Creed, 60. This term was added to combat certain gnostic myths regarding the immortality of the soul. English translations render it “body.” 15. German: “an eternal life” This phrase is lacking in the Old Roman Creed. 16. The Latin text of the Book of Concord reflects the Roman Missal. This translation is based on the Greek text, except where otherwise noted. 17. Reading with the original Greek, reflecting the conciliar context in Nicea, Constantinople,

and Chalcedon. This was changed during the Middle Ages in the Latin translation to “I believe,” reflecting the Creed’s liturgical usage. This later reading is also found in the German and traditional English renderings. 18. Contemporary English translations read: “the Father, the Almighty.” The German reads “in only one almighty God, the Father.” 19. Contemporary English translations expressly include the inferred “we believe.” 20. Following the German and contemporary English translations. The Greek and Latin may also be rendered “the Son of God, the Only-Begotten,” or “the only-begotten Son of God.”

The Three Ecumenical Creeds

23

Father before all the ages,?! [God from God,]?? Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father,?> through whom all things were made. For us human beings and for our salvation he came down from the heavens, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,24 and became a human being. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into the heavens?> and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead. There will be no end to his kingdom. ¢ And?” in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],28 who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glo-

rified, who has spoken through the prophets. In?° one holy, catholic,?® and apostolic church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age®! to come. Amen. The Third Confession or the one called the Creed of St. Athanasius,> which he made against the heretics called Arians and which reads as follows:> 21. Following the Greek and Latin texts. The German reads “before the whole world,” and the traditional English translations read “before all worlds.” Contemporary English translations read “eternally.” 22. Reading with the Latin, German, and English translations. The Greek omits these words. 23. Reading with the Greek (homoousion: the same being), the German (Wesen), and contem-

porary English translations. The Latin and the traditional English read “consubstantial with” and “of one substance with,” respectively. 24. The German, Latin, and traditional English versions read “of [Latin: de] the Holy Spirit,

from [Latin: ex] the Virgin Mary.” The version of the International Consultation on English Texts reads “by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary.” 25. The German and English translations use the singular. 26. The English translations read: “His kingdom will have no end.” 27. Contemporary English translations expressly include the inferred “we believe.” 28. The so-called filioque is not found in any Greek manuscripts but reflects the Western understandingof the relation of the persons of the Trinity. First introduced by Tertullian, this view was championed by Augustine and included in the Athanasian Creed (see below). It was first introduced into the Latin text of the Nicene Creed at the Council of Toledo in 589, an innovation criticized by Pope Leo III centuries later. 29. Following the Greek, Latin, and German. All English translations expressly include the inferred “we believe.” 30. The German and traditional English translation use the word “Christian.” 31. Following the Greek and Latin. The German and English translations use the word “world” 32. In the sixteenth century the authorship of Athanasius was not challenged. It is now thought to be the work of an unknown author of the Gallic church from the late fifth century. 33. Following the Latin of the BSLK. For other translations see the Lutheran Book of Worship, 54, and Lutheran Worship, 134.

9-10

24

The Three Ecumenical Creeds

Whoever wants to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic* faith. Whoever does not keep it whole and inviolate will doubtless perish eternally. This, however, is the catholic faith: that we worship one God in trinity* and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance.*®

For the person of the Father is one, that of the Son another, and that of the

Holy Spirit still another, but the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one—equal in glory, coequal in majesty. What the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father

is uncreated; the Son is uncreated; the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is

15—16 18—19

20-21

unlimited; the Son is unlimited; the Holy Spirit is unlimited. The Father is eternal; the Son is eternal; the Holy Spirit is eternal— and yet there are not three eternal beings but one who is eternal, just as there are not three uncreated or unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited. In the same way, the Father is almighty; the Son is almighty; the Holy Spirit is almighty— and yet there are not three almighty beings but one who is almighty. Thus, the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God— and yet there are not three gods but one God. Thus, the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord— and yet there are not three lords, but one Lord. For just as we are compelled by the Christian truth to confess that each distinct person is God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say there are three gods or three lords. The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made or created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made or created or begotten but proceeding. Therefore there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. And in this Trinity none is before or after, greater or less than another, but all three persons are in themselves coeternal and coequal, so that (as has been stated above) in all things the Trinity in unity and the Unity in trinity must be worshiped. Therefore, who wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity. But it is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore it is the true faith that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is at once God

29

30

and a human being. He is God, begotten from the substance®’” of the Father before all ages,*® and a human being, born from the substance of his mother in this age. He is perfect God and a perfect human being, composed of a rational

34. The German and traditional English translations substitute “Christian” here and throughout. 35. Or: “in three persons.” 36. substantia: divine being. 37. substantia: being. German: Natur. 38. In this sentence saeculum may be translated as “age” (time) or “world.”

The Three Ecumenical Creeds

25

soul and human flesh.?® He is equal to the Father with respect to his divinity,

less than the Father with respect to his humanity. Although he is God and a human being, nevertheless he is not two but one Christ. However, he is one not by the changing of the divinity in the flesh but by the taking up of the humanity in God. Indeed, he is one not by a confusion of substance®® but by a unity of person. For, as the rational soul and the flesh are one human being, so God and the human being are one Christ. He suffered for our salvation, descended into hell,*! rose from the dead,

ascended into the heavens, is seated at the right hand of the Father, from where he will come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all human beings will rise with their bodies and will give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good things will enter into eternal life, and those who have done evil things into eternal fire. This is the catholic faith;*? a person cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

39. 40. 41. 42,

carne: body. substantia: being, natures. ad inferos. See above, n. 7. German: “true Christian faith.”

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40

The Augsburg Confession Editors’ Introduction to the Augsburg Confession In 1521 the Holy Roman emperor, Charles V, outlawed Martin Luther and his teaching at the imperial Diet of Worms and ordered the suppression of all attempts to reform the church in his lands according to Luther’s program for reformation. Throughout the 1520s princes and cities intent on introducing that program jockeyed for political position with imperial and Roman

Catholic forces within the assemblies (diets) of the empire, at Nuremberg (1522, 1523) and Speyer (1526, 1529). As a result of the ambiguous edict of the 1526 Diet of Speyer, where German princes promised to carry out the Edict of

Worms according to their own consciences, Elector John of Saxony undertook

a formal visitation of the parishes in his territory without permission from the local Roman Catholic bishop. In this connection Philip Melanchthon, aided by Martin Luther and John Bugenhagen, Wittenberg’s head pastor, published in 1528 doctrinal guidelines for Saxony’s pastors, entitled Instructions by the Visitors. At the diet in Speyer in 1529 Charles had corrected the ambiguity of the earlier edict directed against the spread of the Lutheran reform. This elicited a formal appeal or “protestatio” (testimony or confession) from Luther’s princely supporters. Charles wanted to marshal support for his war against Turkish imperial forces, which had laid siege to Vienna in 1529; he was in conflict with France,

and he wanted to consolidate his own power within Germany at the expense of the relatively independent territorial princes. The emperor also was concerned about the life of the church and interested in promoting a moral and institutional reform. At the same time he despised the doctrinal reformation Luther had set in motion. Therefore, after negotiations with Pope Clement VII in Bologna in January 1530, he called for the Lutheran princes and cities to explain their religious program before an imperial diet, which he called for late spring in the city of Augsburg. In preparation for this diet Elector John of Saxony commissioned his theologians, led by Luther and Melanchthon, to prepare working papers on the issues that had led to reform in the Saxon and other territorial churches influenced by Luther’s teaching. The so-called Torgau Articles, named after the Saxon town where some work on them was completed, developed in a series of drafts and treated the subjects of human ordinances, marriage of priests, both kinds (bread and wine) in the Lord’s

Supper, the sacrifice of the Mass, confession, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, ordina-

tion, monastic vows, invocation of saints, and use of the vernacular in worship.

Because he had been declared an outlaw by the emperor in 1521, Luther dared not travel to Augsburg, where he would certainly have been arrested and 27

28

|

The Augsburg Confession

perhaps executed by Charles’s forces. Instead, Melanchthon headed the Saxon theologians who went to the diet. In Augsburg he was greetedby a new publication, edited by John Eck, professor at Ingolstadt, one of the brightest and best of Roman Catholic theologians in Germany at the time and a sworn enemy of the Wittenbergers. This assembly of Four Hundred Four Propositions presented citations from Luther, Melanchthon, and their colleagues mixed with a wide

range of statements from others who were criticizing the church, including Antitrinitarians and Anabaptists as well as Ulrich Zwingli and others who shared his rejection of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. By grouping them together with the Wittenberg theologians, Eck gave the impression that the Saxon theology affirmed most heresies known to the church. Melanchthon recognized that the Lutherans would have to do more than address the issues of reform. They would also have to demonstrate their own orthodoxy and catholicity. Therefore, he constructed a confession— changing its name from “apologia” (defense)—of twenty-one articles on doctrinal topics and seven articles on reform efforts. In so doing he sought to show that the theology taught in Wittenberg remained true to the catholic tradition, both by stating the biblical truth and by condemning false teachings also rejected by Roman Catholic opponents. He drew the doctrinal positions for this confession from articles prepared for a league of Lutheran governments in summer 1529, the Schwabach Articles, expanding them (especially in CA XX) to meet Eck’s most serious charges. To complete formulating the doctrinal articles of the confession, he appropriated material from the Marburg Articles, composed as a result of the colloquy between the Wittenbergers and Ulrich Zwingli of Zurich along with his Swiss colleagues in October 1529; Luther’s own summary of his faith in the third section of his Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528); and the Instruction by the Visitors. To the doctrinal articles composed on the basis of these documents, he added a revised version of the earlier Saxon drafts concerning abuses that needed reforming. In Augsburg, Zwingli himself sent his own Ratio fidei (Ground of Faith) to the emperor, and four cities, Strasbourg, Memmingen, Lindau, and Constance, under the leadership of Martin Bucer, presented the Confessio Tetrapolitana. After several weeks of intensive negotiations with representatives of the Roman Catholic princes and bishops as well as the emperor, seven Lutheran princes and two municipal governments subscribed Melanchthon’s “Confession” and presented it to the emperor and the assembled princes and representatives of imperial cities in the diet on 25 June 1530. Chancellor Christian Beyer of Elector John’s government read the German text to the diet,

and his voice carried its words into the street outside. In accord with the imperial instructions, Melanchthon had also prepared a Latin version of the Confession that was handed over to Charles at the same time. Further negotiations followed. At the same time, Roman Catholic theologians commissioned by the emperor formulated a “Confutation” of this Confession. By accepting this document the emperor rejected the Lutheran claim

The Augsburg Confession

29

to legitimacy, and at the end of the diet he commanded the Lutheran governments to return to the Roman obedience by 15 April 1531, or face suppression. The text of the Augsburg Confession was published by 1531.! Because of its acceptance as a kind of “mission statement” for the Evangelical churches, Melanchthon felt an obligation to continue to improve it, and variations in the German text appeared in the second edition (1533), and the Latin text was altered at certain points in the third (1540) and fourth (1542) editions. These

changes became controversial in the 1560s when the tenth article of this “Confessio Augustana Variata® was used by Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate to justify the spiritualizing doctrine of the Lord’s Supper that his theologians were propagating under Genevan influence. Thus, those who opposed this position insisted on the “Confessio Augustana Invariata,” the original text of the 1531 editio princeps. 1. To the 1531 editio princeps Philip Melanchthon added the following preface (MBW 1103 = CR 2:445-47), written in mid-November

1530 and published in May 1531. “This confession was

published six months ago by some greedy printer without the knowledge of the princes who had presented it to the emperor. It was printed in such a fashion that in many places it appears to have been intentionally corrupted. However, because the princes—even if they wanted to—cannot wrest it from the public’s hands, and because it would be dangerous lest those defects of the first edition produce new false accusations, it was necessary to edit it, reexamining and correcting it again. For this concerns not only the honor of princes but also religion—chiefly so that falsified writings of this kind are not broadcast widely under their titles. Wherefore we now publish a correctly and diligently written confession from bona fide copies. We have also added an Apology, which was also submitted to his Imperial Majesty. For we were afraid that in the future the confession would be edited even less favorably than it has been. “However, although our adversaries do not want to be placated, we nevertheless hope that all

good and prudent people, wherever in the world these books are read, will understand fess no dogma contrary to the authority of Holy Scripture and the catholic church. people censure by the best of rights some abuses and shed light on the chief topics doctrine, which had become obscured at this time by the most pernicious opinions.

that we proInstead our of Christian Concerning

the righteousness of faith up until now all churches, monasteries, schools, indeed all the books of

recent theologians, were silent. In the doctrine of repentance [poenitentia: see CA XII, n. 65], certain and firm consolation for consciences was nowhere handed down. No one taught that sins are forgiven through faith in Christ. The doctrine of satisfactions was slaughtering consciences. The sacraments were impiously profaned once the opinion was accepted that they justified ex opere operato [see CA XIII, n. 75]. In turn, this opinion oppressed the doctrine of faith and produced manifold idolatry. Human traditions were more than labyrinths, because they were increased infinitely: partly with Judaic and superstitious interpretations, partly with tyrannical ones. After this, a relaxation in traditions was compared to a complaint. Our people censured these vices, not so that they might dissolve church government, but so that they may show forth and restore the gospel to its original purity and so that they may console godly consciences. “Now they cannot desert the defense of the truth, since Christ says [Matt. 10:32-33], ‘Everyone

therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven. Now therefore we beseech all good people that they do not judge us only on the basis of the writings and clamorings of our adversaries, who try to cloud the truth with amazing tricks and lies, but instead that—as is most fair—they listen to us, too, and examine the entire case, concerning which—

because it pertains to the glory of God, to religion, and to the salvation of souls—no one ought to be ignorant.”

The Augsburg Confession German

Text

The Augsburg Confession. Confession of Faith by Certain Princes

and Cities Presented to His Imperial Majesty

in Augsburg in the Year 1530.! Preface

2

Most serene, most mighty, invincible Emperor, most gracious Lord. A short time ago, Your Imperial Majesty graciously summoned an imperial diet to convene here in Augsburg.> The summons indicated an earnest desire, first, to deliberate concerning matters pertaining to “the Turks, that hereditary foe of ours and of the Christian name,” and how this foe “might be effectively resisted with unwavering help”; and second, to deliberate “and diligently to consider how we may act concerning the dissension in the holy faith and Christian religion and to hear, understand, and consider with love and graciousness everyone’s judgment, opinion, and beliefs among us, to unite the same in agreement on one Christian truth, and to lay aside whatever may not have been rightly interpreted or treated by either side, so that all of us can accept and preserve a

single, true religion. Inasmuch as we are all enlisted under one Christ, we are all to live together in one communion and in one church.”* Because we, the undersigned elector and princes, including our associates as well as other electors,

princes, and estates,® have been summoned for these purposes, we have complied and can say, without boasting, that we were among the first to arrive.® Moreover, Your Imperial Majesty graciously, most diligently, and earnestly desired,’ in reference to the most humble compliance with the summons and 1. The title from the 1531 editio princeps. 2. Drafted by the Saxon electoral chancellor Gregory Briick, based on three drafts: an original version written by a secretary with Briick’s corrections, probably produced in Coburg; a fragment from Philip Melanchthon’s own hand; and a translation of a Latin version submitted to the Nuremberg representatives before the Diet of Augsburg. See the texts in BSLK 35-43. The translation of the preface matches the stilted German style of the Saxon and imperial chancelleries. 3. 21 January 1530.

4. The material in quotation marks reproduces the actual language of the imperial summons. 5. Stiinde. Territorial princes and representatives of municipalities who had special status as delegates to the “diets,” or parliamentary assemblies of the empire. These assemblies were made up of seven princes called “electors” (they elected the emperor), other princes, and representatives of specific “imperial cities” (Reichsstddte).

6. Elector John of Saxony and Landgrave Philip of Hesse arrived in Augsburg in the first half

of May 1530, ahead of the emperor, Charles V, who came on 15 June.

7. At the formal opening of the diet on 20 June 1530.

30

The Augsburg Confession Latin Text

The Confession of Faith Presented to the Invincible Emperor, Charles V, Caesar Augustus, in the City of Augsburg in the Year 1530. PSALM 119[:46]:

“I will also speak of your decrees before kings, and shall not be put to shame.”® Preface Most invincible Emperor, Caesar Augustus, most gracious Lord. Your Imperial

Majesty summoned an imperial diet in Augsburg, first to deliberate concerning aid against the Turk—that most dreadful, hereditary, and ancient enemy of the Christian name and religion—how its fury may be resisted with continuing and concerted preparations for war, and second to deliberate concerning the dissensions regarding our holy religion and Christian faith, so that in this

issue of religion the opinions and positions of the parties among us would be heard, understood, and considered, charitably, amicably, and with mutual graciousness. In this way, by correcting whatever has been treated differently in the writings of both parties, everything could be brought together and returned to one single truth and to Christian concord. Moreover, we may thus honor and serve one, pure, and true religion. For just as we exist and fight’ under one Christ, so we may also be able to live in one Christian church in unity and concord. Inasmuch as we, the undersigned, as well as the other electors, princes,

and estates, have been summoned to the aforementioned assembly, we have obediently complied with the mandate of the emperor and have come to Augsburg. Indeed, we can say without boasting that we were among the first to arrive.

However, when at the beginning of this assembly in Augsburg Your Imperial Majesty made, among other things, a request to the electors, princes,

8. This title is found in the 1531 editio princeps and in six manuscripts. Two add this note: “Read publicly on the Saturday after the Feast of John the Baptist [i.e., 25 June] after breakfast.” The citation from Psalm 119 most likely comes from Luther’s correspondence of the time, for example, a letter to Conrad Cordatus, dated 6 July 1530 (WABr 5:441-42; LW 49:353-56).

9. As noted in par. 1, for the emperor and the German public at large the most important issue to be treated at the diet in Augsburg was the war against the Ottoman Empire. In the previous fall Turkish forces had laid siege to Vienna and threatened to invade the heart of the empire.

31

32

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Preface

in conformity to it, as well as in the matters pertaining to the faith, that each of

10

11

12

13

14

the electors, princes, and estates should commit to writing, in German and Latin, his judgments, opinions, and beliefs concerning said errors, dissensions, and abuses, etc. Accordingly, after due consideration and counsel, it was proposed to Your Imperial Majesty last Wednesday!? that, in keeping with Your Majesty’s wish, we should present our case in German and Latin today, Friday.!! Wherefore, in most humble obedience to Your Imperial Majesty, we offer and present a confession of our pastors’ and preachers’ teachings'* as well as of our faith, setting forth on the basis of the divine Holy Scripture what and in what manner they preach, teach, believe, and give instruction in our lands, principalities, dominions, cities, and territories. If the other electors, princes, and estates also submit a similar written statement of their judgments and opinions, in both Latin and German, we are quite willing, in complete obedience to Your Imperial Majesty, our most gracious Lord, to discuss with them and their associates—as far as this can be done in fairness—such practical and equitable ways as may unite us. Thus, the matters at issue between the parties may be presented in writing on both sides; they may be negotiated charitably and amicably; and these same differences may be so explained as to unite us in one, true religion, since we are all enlisted under one Christ and should confess Christ. All of this may be done in consequence of Your Imperial Majesty’s aforementioned summons and in accord with divine truth. We, therefore, invoke God Almighty in deepest humility and pray for the gift of his divine grace to this end. Amen! If,!3 however, our lords, friends, and associates who represent the electors, princes, and estates of the other party, do not comply with the procedure intended by Your Imperial Majesty’s summons, so that no charitable and amicable negotiations take place among us, and if they are not fruitful, we on our part shall not have failed in anything that can or may serve the cause of Christian unity, as far as God and conscience allow. Your Imperial Majesty as well as our aforementioned friends, the electors, princes, estates, and every lover of the Christian religion who is concerned about these matters, will be

15

graciously and sufficiently assured of this by what follows in the confession which we and our people submit. In the past, Your Imperial Majesty graciously intimated to the electors, princes, and estates of the empire, especially in a public instruction'* at the

10. On 22 June, when it was decided to deal with the issue of religious dissension before the

matter of raising taxes for waging war against the Ottoman Empire. 11. On 24 June. At the last minute the presentation was postponed until Saturday, 25 June. 12. Pastors and preachers held distinct offices in German congregations of the sixteenth century.

13. The following sections (par. 12-23) reflect the position of Philip of Hesse and to some extent the language of instructions to his representatives, dated 27 March 1530. 14. Originally sent to Ferdinand, the brother of the emperor, archduke of Austria, and since 1526 king of Hungary and Bohemia.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Preface

33

and other imperial estates, that each of the estates of the empire should set forth and present its opinion and judgment in German and Latin, pursuant to the imperial edict, we, after due deliberation, responded in turn on last Wednesday to Your Imperial Majesty that we, on our part, would submit the articles of our confession on the next Friday. Accordingly, in compliance with the wish of Your Imperial Majesty, we submit in this case!® concerning religion

our preachers’ and our own confession of the manner in which up until now they have taught this doctrine among us based on the Holy Scriptures and the pure Word of God. If now the other electors, princes, and estates of the empire similarly produce their opinions in the case concerning religion, according to the aforesaid proposal of Your Majesty, with statements in Latin and German, we submit that we are prepared, in dutiful obedience to Your Imperial Majesty, as our most gracious Lord, to discuss in a friendly way suitable and acceptable approaches with the aforementioned princes, our friends, and with the estates so that, insofar as this may honorably be done, we may agree, and—with the matter between our parties being discussed peacefully and without hateful contention, using the written proposals from both sides—the dissension, God grant, may be stopped and one, true, harmonious religion be restored. For we all ought to exist and fight under one Christ and confess one Christ, according to Your Imperial Majesty’s edict, so all things may be led to the truth of God. We, therefore, offer to God our most ardent prayer that he may help in this

10

11

matter and grant peace.

However, if this way of handling the case according to the procedure of Your Imperial Majesty’s edict were not to proceed—which pertains to the other electors, princes, and estates, as the other side—and if it were to bear no fruit, we indeed give testimony that we are not neglecting anything that can in any way serve the cause of reconciled Christian harmony, insofar as it can be done with God and a good conscience. Your Imperial Majesty, along with the other electors and estates of the empire and all who hold fast to the true religion with love and devotion and will have heard this case with an open mind, will graciously deign to know and understand these things from this confession of ours and our people. Your Imperial Majesty also graciously indicated, not once but often, to the electors, princes, and estates of the empire and in a public instruction issued

15. causa, term for a legal proceeding.

13

14

15

34 16

17 18

19

20

21

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Preface

Diet of Speyer in the year 1526, that, for reasons there stated, Your Imperial Majesty was not disposed to render a decision in matters pertaining to our holy faith, but would urge the pope!® to call a council. Again, by means of a written instruction at the last diet in Speyer a year ago, the electors, princes, and estates

were, among other things, informed and notified by Your Imperial Majesty’s viceroy, His Royal Majesty of Hungary and Bohemia, etc., and by Your Imperial Majesty’s orator!” and appointed commissioners, “that Your Imperial Majesty’s viceroy,'8 deputy,!® and councilors of the imperial government, together with representatives of the absent electors, princes, and estates who were assembled at the diet convened at Regensburg,? had considered the proposal for a general council?! and acknowledged that it would be fruitful to have one called. Since, then, the negotiations between Your Imperial Majesty and the pope resulted in a good, Christian understanding,?? so that Your Imperial Majesty was certain that the pope would not refuse to call such a council, Your Imperial Majesty graciously offered to promote and arrange for the calling of such a general council by the pope, along with Your Imperial Majesty, at the earliest opportunity without putting any obstacles in the way.’?’ In this case, therefore, we offer in full obedience to Your Imperial Majesty even beyond what is required: to participate in such a general, free, Christian council, as the electors, princes, and estates have requested, with high and

22

23

noble motives, in all the diets of the empire that have been held during Your Imperial Majesty’s reign. We also have, following legal form and procedure, called upon and appealed to such a council and to Your Imperial Majesty at various times concerning these most important matters.?* We now once again adhere to these actions, and neither these nor any subsequent negotiations shall make us waver (unless the matters in dissension are in a charitable and

24

friendly manner finally heard, considered, settled, and result in Christian unity, according to Your Imperial Majesty’s summons), as we herewith make public witness and appeal. This is our confession and that of our people, article by article, as follows.

16. Clement VII. 17. That is, by Ferdinand and by the imperial vice-chancellor, Balthasar Merklin. 18. Margrave Philip of Baden. 19. Count Wolfgang of Montfort. 20. The Diet of Regensburg in 1527 was poorly attended and adjourned without accomplishing much. 21. An assembly of bishops chaired by the pope, the traditional instrument for making decisions on matters of faith and morals. 22. The Peace of Barcelona in 1529, followed by an alliance in the same year and the coronation of the emperor in February 1530. 23. The material in quotes reflects a proposal delivered at the second Diet of Speyer on 15 March 1529. 24. At the Diet of Speyer on 25 April 1529 before two imperial lawyers.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Preface

35

and read aloud at the Diet of Speyer held in the year of our Lord 1526, that, for certain reasons there stated, Your Imperial Majesty was not disposed to

16

the Roman pontiff to have a council called. This was set forth even more broadly a year ago at the last Diet of Speyer. There, among other things, Your Imperial Majesty—through Lord Ferdinand, king of Bohemia and Hungary, our friend and gracious Lord, then through the orator and the imperial commissioners—caused these things to be set forth in an instruction: that Your Imperial Majesty had understood and considered the deliberation of those who had gathered in Regensburg—namely, the viceroy of Your Imperial Majesty in the empire, the president and councilors of the imperial government, and the ambassadors of the other estates—concerning the calling of a general council, and that Your Imperial Majesty judged it useful to call a council, and that, because the matters which had recently been played out between Your Imperial Majesty and the Roman pontiff were nearing peace and Christian reconciliation, Your Imperial Majesty did not doubt that the Roman pontiff could be persuaded to hold a general council. For all these reasons Your Imperial Majesty graciously indicated that he would work so that the Roman pontiff would consent to call such a council, which in the first instance must be publicized by sending out [official] letters. Consequently, if this is the case, and if the dissensions between us and the other side have not been amicably settled, we offer, in full obedience to Your Majesty, even beyond what is required, to prepare for such a Christian, free, general council and to plead for it, as was done through electors, princes, and the estates of the empire in all imperial diets held during Your Imperial Majesty’s reign, always with the most serious deliberations and great unanimity. In this most serious case we also have already earlier appealed to such a

17

render a decision in the matter pertaining to religion but wanted to work with

council and to Your Imperial Majesty—properly and in legal form. We still

adhere to this appeal, and we neither intend nor are able to abandon this appeal throughout this or other negotiations, unless our case will have been heard amicably and in accord with the imperial summons and will have brought about Christian concord. This is what we hereby also publicly declare.?®

25. protestamur, denoting a legal appeal.

18

19

20

21

22 23

36

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article II: Original Sin

Articles of Faith and Doctrine [I. Concerning God]* In the first place, it is with one accord taught and held, following the decree of the Council of Nicea,?’ that there is one divine essence?® which is named God and truly is God. But there are three persons in the same one essence, equally powerful, equally eternal: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All three are one divine essence, eternal, undivided, unending, of immeasurable power, wisdom, and goodness, the creator and preserver of all visible and invisible things. What is understood by the word “person” is not a part nor a quality in another but that which exists by itself, as the Fathers once used the word concerning this issue.? Rejected, therefore, are all the heresies that are opposed to this article, such as the Manichaeans,?® who posited two gods, one good and one evil; the Valentinians,?! the Arians,?? the Eunomians,?® the Mohammedans,** and all others like them; also the Samosatenians, old and new,* who hold that there is

only one person and create a deceitful sophistry about the other two, the Word and the Holy Spirit, by saying that the two need not be two distinct persons since “Word” means an external word or voice and the “Holy Spirit” is a created motion in all creatures.

[II. Concerning Original Sin] Furthermore, it is taught among us that since the fall of Adam, all human beings who are born in the natural way are conceived and born in sin. This 26. The titles of Articles [-XIX and XXI, here enclosed in square brackets, were first inserted into some printings after 1532. They were also not a part of the 1580 Book of Concord. Most manuscripts do not number these articles. 27. The Nicene Creed. 28. Wesen: essence or being. 29. The terms hypostasis in Greek and persona in Latin were used by early Christian theologians (“the Fathers”) to repudiate “modalism,” which regarded the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modalities or manifestations of the one God. 30. Followers of Mani, who was crucified in Persia for teaching a religious pluralism featuring the conflict between good and evil in an elaborate system of ideas with Christian, Buddhist, and other elements. 31. Named after Valentinus, who linked Christian ideas with polytheistic gnostic teachings. 32. Followers of Arius, who was condemned at the Council of Nicea in 325. He taught that the Son was created and was of a different “substance” from the Father. 33. Followers of Eunomius, an extreme Arian who taught that the Son was unlike the Father in essence. 34. Followers of Mohammed, the founder of Islam. The Lutheran reformers frequently referred to Islam as an Antitrinitarian heresy. In the sixteenth century the word Mohammedan was not understood pejoratively. 35, Followers of Paul of Samosata, who taught that Jesus was not divine in his nature but was

a man specially endowed by the Holy Spirit. Among the “new Samosatenians” was John Campanus,

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article II: Original Sin

37

Chief Articles of Faith [I. Concerning God] The churches among us teach with complete unanimity that the decree of the Council of Nicea concerning the unity of the divine essence and concerning the three persons is true and is to be believed without any doubt. That is to say, there is one divine essence which is called God and is God: eternal, incorpore-

al, indivisible, of immeasurable power, wisdom, and goodness, the creator and

preserver of all things, visible and invisible. Yet, there are three persons, coeter-

nal and of the same essence and power: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the term “person” is used for that meaning which the church’s authors used in this case: to signify not a part or a quality in another but that which subsists in itself. They condemn?® all heresies that have arisen against this article, such as that of the Manichaeans, who posited two principles, one good and the other evil; likewise, those of the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all others like them. They also condemn the Samosatenians, old and new,

who contend that there is only one person and cleverly and impiously argue that the Word and the Holy Spirit are not distinct persons but that “Word” signifies a spoken word and “Spirit” a created movement in things.

[I1. Concerning Original Sin] Likewise, they teach that since the fall of Adam all human beings who are propagated according to nature are born with sin, that is, without fear of God, with-

who challenged Luther to a debate in March 1530. He and other spiritualists rejected the dogma of the Trinity. 36. Here and throughout the Latin version of CA I-XXI, “they teach” and “they condemn” refer to CA 1.1, “the churches among us.”

38

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article IV: Justification

means that from birth they are full of evil lust and inclination and cannot by nature possess true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this same

innate disease and original sin® is truly sin and condemns to God’s eternal wrath all who are not in turn born anew through baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected, then, are the Pelagians®® and others who do not regard original sin as sin in order to make human nature righteous through natural powers, thus

insulting the suffering and merit of Christ.

[III. Concerning the Son of God] Likewise, it is taught that God the Son became a human being, born of the pure Virgin Mary, and that the two natures, the divine and the human, are so insep-

arably united in one person that there is one Christ.>® He is true God and true human being who truly “was born, suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried” in order both to be a sacrifice not only for original sin but also for all other sins and to conciliate God’s wrath.*® Moreover, the same Christ “descended into hell, truly rose from the dead on the third day, ascended into heaven, is sitting at the right hand of God” in order to rule and reign forever over all creatures, so that through the Holy Spirit he may make holy, purify, strengthen, and comfort all who believe in him, also distribute to them life and various gifts and benefits, and shield and protect them against the devil and sin. Finally, the same Lord Christ “will come” in full view of all “to judge the living and the dead . . . according to the Apostles’ Creed.*! Rejected are all heresies that are opposed to this article.*?

[IV. Concerning Justification] Furthermore, it is taught that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and right-

eousness before God through our merit, work, or satisfactions, but that we receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous before God out of grace for

37. Erbsiinde, the traditional word for “original sin,” meaning “hereditary sin.”

38. Followers of Pelagius, who taught that one can be saved by an act of will aided by God’s grace. The “others” included scholastic theologians, such as Gabriel Biel and the reformers’ contemporary opponents. Compare Luther’s Confession concerning Christ’s Supper of 1528 (WA 26:503, 25-34; LW 37:363).

39. Compare the Decree of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (NPNF, ser. 2, 14:264-65). 40. See CA XXIV.21-22. 41. The material in quotes reflects the wording of the Apostles’ Creed. 42. The text in italics was first added to the 1531 editio princeps, which was regarded as the authentic edition for much of the sixteenth century. This and other additions are not found in the 1580 Book of Concord.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article IV: Justification

39

out trust in God, and with concupiscence. And they teach that this disease or original fault*? is truly sin, which even now damns and brings eternal death to those who are not born again through baptism and the Holy Spirit. They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that the original fault is sin and who, in order to diminish the glory of Christ’s merits and benefits, argue that human beings can be justified before God by their own powers of reason.*

[III. Concerning the Son of God] Likewise, they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, took upon himself human nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary so that there might be two natures, divine and human, inseparably conjoined in the unity of one person, one Christ, truly God and truly a human, being “born of the Virgin Mary,” who truly “suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried” that he might reconcile the Father to us and be a sacrifice not only for original guilt but also for all actual sins of human beings. He also “descended into hell, and on the third day he was” truly “resurrected.” Thereafter, “he ascended into heaven” in order to “sit at the right hand of the Father,” and he will reign forever and have dominion over all creatures. He will sanctify those who believe in him by sending into their hearts the Holy Spirit, who will rule, console, and make them alive and defend them against the devil and the power of sin. The same Christ will publicly “return to judge the living and the dead . . .,” according to the Apostles’ Creed.

[IV. Concerning Justification] Likewise, they teach that human beings cannot be justified before God by their own powers, merits, or works. But they are justified as a gift*> on account

43. vitium originis. 44. rationis, used by Melanchthon as a synonym for liberum arbitrium (free will).

45, gratis: without payment, for free, out of kindness.

40

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article VI: Obedience

Christ’s sake through faith*® when we believe that Christ has suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us. For God will regard and reckon this faith as righteousness in his sight, as St. Paul says in Romans 3[:21-26] and 4[:5]. [V. Concerning the Office of Preaching]*

To obtain such faith God instituted the office of preaching, giving the gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit who produces faith, where and when he wills, in those who hear the gospel. It teaches that we have a gracious God, not through our merit but through Christ’s merit, when we so believe. Condemned are the Anabaptists*® and others who teach that we obtain the Holy Spirit without the external®® word of the gospel through our own preparation, thoughts, and works.

[VI. Concerning the New Obedience] It is also taught that such faith should yield good fruit and good a person must do such good works as God has commanded for not place trust in them as if thereby to earn grace before God.* forgiveness of sin and righteousness through faith in Christ, as

works and that God’s sake but For we receive Christ himself

says [Luke 17:10]: “When you have done all [things] . .., say, ‘We are worthless

slaves” ” The Fathers also teach the same thing. For Ambrose says: “It is determined by God that whoever believes in Christ shall be saved and have forgiveness of sins, not through works but through faith alone, without merit.”>!

46. German: durch den Glauben. In German, the preposition durch denotes both instrument (“through”) and means (“by”). Translating “through faith” here and elsewhere does not contradict the fact that the reformers also held that “faith justifies.” 47. Although later numbered as a separate article, grammatically this is a continuation of the preceding. 48. “Rebaptizers” (from the Greek anabaptizein), who initially arose in Zurich, where they dissented from Ulrich Zwingli, that city’s chief preacher. They rejected infant baptism in favor of an adult “believers’ baptism.” Most, however, adhered to the authority of the “external word of the

gospel” The Lutheran reformers did not distinguish Anabaptists from spiritualists, such as Sebastian Franck and Caspar Schwenckfeld, who taught that one could receive the Holy Spirit without means. The “others” may have included, in the reformers’ opinion, followers of scholastic theologians like Gabriel Biel, who held that the Holy Spirit was first merited by natural human powers apart from the means of grace. 49. leiblich: literally, physical. 50. Compare CA XX.3 and XXVI.2. 51. Actually pseudo-Ambrose, often called Ambrosiaster, The First Epistle to the Corinthians 1:4 (MPL 17:195). This is the oldest Latin commentary on the letters of Paul, dating from the late

fourth century and attributed to Ambrose, one of the renowned “fathers” of the Western church. Most theologians of the sixteenth century did not think that this attribution was mistaken.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article VI Obedience

41

of Christ through faith when they believe that they are received into grace> and that their sins are forgiven on account of Christ, who by his death made satisfaction for our sins.53 God reckons this faith as righteousness (Rom. 3[:21-26] and 4[:5]).

[V. Concerning Ministry in the Church] So that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and the sacraments as through instruments the Holy Spirit is given, who effects faith where and when it pleases God in those who hear the gospel, that is to say, in those who hear that God, not on account of our own merits but on account of Christ, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace on account of Christ. Galatians 3[:14b]: “So that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”>* They condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Spirit comes to human beings without the external Word through their own preparations and works.

[VI. Concerning the New Obedience] Likewise, they teach that this faith is bound to yield good fruits and that it ought to do good works commanded by God on account of God’s will and not so that we may trust in these works to merit justification before God. For forgiveness of sins and justification are taken hold of by faith, as the saying of Christ also testifies [Luke 17:10]: “When you have done all [things] ... say, ‘We

are worthless slaves. ” The authors of the ancient church teach the same. For Ambrose says: “It is established by God that whoever believes in Christ shall be saved without work, by faith alone, receiving the forgiveness of sins as a gift.”

52. in gratiam recipi: here and in V.3, IX.2, XX.9, XXVL5, and XXVIL.37 the word gratia was

understood by both Luther and Melanchthon along the lines first proposed by Erasmus of Rotterdam in his annotations on the New Testament as divine favor or mercy. 53. satisfecit: made reparation. 54. This biblical citation is missing from several manuscripts and from the 1531 editio princeps.

42

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article IX: Baptism

[VIL. Concerning the Church] It is also taught that at all times there must be and remain one holy, church. It is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the For this is enough for the true unity of the Christian church that

Christian is purely gospel. there the

gospel is preached harmoniously®® according to a pure understanding and the

sacraments are administered in conformity with the divine Word. It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that uniform ceremonies, instituted by human beings, be observed everywhere. As Paul says in Ephesians 4[:4-5]: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

[VIII. What Is the Church?]> Likewise, although the Christian church is, properly speaking, nothing else than the assembly of all believers and saints, yet because in this life many false Christians, hypocrites, and even public sinners remain among the righteous,

the sacraments—even though administered by unrighteous priests—are efficacious all the same.>” For as Christ himself indicates [Matt. 23:2-3]: “The

scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. . ..” Condemned, therefore, are the Donatists®® and all others who hold a different view.

[IX. Concerning Baptism ] Concerning baptism it is taught that it is necessary, that grace is offered through it, and that one should also baptize children, who through such baptism are entrusted to God and become pleasing to him. Rejected, therefore, are the Anabaptists who teach that the baptism of children is not right.>®

55. Eintrichtiglich. In CA 1.1 it is translated “with one accord.” 56. This article is, grammatically speaking, a continuation of the preceding. 57. This speaks to an issue raised during the 1529 Marburg Colloquy against Ulrich Zwingli. See WA 30/3: 157, 1-15; LW 38:81.

58. Named after Donatus, a North African bishop. Donatists denied the validity of the ministry of those who had become unfaithful under Roman persecution. Although the Donatist schism did not last long, its rigorist standards of ministry were often revived in Christian history. “Others” here may include some Anabaptists, who argued that baptism received from a “false” priest was invalid. See Luther, Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:506, 13-21; LW 37:366) and Concerning Rebaptism (1528) (WA 26:163, 11-25; LW 40:250). 59. For the Anabaptists, see above, n. 51. In his 404 Articles, nos. 227-33, John Eck accused the

reformers of being Anabaptists and Donatists.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article IX: Baptism

43

[VIL. Concerning the Church] Likewise, they teach that one holy church will remain forever. The church is the assembly of saints in which the gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly. And it is enough for the true unity of the church to agree concerning the teaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. It is not necessary that human traditions, rites, or ceremonies institut-

ed by human beings be alike everywhere. As Paul says [Eph. 4:5, 6]: “One faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all .. [VIII. What Is the Church?]

Although the church is, properly speaking, the assembly of saints and those who truly believe, nevertheless, because in this life many hypocrites and evil people are mixed in with them, a person may use the sacraments even when they are administered by evil people. This accords with the saying of Christ [Matt. 23:2]: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. . . .” Both the

sacraments and the Word are efficacious because of the ordinance and command of Christ, even when offered by evil people. They condemn the Donatists and others like them who have denied that the ministry of evil people may be used in the church and who have thought that the ministry of evil people is useless and ineffective.

[IX. Concerning Baptism] Concerning baptism they teach that it is necessary for salvation, that the grace of God is offered through baptism, and that children should be baptized. They are received into the grace of God when they are offered to God through

baptism.

'

They condemn the Anabaptists who disapprove of the baptism of children and assert that children are saved without baptism.

44

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XII: Repentance

[X. Concerning the Lord’s Supper]*° Concerning the Lord’s Supper it is taught that the true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form®! of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper and are distributed and received there. Rejected, therefore, is also the contrary teaching.?

[XI. Concerning Confession] Concerning confession it is taught that private absolution®® should be retained and not abolished. However, it is not necessary to enumerate all misdeeds and

sins,® since it is not possible to do so. Psalm 19[:12]: “But who can detect their errors?”

Vi W

[XII. Concerning Repentance]% Concerning repentance it is taught that those who have sinned after baptism obtain forgiveness of sins whenever they come to repentance and that absolution should not be denied them by the church. Now properly speaking, true repentance is nothing else than® to have contrition and sorrow, or terror about sin, and yet at the same time to believe in the gospel and absolution that sin is forgiven and grace is obtained through Christ. Such faith, in turn, comforts the heart and puts it at peace. Then improvement should also follow, and a person should refrain from sins. For these should be the fruits of repentance, as John

says in Matthew 3[:8]: “Bear fruit worthy of repentance.” Rejected here are those who teach that whoever has once become righteous cannot fall again.®’

60. Heiliges Abendmahl, the traditional term for “Lord’s Supper,” meaning “holy evening meal.” 61. Gestalt, a term for the bread and wine, used here as the German equivalent for the Latin species, which already was associated with the doctrine of transubstantiation at the Fourth Lateran

Council of 1215. 62. All teachings that deny the bodily presence of Christ, especially the views of Luther’s colleague Andrew Bodenstein, called “Karlstadt,” of Ulrich Zwingli, and of Caspar Schwenckfeld. They regarded Holy Communion as an unrepeatable historical event (Karlstadt), as a memorial of Christ’s death (Zwingli), or as a spiritual encounter with Christ as “heavenly flesh” Schwenckfeld).

63. privata absolutio, using the Latin technical term for receiving personal forgiveness after confession of sins to a priest. 64. Required by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, chap. 21. The Council decreed that only those going to private confession were to be admitted to the sacrament. 65. Bufie, poenitentia. These words, which long had been used to designate the sacrament of penance, were consistently taken by the reformers to mean “repentance” or “penitence.” See the first four of Luther’s Ninety-five Theses (1517) (WA 1:233; LW 31:25-26).

66. The phrase “nothing else than” is omitted in the 1580 Book of Concord. 67. The Lutheran reformers cited some Anabaptists, like Hans Denck, and some spiritualists,

like Caspar Schwenckfeld, as representatives of such teaching.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XII: Repentance

45

[X. Concerning the Supper of the Lord] Concerning the Lord’s Supper they teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and are distributed to those who eat the Lord’s Supper. They disapprove of those who teach otherwise.

[XI. Concerning Confession] Concerning confession they teach that private absolution should be retained in the churches, although an enumeration of all faults in confession is not necessary. For this is impossible according to the psalm [19:12]: “But who can detect their errors?” [XII. Concerning Repentance[® Concerning repentance they teach that those who have fallen after baptism can receive forgiveness of sins whenever they are brought to repentance® and that the church should impart absolution to those who return to repentance.

Now, properly speaking, repentance consists of two parts: one is contrition or

the terrors that strike the conscience when sin is recognized; the other is faith, which is brought to life by the gospel or absolution. This faith believes that sins are forgiven on account of Christ, consoles the conscience, and liberates it from terrors.”® Thereupon good works, which are the fruit of repentance, should follow. They condemn both the Anabaptists, who deny that those who have once been justified can lose the Holy Spirit, and also those who contend that some may attain such perfection in this life that they cannot sin.

alike.

68. poenitentia. 69. convertuntur, a term used by Lutherans to denote initial conversion and daily repentance 70. This text sharpens the distinction from the Roman Catholic sacrament of penance, which

consists of three rather than two components: contrition, confession and absolution, and satisfac-

tion. See Gratian, Decretum 11, chap. 33, q. 3; De poenitentia, dist. 3, chap. 8; and Instructions for the Visitors (1528) (WA 26:220, 1-19; LW 40:293-97).

46

10

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XIV: Church Government

However, also condemned are the Novatians,”! who denied absolution to those who had sinned after baptism. Also rejected are those who do not teach that a person obtains forgiveness of sin through faith but through our own satisfactions.”? Also rejected are those who teach that “canonical satisfactions™ are necessary to pay for eternal torment or purgatory.”*

[XIII. Concerning the Use of Sacraments] Concerning the use of sacraments it is taught that the sacraments are instituted not only to be signs by which people may recognize Christians outwardly, but also as signs and testimonies of God’s will toward us in order thereby to awaken and strengthen our faith. That is why they also require faith and are rightly used when received in faith for the strengthening of faith. Rejected, therefore, are those who teach that the sacraments justify ex opere operato’> without faith and who do not teach that this faith should be added so that the forgiveness of sin (which is obtained through faith and not through work) may be offered there.”¢

[XIV. Concerning Church Government]|”’ Concerning church government it is taught that no one should publicly teach, preach, or administer the sacraments without a proper [public] call.”

71. Followers of Novatian, the leader of a rigorist schismatic movement in Rome. They denied restoration, even after repentance, to those who were guilty of grave sins. 72. Medieval theologians divided the sacrament of penance into three parts: contrition (sorrow for sin), confession (before a priest), and satisfaction (good works done to satisfy the temporal punishment for sin after the guilt and eternal punishment had been removed by the grace of the sacrament). “Satisfactions” became linked to medieval abuses, suchas the selling of indulgences, which Luther opposed in his Ninety-five Theses of 1517 (WA 1:233-38; LW 31:25-33). In the 1531 editio princeps this text reads: “ .. do not teach that we obtain forgiveness of sins through faith apart from our merit for the sake of Christ, but instead that we earn it through our work and love.” 73. Canonicae satisfactiones: satisfactions demanded by canon law. 74. The text in italics was first added to the 1531 editio princeps. 75. ex opere operato: “by the mere performance of an act,” a formula used since the thirteenth century to describe the power of the external action in the celebration of sacraments. When the officiating priest performs the sacramental action exactly the way the church has ordered (for example, consecrating the bread and wine in the Mass), the sacrament becomes efficacious. 76. The text in italics was first added to the 1531 editio princeps. 77. Kirchenregiment. 78. On ordentlichen Beruf. Beruf means both “call” and “vocation.” The 1531 editio princeps and the 1580 Book of Concord add the word in brackets.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XIV: Church Order

47

Also condemned are the Novatians who were unwilling to absolve those who had fallen and returned to repentance after baptism. Also rejected are those who do not teach that forgiveness of sins comes through faith but command us to merit grace through our own satisfactions. Also rejected are those who teach that canonical satisfactions are necessary to remit eternal punishment or the punishment of purgatory.”” [XIII. Concerning the Use of Sacraments] Concerning the use of sacraments they teach that sacraments were instituted not only to be marks of profession among human beings but much more to be

signs and testimonies of God’s will toward us, intended to arouse and strengthen faith in those who use them. Accordingly, sacraments are to be used so that

faith, which believes the promises offered and displayed through the sacraments, may increase. Therefore they also condemn those who teach that the sacraments justify ex opere operato and do not teach that faith, which believes that sins are forgiven, is

required in the use of sacraments.®

[XIV. Concerning Church Order] Concerning church order they teach that no one should teach publicly in the church or administer the sacraments unless properly called.?!

79. The text in italics was first added to the 1531 editio princeps and is also found in the 1580 and 1584 Book of Concord. 80. The text in italics was first added to the 1531 editio princeps and is also found in the 1580 and 1584 Book of Concord.

81. Rite vocatus means called in a regular manner by a proper public authority. This is not a

matter of “ritual.”

10

48

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XVI: Public Order

[XV. Concerning Church Regulations|® Concerning church regulations made by human those that may be kept without sin and that serve order in the church, such as specific celebrations, ple are also instructed not to burden consciences

beings, it is taught to keep to maintain peace and good festivals, etc. However, peowith them as if such things

were necessary for salvation. Moreover, it is taught that all rules and traditions

made by human beings for the purpose of appeasing God and of earning grace are contrary to the gospel and the teaching concerning faith in Christ. That is why monastic vows and other traditions concerning distinctions of foods, days, and the like,® through which people imagine they can earn grace and make satisfaction for sin, are good for nothing and contrary to the gospel.

[XVI. Concerning Public Order and Secular Government[® Concerning public order and secular government it is taught that all political authority,?> orderly government, laws, and good order in the world are created and instituted by God and that Christians may without sin exercise political authority; be princes and judges; pass sentences and administer justice according to imperial and other existing laws; punish evildoers with the sword; wage just wars; serve as soldiers; buy and sell; take required oaths; possess property; be married; etc. Condemned here are the Anabaptists who teach that none of the things indicated above is Christian.3¢ Also condemned are those who teach that Christian perfection means physically leaving house and home, spouse and child, and refraining from the above-mentioned activities.?” In fact, the only true perfection is true fear of God and true faith in God. For the gospel teaches an internal, eternal reality®® and righteousness of the heart, not an external, temporal one. The gospel does

82. Kirchenordnungen. In this article, the 1531 editio princeps and the 1580 Book of Concord use the singular, Kirchenordung (church order). 83. Holy days and festivals, echoing Colossians 2:16 (compare CA XXV1.25 and XXVII1.43-45). Among Lutherans at this time numerous saints’ days were abolished and apostles’ days were sometimes transferred to the succeeding Sundays. But many of the festivals of the church year were retained. Compare the booklet written by Luther, Melanchthon, and others, Instruction for the Visitors (1528) (WA 26:222, 8-225, 8, and 227, 40-228, 31; LW 40:297-301, 304-5). 84. Polizei (public order), derived from the Greek politeia, “public administration.” Weltliches Regiment (secular government): compare Luther, On Temporal Authority (1523) (WA 11:245-80; LW 45:81-129). This term is translated throughout as “secular.”

85. Obrigkeit. 86. Anabaptists refused to participate in secular government or to take oaths but approved of marriage and some forms of private property. 87. A reference to monasticism. See also CA XXVII. 88. Wesen.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XVI: Civic Affairs

49

[XV. Concerning Church Rites] Concerning church rites they teach that those rites should be observed that can be observed without sin and that contribute to peace and good order in the church, for example, certain holy days, festivals, and the like. However, people are reminded not to burden consciences, as if such worship were necessary for salvation. They are also reminded that human traditions that are instituted to win

God’s favor, merit grace, and make satisfaction for sins are opposed to the

gospel and the teaching of faith. That is why vows and traditions concerning

foods and days, etc., instituted to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the gospel.

[XVI. Concerning Civic Affairs] Concerning civic affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God and that Christians are permitted to hold civil office, to work in law courts, to decide matters by imperial and other existing laws, to impose just punishments, to wage just war, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to take an oath when required by magistrates, to take a wife, to be given in marriage.% They condemn the Anabaptists who prohibit Christians from assuming such civil responsibilities. Because the gospel transmits an eternal righteousness of the heart, they also condemn those who locate evangelical perfection®® not in the fear of God and in faith but in abandoning civil responsibilities. In the meantime the gospel

89. ducere uxorem, nubere: Latin terms denoting marriage for males and females, respectively. 90. perfectio evangelica, a technical term for the monastic life. See CA XXVII1.49-55.

50

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article

XVIII: Free Will

not overthrow secular government, public order, and marriage but instead intends that a person keep all this as a true order of God and demonstrate in these walks of life%! Christian love and true good works according to each person’s calling. Christians, therefore, are obliged to be subject to political authority and to obey its commands and laws in all that may be done without sin. But if a command of the political authority cannot be followed without sin, one must obey God rather than any human beings (Acts 5[:29]).

[XVIL. Concerning the Return of Christ to Judgment] It is also taught that our Lord Jesus Christ will return on the Last Day to judge, to raise all the dead, to give eternal life and eternal joy to those who believe and are elect, but to condemn the ungodly and the devils to hell and eternal punishment. Rejected, therefore, are the Anabaptists who teach that the devils and condemned human beings will not suffer eternal torture and torment.*? Likewise rejected are some Jewish teachings, which have also appeared in the present, that before the resurrection of the dead saints and righteous people alone will possess a secular kingdom and will annihilate all the ungodly.”®

[XVIIL. Concerning Free Will] Concerning free will it is taught that a human being has some measure of free will, so as to live an externally honorable life and to choose among the things reason comprehends. However, without the grace, help, and operation of the Holy Spirit a human being cannot become pleasing to God, fear or believe in God with the whole heart, or expel innate evil lusts from the heart. Instead, this happens through the Holy Spirit, who is given through the Word of God. For Paul says (1 Cor. 2[:14]): “Those who are natural do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit.”*4

91. Stéinde. Here, the aforementioned secular government, public order, and marriage; otherwise the term also includes offices within the church and reflects the threefold division of society according to widely accepted medieval social theory into ecclesia (church), politia (government), and oeconomia (household).

92. Some Anabaptists, among them Hans Denck and Melchior Rinck, taught that everyone will be saved in the end. Compare Luther’s Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:509, 13-18; LW 37:372). The reformers considered the Anabaptists to be followers of Origen. See the Schwabach Articles XIII. 93. Compare Acts 1:6. Radical Dutch Anabaptists tried to establish such a “kingdom” in Miinster in 1535, and the spiritualist Thomas Miintzer called for the annihilation of the ungodly during the German peasant revolt in 1525. On 30 March 1530 an Anabaptist, Augustine Bader, was executed in Stuttgart for predicting that a thousand-year kingdom would begin that Easter. 94. Cited here according to the alternative reading in the NRSV, which corresponds to the German and Latin texts.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XVIII: Free Will

51

does not undermine government or family but completely requires both their preservation as ordinances of God and the exercise of love in these ordinances. Consequently, Christians owe obedience to their magistrates and laws except when commanded to sin. For then they owe greater obedience to God than to human beings (Acts 5[:29]).

[XVII. Concerning the Return of Christ for Judgment] They also teach that at the consummation of the world Christ will appear for judgment and will bring to life all the dead. He will give eternal life and endless joy to the righteous and elect, but he will condemn the ungodly and the devils to endless torment. They condemn the Anabaptists who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned human beings and devils. They also condemn others who are now spreading Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly will take possession of the kingdom of the world, while the ungodly are suppressed everywhere.

[XVIIL Concerning Free Will] Concerning free will they teach that the human will has some freedom for producing civil righteousness and for choosing things subject to reason. However, it does not have the power to produce the righteousness of God or spiritual righteousness without the Holy Spirit, because “those who are natural do not receive the gifts of God’s Holy Spirit” [1 Cor. 2:14]. But this righteousness is worked in the heart when the Holy Spirit is received through the Word. In Book III of Hypognosticon Augustine says this in just so many words: “We confess that all human beings have a free will that possesses the judgment of reason. It does not enable them, without God, to begin—much less complete— anything that pertains to God, but only to perform the good or evil deeds of this life. By ‘good deeds’ I mean those that arise from the good in nature, that is, the will to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to wear clothes, to build a house, to marry, to raise cattle, to learn various useful skills, or to do whatever good pertains to this life. None of these exists without divine direction; indeed, from him and through him they have come into being and

52

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XX: Faith

In order that it may be recognized that nothing new is taught here, these are the clear words of Augustine concerning free will, quoted here from the third

book of the Hypognosticon:?> “We confess that there is a free will in all human beings. For all have a natural, innate mind and reason—not that they can act

in matters pertaining to God, such as loving or fearing God with their whole heart—but they do have the freedom to choose good or evil only in the external works of this life. By ‘good’ I mean what can be done by nature: whether to work in the field or not, whether to eat and drink, whether to visit a friend or

not, to dress or undress, to build a home, to marry, to engage in a trade, and to do whatever may be useful and good. To be sure, all of this neither exists nor endures without God, but everything is from him and through him. On the other hand, a human being can by personal choice do evil, such as to kneel

before an idol, commit murder, and the like.”

Rejected here are those who teach that we can keep the commandments of God without grace and the Holy Spirit. For although we are by nature able to do the external works of the commandments, yet we cannot do the supreme commandments in the heart, namely, truly to fear, love, and believe in God.% [XIX. Concerning the Cause of Sin]

Concerning the cause of sin it is taught among us that although almighty God has created and preserves all of nature, nevertheless the perverted will causes

sin in all those who are evil and despise God. This, then, is the will of the devil

and of all the ungodly. As soon as God withdrew his hand, it turned from God

to malice, as Christ says (John 8[:44]): “When [the devil] lies, he speaks accord-

ing to his own nature.”%’

[XX.] Concerning Faith and Good Works® Our people are falsely accused of prohibiting good works. But their writings concerning the Decalogue®® and other writings demonstrate that they have given good and useful account and admonition concerning proper Christian walks of life and works, about which little had been taught before our time. Instead, for the most part childish, unnecessary works—such as rosaries, the 95. Admonition

against Pelagians and

Celestinians

(Hypomnesticon

contra Pelagianos et

Coelestinianos) 111, 4, 5 (MPL 45:1623), ascribed to Augustine in older collections of his works. The Celestinians are named after Celestius, a disciple of Pelagius.

96. The text in italics was first added to the 1531 editio princeps.

97. An allusion to the arguments in Augustine, Grace and Free Will 13 (MPL 44:889-90; NPNF,

ser. 1, 5:449).

98. Different from an earlier draft, entitled Faith and Works (BSLK 75-81) and written in late

May or early June 1530. The 1531 editio princeps (BSLK 82-83) contains some variations on this article without changing the substance. 99. For example, Martin Luther, Treatise on Good Works (1520) (WA 6:202-76; LW 44:21-1 14),

and the Small and Large Catechisms.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XX: Faith

53

exist. However, by ‘evil deeds’ I mean the will to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc.” They condemn the Pelagians and others'®® who teach that without the Holy Spirit by the powers of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things and can also keep the commandments of God “according to the substance of the acts.”10! Although nature can in some measure produce external works—for it can keep the hands from committing theft or murder—nevertheless it cannot produce internal movements, such as fear of God, trust in God, patience, etc.'?2

[XIX. Concerning the Cause of Sin] Concerning the cause of sin they nature, nevertheless the cause of the devil and the ungodly. Since away from God, as Christ says in according to his own nature.”

teach that although God creates and preserves sin is the will of those who are evil, that is, of it was not assisted by God, their will turned John 8[:44], “When [the devil] lies, he speaks

[XX. Concerning Faith and Good Works] Our people are falsely accused of prohibiting good works. For their writings on the Decalogue and others on similar subjects bear witness that they have given useful instruction concerning all kinds and walks of life: what manner of life and which activities in every calling please God. In former times preachers taught too little about such things. Instead, they urged childish and needless works, such as particular holy days and fasts, brotherhoods, pilgrimages, the cult of the saints, rosaries, monasticism, and the like. Since our adversaries have been reminded about these things, they are now unlearning them and do not preach about such useless works as much as in former times. They are also beginning to mention faith, about which there once was an astonishing silence. They teach that we are not justified by works alone, but they combine faith and works, saying that we are justified by both. This teaching is more tolerable than the previous one and can offer more consolation than their old teaching. Therefore, because the teaching concerning faith, which ought to be the principal one in the church, has languished so long in obscurity—everyone 100. Such as Gabriel Biel. 101. Quoad substantiam actuum: a technical scholastic term for the innate human ability to fulfill the divine commands according to the letter but not “according to the intention of the lawgiver,” God, who for full merit requires that the law can only truly be fulfilled when a person has been infused with a special “habit” of the grace that makes acceptable (gratia gratum faciens). This distinction was championed by John Duns Scotus, Commentary on the Sentences 111, 27, and by Gabriel Biel, Commentary on the Sentences 11, 28B, in order to emphasize that as sinners human beings possessed apart from grace the ability to fulfill the law and thus merit God’s grace. 102. The 1531 editio princeps and the 1580 and 1584 Latin versions of the Book of Concord add the words in italics.

54

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XX: Faith

cult of the saints, joining religious orders, pilgrimages, appointed fasts, days, brotherhoods,'% and the like—were emphasized in all sermons. opponents also no longer praise such unnecessary works as highly as they did. Moreover, they have also learned to speak now of faith, about which

holy Our once they

did not preach at all in former times. Rather, they now teach that we do not

10

11

1213

15

become righteous before God by works alone, but they add faith in Christ, saying that faith and works make us righteous before God. Such talk may offer a little more comfort than the teaching that one should rely on works alone. Because at present the teaching concerning faith, which is the principal part of the Christian life, has not been emphasized for such a long time, as all must admit, but only a doctrine of works was preached everywhere, our people have taught as follows: In the first place, our works cannot reconcile us with God or obtain grace. Instead, this happens through faith alone when a person believes that our sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who alone is the mediator to reconcile the Father. Now all who imagine that they can accomplish this by works and can merit grace despise Christ and seek their own way to God contrary to the gospel. This teaching about faith is publicly and clearly treated in Paul at many places, especially in Ephesians 2[:8-9]: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast. ... That no new interpretation is introduced here can be demonstrated from Augustine, who diligently deals with this matter and also teaches that we obtain grace and become righteous before God through faith in Christ, and not through works. His whole book On the Spirit and the Letter'%* proves it. Now although untested people despise this teaching completely, it is nevertheless the case that it is very comforting and beneficial for timid and terrified consciences. For the conscience cannot find rest and peace through works but by faith alone, when it concludes on its own with certainty that it has a gracious God for Christ’s sake, as Paul says (Rom. 5[:1]): “Therefore, since we are justi-

fied by faith, we have peace with God.” _ In former times people did not emphasize this comfort but instead drove the poor consciences to their own works. As a result, all sorts of works were

undertaken. For the conscience forced some into monasteries, in the hope of obtaining grace there through the monastic life. Some devised other works as a way of earning grace and making satisfaction for sins. Many of them discov-

103. Societies for laymen who practiced devotional exercises and good works. 104. For example, On the Spirit and the Letter XIX, 34 (CSEL 60:187, 22; NPNF, ser. 1, 5:97).

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XX: Faith

55

must grant that there has been a profound silence concerning the righteousness of faith in preaching while only the teaching of works has been promoted in the church—our people have instructed the churches about faith in the following way: To begin with,1% they remind the churches that our works cannot reconcile God or merit grace and forgiveness of sins, but we obtain this only by faith when we believe that we are received into grace on account of Christ, who

alone has been appointed mediator and atoning sacrifice through whom the Father is reconciled. Therefore, all who trust that they merit grace by works despise the merit and grace of Christ and seek a way to God without Christ

10

through human powers, since Christ has said about himself [John 14:6a]: “Tam

the way, and the truth, and the life.” This teaching concerning faith is treated in Paul everywhere. Ephesians 2[:8-9]: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is . . . not the result of works. ...

So that no one may quibble that we have contrived a new interpretation of

Paul, this entire approach is supported by the testimonies of the Fathers. In many writings Augustine defends grace and the righteousness of faith against the merit of works. Ambrose teaches similar things in Concerning the Calling of the Gentiles and elsewhere. For in Concerning the Calling of the Gentiles'% he says: “Redemption by the blood of Christ would become worthless and the preference for human works would not give way to the mercy of God if justification, which takes place by grace, were due to antecedent merits. For then it would be the worker’s wage rather than the donor’s gift.” Moreover, although this teaching is despised by those without experience, nevertheless devout and anxious consciences find by experience that it offers the greatest consolation. For consciences cannot be calmed by any work, but only by faith when they are certain that they have a God who has been reconciled on account of Christ. As Paul teaches in Romans 5[:1]: “Therefore, since

we are justified by faith, we have peace with God.” This whole teaching must be referred to that struggle of the terrified conscience, and it cannot be understood apart from that struggle. That is why those who are wicked and without experience judge it badly. For they imagine that Christian righteousness is nothing but civil and philosophical righteousness. In former times, consciences were vexed by the doctrine of works; they did not hear consolation from the gospel. Conscience drove some into the desert,

into monasteries, where they hoped to merit grace through the monastic life. Some contrived other works to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins. Consequently, it was essential to pass on and restore this teaching about faith in Christ so that anxious consciences should not be deprived of consolation but know that grace and forgiveness of sins are apprehended by faith in Christ. 105. This summary has three parts: par. 9-22, 23-26, and 27-34. 106. De vocatione [omnium] gentium 1,17 (MPL 51:670). In the sixteenth century this tract was

still thought to be written by Ambrose. It is now held to be the work of Prosper of Aquitaine.

11

12 13

14

15

16

17 18

19 20

21 22

56 22

23

24 25

26

28—29

38 39

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XX: Faith

ered that a person could not obtain peace by such means. That is why it became necessary to preach this teaching concerning faith in Christ and diligently to emphasize it, so that each person may know that God’s grace is grasped by faith alone, without merit. We must also explain that we are not talking here about the faith possessed by the devil and the ungodly,!%” who also believe the story that Christ suffered and was raised from the dead. But we are talking about true faith, which believes that we obtain grace and forgiveness of sin through Christ. All who know that in Christ they have a gracious God call upon him and are not, like the heathen, without God. For the devil and the ungodly do not believe this article about the forgiveness of sin. That is why they are enemies of God, cannot call upon him, and cannot hope for anything good from him. Moreover, as has now been indicated, Scripture talks about faith but does not label it knowledge such as the devil and the ungodly have. For Hebrews 11[:1] teaches that faith is not only a matter of historical knowledge, but a matter of having confidence in God to receive his promise. Augustine!%® also reminds us that we should understand the word “faith” in Scripture to mean confidence in God—that God is gracious to us—and not merely such knowledge of these stories as the devils also have. Further, it is taught that good works should and must be done, not that a person relies on them to earn grace, but for God’s sake and to God’s praise. Faith alone always takes hold of grace and forgiveness of sin. Because the Holy Spirit is given through faith, the heart is also moved to do good works. For before, because it lacks the Holy Spirit, the heart is too weak. Moreover, it is in the power of the devil who drives our poor human nature to many sins, as we observe in the philosophers who tried to live honestly and blamelessly, but then failed to do so and fell into many great, public sins. That is what happens to human beings when they are separated from true faith, are without the Holy Spirit, and govern themselves through their own human strength alone.'% That is why this teaching concerning faith is not to be censured for prohibiting good works. On the contrary, it should be praised for teaching the performance of good works and for offering help as to how they may be done. For without faith and without Christ human nature and human power are much too weak to do good works: such as to call on God, to have patience in suffering, to love the neighbor, to engage diligently in legitimate callings, to be obedient, to avoid evil lust, etc. Such lofty and genuine works cannot be done without the help of Christ, as he himself says in John 15[:5]: “Apart from me you can do nothing.” 107. An allusion to James 2:19.

108. A reference perhaps to Augustine’s Homilies on the Epistle of John to the Parthians (Tract. in

Ep. Joh. ad Parthenos) X, 2 (MPL 34:2055; NPNF, ser. 1, 7:521), and to a medieval tract ascribed to

Augustine, Concerning the Knowledge of the True Life (De cognitione verae vitae) 37 (MPL 40:1025). 109. “Human beings” is in the singular in the German text.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XX: Faith

57

People are also reminded that the term “faith” here does not signify only historical knowledge—the kind of faith that the ungodly and the devil have— but that it signifies faith which believes not only the history but also the effect of the history, namely, this article of the forgiveness of sins, that is, that we have grace, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins through Christ. Now all''® who know that they are reconciled to the Father through Christ truly know God, know that God cares for them, and call upon him. In short, they are not without God, as are the heathen. For the devils and the ungodly cannot believe this article of the forgiveness of sins. Hence they hate God as an enemy, do not call upon him, and expect nothing good from him. Augustine also reminds his readers in this way about the word “faith” and teaches that in the Scriptures the word “faith” is to be understood not as knowledge,!!! such as the ungodly have, but as trust'!? that consoles and encourages terrified minds. Beyond this, our people teach that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should count on meriting grace through them but because it is the will of God. It is only by faith that forgiveness of sins and grace are apprehended. Moreover, because the Holy Spirit is received through faith, consequently hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections!'!? so as to be able to do good works. For Ambrose says: “Faith is the mother of the good will and the righteous action.”!14 For without the Holy Spirit human powers are full of ungodly affections and are too weak to do good works before God. Besides, they are under the power of the devil, who impels human beings to various sins, ungodly opinions, and manifest crimes. This also may be seen in the philosophers, who, though they tried to live honestly, were still not able to do so but were defiled by many obvious crimes. Such is the weakness of human beings when they govern themselves by human powers alone without faith or the Holy Spirit. Hence it is readily apparent that no one should accuse this teaching of prohibiting good works. On the contrary, it is rather to be commended for showing how we can do good works. For without faith human nature cannot possibly do the works of the First or Second Commandments. Without faith it does not call upon God, expect anything from God, or bear the cross, but seeks and trusts in human help. Consequently, all kinds of urges and human designs rule in the heart when faith and trust in God are lacking. That is why Christ said (John 15[:5]): “Apart from me you can do nothing” And the church sings: Without your will divine / Naught is in humankind / All innocence is gone.'!> 110. Singular in the Latin. 111. notitia.

112. fiducia. 113. affectus: a technical term in Melanchthon’s theological vocabulary, meaning the most heartfelt motions of the human will. See his Loci 1521, 23-29. 114. Prosper of Aquitaine, De vocatione omnium gentium I, 25 (MPL 51:676).

115. From the medieval hymn “Come Holy Spirit” (Veni Sancte Spiritus). A nineteenth-century translation by Ray Palmer is in The Lutheran Hymmnal (St. Louis: Concordia, 1941), no. 227, and Service Book and Hymnal (Philadelphia: United Lutheran Publication House, 1958), no. 121.

23

24 25 26

27 28

29 30 31 32, 33 34 35 36

37

38 39 40

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Conclusion

58

[XXI. Concerning the Cult of the Saints] Concerning the cult of the saints our people teach that the saints are to be remembered so that we may strengthen our faith when we see how they experienced grace and how they were helped by faith. Moreover, it is taught that each person, according to his or her calling, should take the saints’ good works as an example. For instance, His Imperial Majesty, in a salutary and righteous fashion, may follow the example of David in waging war against the Turk.'16 For both hold a royal office that demands defense and protection of their subjects. However, it cannot be demonstrated from Scripture that a person should call upon the saints or seek help from them. “For there is only one single reconciler and mediator set up between God and humanity, Jesus Christ” (1 Tim.

2[:5]).117 He is the only savior, the only high priest, the mercy seat,!'® and intercessor before God

(Rom.

8[:34]). He alone has promised to hear our

prayers. According to Scripture, in all our needs and concerns it is the highest

worship to seek and call upon this same Jesus Christ with our whole heart. “But

if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous...” [1 John 2:1].

[Conclusion of Part One] This is nearly a complete summary of what is preached and taught in our churches for proper Christian instruction and the comfort of consciences, as well as for the improvement of believers. For we certainly wish neither to expose our own souls and consciences to grave danger before God by misusing the divine name or Word nor to pass on or bequeath to our children and descendants any other teaching than that which accords with the pure Word of God and Christian truth. Since, then, this teaching is clearly grounded in Holy Scripture and is, moreover, neither against nor contrary to the universal!!? Christian church—or even the Roman church—so far as can be observed in the writings of the Fathers,'2® we think that our opponents cannot disagree with us in the articles set forth above. That is why those who undertake to isolate, reject, and avoid our people as heretics, without having themselves any solid basis in divine command or Scripture, act in a very unfriendly and hasty manner, contrary to all Christian unity and love. For the dissension and quar116. The Evangelical party at Augsburg wanted to appear firm in its support of the empire’s military efforts. See the preface to the CA, 1.

117. A paraphrase of 1 Timothy 2:5 that does not correspond to the German or Latin texts of the day. 118. Gnadenstuhl, referring to Exodus 25:17 and Romans 3:25, also translated as “sacrifice” or

“place of atonement.” 119. Gemeine, old German for allgemein, universal. Here the linguistic equivalent of the Latin catholica. 120. The renowned teachers of the ancient Western church, such as Ambrose and Augustine. This phrase also anticipates the extensive use of Gratian’s collection of canon law.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Conclusion

59

[XXI. Concerning the Cult of the Saints] Concerning the cult of the saints they teach that saints may be remembered in order that we imitate their faith and good works, according to our calling. Thus, the emperor can imitate the example of David in waging war to drive the Turks from our native land. For both of them are kings. However, Scripture does not teach calling on the saints or pleading for help from them. For it sets before us Christ alone as mediator, atoning sacrifice, high priest, and intercessor. He is to be called upon, and he has promised that our prayers will be heard. Furthermore, he strongly approves this worship most of all, namely, that he be called upon in all afflictions. 1 John 2[:1]: “But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father. ...

[Conclusion of Part One] This is nearly a complete summary of the teaching among us. As can be seen, there is nothing here that departs from the Scriptures or the catholic church, or from the Roman church, insofar as we can tell from its writers. Because this is so, those who claim that our people are to be regarded as heretics judge too harshly. The entire dissension concerns a few specific abuses, which have crept into the churches without any proper authority. Even if there were some difference in these matters, the bishops should have been so lenient as to bear with us on account of the confession we have now recounted. For even the canons are not so severe as to demand that rites should be the same everywhere,'?! nor have the rites of all churches ever been the same. Nevertheless, the ancient rites are, for the most part, diligently observed among us. For the accusation is false that all ceremonies and ancient ordinances are abolished in our churches. Truth is, there has been a public outcry that certain abuses have become fused to the common rites. Because such abuses could not be approved with a good conscience, they have been corrected to some extent.

121. Gratian, Decretum 1, dist. 12, chaps. 3, 10, 11.

60

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXII: Sacrament

rel are chiefly over some traditions and abuses.'?? Since, then, there is nothing unfounded or deficient in the principal articles and since this our confession is godly and Christian, the bishops should in all fairness act more leniently even if there were a deficiency in regard to tradition—although we hope to offer solid grounds and reasons why some traditions and abuses have been changed among us.

Disputed Articles, Listing the Abuses That Have Been Corrected Nothing contrary to Holy Scripture or to the universal, Christian church is taught in our churches concerning articles of faith. Rather, only some abuses have been corrected that in part have crept in over the years and in part have been introduced by force. Necessity demands that we list them and indicate reasons why correction is permissible in these matters so that Your Imperial Majesty may recognize that we have not acted in an unchristian or sacrilegious

manner. On the contrary, we have been compelled by God’s command (which is rightly to be esteemed higher than all custom) to permit such corrections.

[XXII.] Concerning Both Kinds'? of the Sacrament Among us both kinds of the sacrament are given to the laity for the following reason. There is a clear order and command

of Christ in Matthew 26[:27]:

“Drink from it, all of you.” Concerning the cup Christ here commands with clear words that they all should drink from it. So that no one can contest and interpret!?* these words as if they only applied to priests, Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 11[:21] that the whole assembly of the Corinthian church used both kinds. Moreover, this usage remained in the church for a long time, as can be demonstrated from the his-

torical accounts and from the writings of the Fathers.!?> Cyprian mentions in many places that the cup was given to the laity in his time.!?¢ St. Jerome says that the priests who administer the sacrament distribute the blood of Christ to the people.'?” Pope Gelasius himself ordered that the sacrament should not be

122. Lacking in the 1531 editio princeps. 123. Gestalt. See above, n. 61. 124. Glossieren, from the Latin glossa, a marginal note, interlineation, or commentary on a

text; a traditional medieval way of interpreting a text by adding short explanations to clarify difficult phrases. 125. Histories of the church show that the cup was generally given to the laity until the thirteenth century. 126. Cyprian, Epistle 57.2 (CSEL 3/2: 652, 7; ANF 5:337, where it is Epistle 53.2). 127. Jerome, Commentary on Zephaniah, c. 3 (MPL 25:1375).

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXII: Sacrament

61

Articles in Which an Account Is Given of the Abuses That Have Been Corrected

Since the churches among us do not dissent from the catholic church in any article of faith but only set aside a few abuses that are new and were accepted

because of corruption over time contrary to the intention of the canons, we

pray that Your Imperial Majesty will graciously hear about the changes and our reasons for them, so that the people may not be compelled to observe these abuses against their conscience. Your Imperial Majesty should not believe those who disseminate shocking false accusations among the people to inflame the hatred of others against our people. First they gave occasion for this disagreement by embittering the minds of good folk. Now they are trying to increase the discord by the same method. For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly discover that the form of teaching and ceremonies among us is more tolerable than what these perverse and malicious people describe. Indeed, the truth cannot be gathered from the rumors of the crowd or the curses of our enemies. However, it can easily be judged that nothing contributes more to preserving the dignity of ceremonies and to cultivating reverence and piety among the people than conducting ceremonies properly in the churches.

[XXII.] Concerning Both Kinds'?® Both kinds are given to the laity in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper because

you?” Christ here clearly instructs concerning the cup that all should drink. So that no one would quibble that this pertains only to priests, Paul in Corinthians [11:21] cites an example in which it appears that the entire church was using both kinds. This usage continued in the church for a long time. It is not known when or by which authority it was first changed, although Cardinal Cusanus mentions when it was formally approved. Cyprian testifies in several places that the blood was given to the people. Jerome testifies to the same thing, saying: “The priests administer the Eucharist and distribute the blood of Christ to the people.” In fact, Pope Gelasius commands that the sacrament should not

128. species, literally “species,” the technical term for the elements in the Lord’s Supper.

(9]

this usage has the command of the Lord (Matt. 26[:27]), “Drink from it, all of

62

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXIII: Priests

divided (dist. 2, chap. Concerning Consecration).'?® Not a single canon with the

10

11

12

order to receive only one kind can be found. Nobody knows when or through whom this custom of receiving only one kind was introduced, although Cardinal Cusanus mentions when this custom was formally approved.!*® Now it is obvious that this custom, introduced contrary to God’s command and to the ancient canons, is not right. Accordingly, it was not proper to burden the consciences of those who desired to use the sacrament according to Christ’s institution and to compel them to act contrary to the order of our Lord Christ. Furthermore, because dividing the sacrament contradicts Christ’s institution, the customary procession with the sacrament has also been discontinued.!*!

[XXIIL.] Concerning the Marriage of Priests From everyone, both of high and low degree, a mighty, loud complaint has been heard throughout the world about the flagrant immorality and dissolute life of priests who were not able to remain chaste; their vices reached the height of abomination. In order to avoid so much terrible offense, adultery, and other immorality, some priests among us have entered the married state. They give as their reason that they are compelled and moved to do so by the great distress of their consciences, especially since Scripture clearly proclaims that the married state was instituted by God to avoid sexual immorality, as Paul says that to avoid immorality, “Each man should have his own wife” [1 Cor. 7:2], and again, “For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” [1 Cor. 7:9b]. When Christ says, in Matthew 19[:11], “Not everyone can accept this teaching,” he shows that he knew human nature quite well, namely, that few people have the gift to live a celibate life. For “God created humankind . . . male and female” (Gen. 1[:27]). Experience has made it all too clear whether human power and

ability can improve or change the creation of God, the supreme Majesty, through their own intentions or vows without a special gift or grace of God. What good, honorable, chaste life, what Christian, honest, or upright existence has resulted for many? For it is clear—as many have confessed about their own lives—how much abominable, terrifying disturbance and torment of conscience they experienced at the time of their death. Therefore, because God’s Word and command cannot be changed by any human vow or law, priests and other clergy have taken wives for themselves for these and other reasons and causes. 129. Gratian, Decretum, pt. 111, Concerning Consecration (de consecratione), dist. 2, chap. 12. This collection of canon law was falsely ascribed to Pope Gelasius I. Gratian collected and edited church regulations, which since 1582 have been known as the Code of Canon Law (Corpus Juris Canonici).

130. Nicholas of Cusa, Epistle III to the Bohemians, shows that the Fourth Lateran Council in

1215 ordered the withdrawal of the cup from the laity. 131. A reference to the observance of the Corpus Christi festival on the Thursday following Trinity Sunday. Lutheran princes refused to participate in the Corpus Christi procession in Augsburg on 16 June 1530. Even “carrying the sacrament across the street” was later forbidden. However, see LW 54:407f. (WATR 5, no. 5314).

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXIII: Priests

63

be divided (dist. 2, Concerning Consecration, chap., “We Discover”). Only a quite recent custom holds otherwise. However, it is evident that a custom, introduced contrary to the commands of God, must not be approved, as the canons testify (dist. 8, chap., “Concerning the Truth,”!*? and the subsequent chapters). In fact, this custom has been accepted not only in defiance of Scripture but also in opposition to the ancient canons and the example of the

church. Accordingly, if persons preferred to use both kinds in the sacrament, they should not have been compelled with offense to their conscience to do otherwise. Because dividing the sacrament does not agree with the institution of Christ, the procession, which has been customary up to now, is also omitted among us.

11

12

[XXIII.] Concerning the Marriage of Priests

sible to change creation without a singular gift and work of God. Accordingly, those who are not suited for celibacy should marry. For no human law or vow can nullify a command and institution of God. For these reasons our priests teach that it is lawful for them to have wives.

132. De veritate, in Gratian, Decretum I, dist. 8, chap. 4.

O

created the human being for procreation (Gen. 1[:28]). It is not humanly pos-

00N O\

There has been a public outcry concerning the bad examples of priests who have not been continent. On this account Pope Pius is reported to have said that there were some reasons why marriage was taken away from the priests, but that there are much weightier reasons why it should be given back to them. For so writes Platina. Since, then, the priests among us wanted to avoid such public scandals, they took wives and taught that it was lawful for them to marry for the following reasons. In the first place, Paul says [1 Cor. 7:2, 9b]: “But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife,” and again: “For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” In the second place, Christ says [Matt. 19:11], “Not everyone can accept this teaching,” where he is teaching that not everyone is fit for celibacy, because God

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXIII: Priests

64 10

11 12

13

It can also be demonstrated from the historical accounts and from the writings of the Fathers that it was customary in the Christian church of ancient times for priests and deacons to have wives. This is why Paul says in 1 Timothy 3[:2]: “Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife.”!** It was only four hundred years ago that priests in Germany were compelled by force to leave the married state and take the vows of celibacy.!** But they all offered so much serious and strong resistance that an archbishop of Mainz, who had promulgated the new papal decree, was nearly crushed to death during an uprising of the entire clergy.!* In the beginning, this same prohibition was so hastily and ineptly enforced that the pope at the time prohibited not only future marriages of priests but also broke up existing marriages of long

standing. Of course, this was not only contrary to all divine, natural, and civil Jaws but also was totally opposed and contrary to the canons that the popes themselves had made and to the most renowned councils.!% Many godly and intelligent people of high standing have also often expressed similar opinions and misgivings that such enforced celibacy and prohibition of marriage (which God himself instituted and left open for individuals to enter) never introduced any good but rather many great and evil vices and much scandal. Moreover, as his biography indicates, one of the popes himself, Pius II, often said and had these words recorded: there may well have

14

been some reason why the clergy was prohibited from marrying; but there were many better, greater, and more important reasons why they should again be free to marry.!¥” Undoubtedly, Pope Pius, as an intelligent and wise man, made this statement because of grave misgivings. Therefore, in loyalty to Your Imperial Majesty we are confident that, as a most praiseworthy Christian emperor, Your Majesty will graciously take to heart the fact that now in these last times and days of which Scripture speaks, the world is becoming more wicked and human beings more frail and infirm. Therefore it is most necessary, useful, and Christian to give this situation thorough inspection, so that the prohibition of marriage may not cause worse [}

133. Here citing the alternative reading in the NRSV, which corresponds to the German and

Latin texts.

134. Originally, priests were not permitted to marry a second time; then they could not marry after their priestly vows; and since the fourth century they had to refrain from marital relations altogether. However, it was not until the end of the eleventh century that the requirement of celibacy was generally enforced by Pope Gregory VII. At that time most priests in Germany were still married. 135. Siegfried of Mainz at synods in Erfurt and Mainz in 1075. 136. Gratian, Decretum 1, dist. 82, chaps. 2-5; also dist. 84, chap. 4. The Council of Nicea in 325 refused to require celibacy. See Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History I, 11 (MPG 67:101-4;

NPNF, ser. 2, 2:18).

137. Pope Pius II is reported to have said this, according to the Italian humanist historian Bartholomeo Platina, Concerning the Lives and Customs of the Popes (De vitis ac gestis pontificum) (Venice, 1518), 155b.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXIII: Priests

65

It is also evident that priests in the ancient church were married. For Paul says [1 Tim. 3:2] that a married man should be chosen to be bishop. Not until four hundred years ago were priests in Germany compelled to be celibate. In fact, they were so opposed to it that the archbishop of Mainz was almost crushed to death by angry priests in an uprising when he was about to publish the edict of the Roman pontiff on this matter. The matter was handled in such an uncivil manner that not only were future marriages prohibited but existing marriages were also dissolved, even though this was contrary to all laws, divine and human, and even to the canons made by popes and the most celebrated councils. Inasmuch as the world is growing old and human nature has become weaker, it is fitting to exercise foresight so that no more vices creep into Germany.

10—11 12

13

14

66

15

16

17

18

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXIII: Priests

and more shameful immorality and vices to gain ground in German lands. For no one will ever be able to change or arrange these matters better or more wisely than God himself, who instituted marriage to help human frailty and to prevent sexual immorality. The old canons also state that sometimes severity and rigor must be alleviated and relaxed for the sake of human weakness and to prevent and avoid greater scandal.!3® Now that certainly would be Christian and highly necessary in this case. How can the marriage of priests and clergy, especially of the pastors and others who are to serve the church, be disadvantageous to the Christian church as a whole? There may well be a shortage of priests and pastors in the future if this harsh prohibition of marriage should last much longer. Thus, that priests and clergy may marry is based on the divine Word and command.

Moreover, the historical accounts demonstrate that priests were

married and that the vow of celibacy has caused so much awful, unchristian offense, so much adultery, such terrible, unprecedented immorality and abom-

19 20 21

22

23

24 25

inable vice that even some of the sincere cathedral clergy and also some courtiers in Rome have often confessed and complained how such abominable and overwhelming vice in the clergy would arouse the wrath of God. It is, therefore, quite deplorable that Christian marriage has not only been prohibited but also most swiftly punished in many places, as if it were a great crime. And yet, God commanded in Holy Scripture to hold marriage in high esteem.!3® Moreover, the marital state is also highly praised in imperial laws and in all monarchies—wherever there has been law and justice. Only in this day and age are people beginning to be tortured without cause, simply because they are married—especially priests who above all should be spared. This is done not only contrary to divine law but also to the canons. In 1 Timothy 4[:1, 3] the apostle Paul calls the teaching that prohibits marriage a teaching of the devil. Christ himself says in John 8[:44] that the devil is a murderer from the beginning. These two statements fit well together. For it certainly must be a teaching of the devil to prohibit marriage and then to dare to maintain such a teaching with the shedding of blood. However, just as no human law can abolish or change God’s command, neither can any vow change God’s command. That is why St. Cyprian advised that women who do not keep the vow of chastity should get married. He says in Epistle 11: “But if they are unwilling or unable to keep their vows of chastity it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire through their lusts, and they should see to it that they cause no offense to their brothers and sisters.”'4’

138. Gratian, Decretum 1, dist. 34, chap. 7; pt. II, chap. 1, 9.7, ¢. 5.

139. This sentence is lacking in the 1580 Book of Concord.

140. Cyprian, Epistle 62.2 (ANF 5:357, where it is numbered 61). The text uses the numbering

of Cyprian’s letters by the humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam. Other editions number it 4 (cf. MPL 4:366f. and CSEL 3/2: 474, 17-21).

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXIII: Priests

67

Moreover, God instituted marriage to be a remedy against human infirmity. The canons themselves state that the old rigor should occasionally be relaxed on account of human weakness—which is most desirable to have happen in this case. It seems that the churches will soon be short of pastors if marriage is forbidden for too long a time. But the command of God still exists, the custom of the church is well known, and impure celibacy produces many scandals, adulteries, and other crimes deserving punishment by good magistrates. Despite all that, it is astonishing that such ferocious opposition to the marriage of priests still exists. God has commanded that marriage be held in honor. The laws in all well-ordered nations, even among the heathen, have adorned marriage with highest honors. But now, contrary to the intention of the canons, capital punishment is cruel-

ly imposed—on priests no lessl—for no other reason than marriage. Paul calls the prohibition of marriage a teaching of demons (1 Tim. [4:1, 3]). This can easily be understood, now that the prohibition of marriage is defended by such punishments. However, just as no human law can nullify a command of God, so no vow

can do so. Consequently, Cyprian advised that women who could not keep the

promise of chastity should marry. These are his words (Book I of Epistle II): “But if they are unwilling or unable to persevere, it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire through their lusts; they certainly should not give offense to their brothers and sisters.” The canons even exercise a measure of fairness toward those who made

vows before attaining the proper age, as has been customary to do until now.

15 16

17 18

19 20

21 22 23

24 25

26

68 26

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXIV: Mass

In addition, all the canons show great lenience and fairness toward those who have made vows in their youth,!! as is the case with large numbers of priests and monks who entered their vocations out of ignorance when they were young.

[XXIV.] Concerning the Mass L,9

10

12

13 21

22

Our people have been unjustly accused of having abolished the Mass.!** But it is obvious, without boasting, that the Mass is celebrated among us with greater devotion and earnestness than among our opponents. The people are instructed more regularly and with the greatest diligence concerning the holy sacrament, to what purpose it was instituted, and how it is to be used, namely, as a comfort to terrified consciences. In this way, the people are drawn to Communion and to the Mass. At the same time, they are also instructed about other, false teaching concerning the sacrament.!*> Moreover, no noticeable changes have been made in the public celebration of the Mass, except that in certain places German hymns are sung alongside the Latin responses for the instruction and exercise of the people. For after all, all ceremonies should serve the purpose of teaching the people what they need to know about Christ. Now, because previously the Mass was misused in many ways (as has come to light) by turning it into a fair, by buying and selling it, and, for the most part, by celebrating it in all churches for money, such misuse was repeatedly rebuked by learned and upright people—even before our time.'** Now the preachers among us preached about this, and the priests were reminded of the terrible responsibility, which should properly concern every Christian, that whoever uses the sacrament unworthily is “answerable for the body and blood” of Christ [1 Cor. 11:27]. Consequently, such mercenary Masses and private Masses,!*® which had up to now been celebrated under compulsion for the sake of money and stipends, were discontinued in our churches. At the same time, an abominable error was also rebuked, namely, the teaching that our Lord Jesus Christ had made satisfaction by his death only for original sin and had instituted the Mass as a sacrifice for other sins. Thus, the Mass was made into a sacrifice for the living and the dead for the purpose of taking

141. Gratian, Decretum 11, chap. 20, q. 1,¢. 5,7, 9, 10, 14, 15. 142. For example, by John Eck, 404 Theses, nos. 269-78. Luther retained the Mass, but with-

out abuses. See, for example, Concerning the Order of Public Worship (1523) (WA 12:35-37; LW 53:11-14) and The German Mass and Order of Service (1526) (WA 19:72-113; LW 53:53-90).

143. As an example of such instruction, see the Large Catechism, “The Lord’s Supper,” based on sermons by Luther delivered during Holy Week, 1529.

144. By various critics, such as Nicholas of Cusa, the German Dominican mystic John Tauler,

the French conciliarist John Gerson, and the influential German theologian Gabriel Biel. 145. Masses said for the special intentions of individuals, often called “votive Masses,” which were celebrated in connection with a vow (votum in Latin). Compare Luther’s Exhortation to All Clergy Assembled at Augsburg (1530) (WA 30/2: 293-309; LW 34:22-32).

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXIV: Mass

69

[XXIV.] Concerning the Mass Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. In fact, the Mass is retained among us and is celebrated with the greatest reverence. Almost all the customary ceremonies are also retained, except that German hymns, added for the instruction of the people, are interspersed here and there among the

Latin ones. For ceremonies are especially needed in order to teach those who are ignorant. Paul advised [1 Cor. 14:2, 9] that in church a language that is understood by the people should be used. The people have grown accustomed to receiving the sacrament together—all who are fit to do so. This also increases reverence and respect for public ceremonies. For people are admitted only if they first had an opportunity to be examined and heard. The people are also reminded about the dignity and use of the sacrament—how it offers great consolation to anxious consciences—so that they may learn to believe in God and expect and ask for all that is good from God. Such worship pleases God, and such use of the sacrament cultivates piety toward God. So it does not appear that the Mass is held with greater devotion among our adversaries than among us. However, for a long time there has been a serious public outcry by good people that Masses were being shamefully profaned and devoted to profit. It is public knowledge how widely this abuse extends in all places of worship, what kind of people celebrate Masses only for a revenue or stipend, and how many celebrate contrary to the canons’ prohibitions. But Paul severely threatens those who treat the Eucharist unworthily, when he says [1 Cor. 11:27]: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord” Accordingly, when the priests among us were instructed concerning this sin, private Masses were discontinued among us, since there were hardly any private Masses held except for the sake of profit. Nor were bishops ignorant of these abuses. If they had corrected them in time there would be less dissension now. By their negligence many vices have been allowed to creep into the church. Now, when it is too late, they are beginning to complain about the calamities in the church, although this tumult was occasioned by those same abuses which had become so obvious they could no longer be tolerated. Great dissensions have arisen concerning the Mass, concerning the sacrament: perhaps the world is being punished for such an enduring profanation of Masses as has been tolerated in the church for many centuries by the very people who could and should have corrected them. For it is written in the Decalogue [Exod. 20:7]: “The Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.” Since the beginning of the world no divine matter seems ever to have been so devoted to profit as the Mass. The following view increased private Masses without end: Christ had by his passion made satisfaction for original sin and had instituted the Mass in which an offering might be made for daily sins, mortal and venial. From this came the

11

12

13 14 15 16

17 18

19 20

21

22

70 23

24 25 26

28

29

30

34

35 39 36 37 38

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXIV: Mass

away sin and appeasing God. Thereupon followed a debate as to whether one Mass celebrated for many people merited as much as a special Mass celebrated for an individual. This resulted in the countless multiplication of Masses, and with this work people wanted to obtain from God everything they needed. Meanwhile, faith in Christ and true worship of God were forgotten. That is why instruction was given, clearly of necessity, so that everyone would know how to use the sacrament properly. In the first place, Scripture demonstrates in many places that there is no other sacrifice for original sin or any other sin than the one death of Christ. For it is written in Hebrews [9:28;

10:10, 14] that Christ offered himself once and thereby made satisfaction for all sins. It is an unprecedented novelty in church doctrine that Christ’s death should have made satisfaction only for original sin and not for other sins as well. Consequently, we hope everyone understands that such error is not unjustly rebuked.146 In the second place, St. Paul teaches that we obtain grace before God through faith and not through works. Clearly contrary to this is the misuse of the Mass where people imagine that they may obtain grace through performing this work. For everyone knows that the Mass is used for removing sin and obtaining grace and all benefits from God—not only for the priest himself but also for the whole world and for others, living or dead. And this takes place through performing the work, ex opere operato, without faith.'%’ In the third place, the holy sacrament was not instituted to provide a sacrifice for sin—for the sacrifice has already occurred—but to awaken our faith and comfort our consciences. The sacrament makes them aware that they are promised grace and forgiveness of sin by Christ. That is why this sacrament requires faith and without faith is used in vain. Now since the Mass is not a sacrifice for others, living or dead, to take away their sins but should be a Communion where the priest and others receive the sacrament for themselves, we celebrate it in this fashion. On holy days and at other times when communicants are present, Mass is celebrated, and those who desire it receive the sacrament. Thus, the Mass remains among us in its proper use, as it was observed formerly in the church. This can be demonstrated from St. Paul (1 Cor. 11[:23-33]) and from many writings of the Fathers. For

Chrysostom tells how the priest stands every day and invites some to receive the sacrament, but forbids others to approach.!#® The ancient canons also indicate that one priest officiated and gave the sacrament to the other priests and deacons. For the words of the Nicene canon read: “After the priests, the deacons shall receive the sacrament from the bishop or priest in order.”1%

146. “It is an . . . rebuked”: lacking in the 1531 editio princeps. 147. The text in italics was first added to the 1531 editio princeps. For the phrase ex opere operato, see above, n. 75. 148. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 3 (MPG 62:29; NPNF, ser. 1, 13:64).

149. Canon 18 of the Council of Nicea in 325.

71

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXIV: Mass

common opinion that the Mass is a work which ex opere operato'>® blots out the sins of the living and the dead. Here began a debate on whether one Mass said for many is worth as much as special Masses for individuals. That debate produced this endless multitude of Masses. Our people have warned that these opinions do not agree with the Holy Scriptures but instead undermine the glory of Christ’s passion. For the passion of Christ was an offering and satisfaction not only for original guilt but for all other remaining sins, as is written in Hebrews [10:10, 14]: “We have been sanc-

tified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all,” and, “By a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” Likewise, Scripture teaches that we are justified before God through faith in Christ. Now if the Mass blots out the sins of the living and the dead ex opere operato,'>! justification comes

which Scripture does not allow. But Christ commands

from the work of the Mass, not from faith,

that it be done in memory of him.!>? The Mass,

therefore, was instituted so that the faith of those who use the sacrament should recall what benefits are received through Christ and should encourage and console the anxious conscience. For to remember Christ is to remember his benefits and realize that they are truly offered to us.!>® It is not enough to remember the history, because the Jews and the ungodly can also remember that. The Mass is to be used for the purpose of offering the sacrament to those who need consolation, just as Ambrose says: “Because I always sin, I ought always to take the medicine”'% Since the Mass is such an imparting of the sacrament, among us one common Mass is held on every holy day, and it is also administered on other days if there are those who desire it. Nor is this custom new in the church. For the ancient teachers before the time of Gregory'>> do not mention private Masses, but often speak of the common Mass. Chrysostom says that the priest stands daily at the altar, inviting some to Communion and keeping others away. And it is apparent from the ancient canons that one person celebrated the Mass, from whom the rest of the presbyters and deacons received the body of Christ. For the words of the Nicene canon read: “Let the deacons receive Holy Communion in order after the presbyters from the bishop or from a presbyter.” Concerning Communion Paul also commands [1 Cor. 11:33] that people should wait for one another so that there may be a common participation.

150. By the mere performance of an act. See CA XIII, n. 75.

151. By the mere performance of an act. See CA XIII, n. 75. 152. 1 Corinthians 11:25.

153. An oft-used concept of Melanchthon. See his Loci 1521, p. 21f. 154. Ambrose,

73:58, 12).

Concerning

155. Pope Gregory L.

the Sacraments

(De sacramentis) V, 4, 25 (MPL

16:464;

CSEL

23

24 25

26

27 28

29

30

31 32

33

34 35 36

37

38 39

72

40

41

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXV: Confession

No novelty has been introduced that did not exist in the church in days of old. No noticeable change has occurred in the public liturgy of the Mass, except that other, unnecessary Masses, which perhaps through misuse were celebrated besides the parish Mass, have been discontinued. Therefore this way of celebrating Mass should, in all fairness, not be condemned as heretical or unchristian. For in former times, Mass was not celebrated every day in the large churches where there were many people, even on days the people assembled. As the Tripartite History, Book 9, indicates, in Alexandria Scripture was read and interpreted on Wednesday and Friday, and all these worship services were held without the Mass.!>¢

[XXV.] Concerning Confession Confession has not been abolished by the preachers on our side. For the custom has been retained among us of not administering the sacrament to those who have not previously been examined and absolved. At the same time, the people are diligently instructed how comforting the word of absolution is and

how highly and dearly absolution is to be esteemed.!>” For it is not the voice or word of the person speaking it, but it is the Word of God, who forgives sin. For it is spoken in God’s stead and by God’s command. Great diligence is used to teach about this command and power of the keys, and how comforting and

necessary it is for terrified consciences. It is also taught how God requires us to believe this absolution as much as if it were God’s voice resounding from heaven and that we should joyfully find comfort in the absolution, knowing that through such faith we obtain forgiveness of sin. In former times, the preachers, while teaching much about confession, never mentioned a single word about these necessary matters but instead only tormented consciences with long enumerations of sins, with satisfactions, with indulgences, with pilgrimages, and the like. Moreover, many of our opponents themselves confess that our side has written about and dealt with true Christian repentance more appropriately than had been done in a long time.

Concerning confession, it is taught that no one should be compelled to enumerate sins in detail. For this is impossible, as the psalm [19:12] says: “But

who can detect their errors?” And Jeremiah [17:9] says: “The human heart is so devious that no one can understand it.”158 Miserable human nature is so mired in sins that it cannot see or know them all. If we were absolved only from those

156. Historia tripartita, written by the Roman monk Cassiodorus, was the principal book of church history used in the late Middle Ages, and it quotes here from Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History V, 22 (MPG 67:635—40; NPNF, ser. 2, 2:132). 157. On requiring confession, see Luther, An Order of Mass and Communion (1523) (WA 12:215, 18-216, 19; LW 53:32f.), and Instructions for the Visitors (1528) (WA 26:220, 1-19; LW 40:296). On the comfort of absolution, see the Large Catechism, “A Brief Exhortation to Confession,” 16-19.

158. A paraphrase based on the Latin Vulgate. For this argument see also CA XI.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXV: Confession

73

Since, therefore, the Mass as we conduct it has on its side the example of the church, from Scripture and the Fathers, we are confident that it cannot be disapproved, especially since the customary public ceremonies are for the most part retained. Only the number of Masses is different, and on account of the

great and manifest abuses it would certainly be good to limit them. For in former times Mass was not celebrated every day, even in churches frequented most, as the Tripartite History, Book IX, testifies: “But again, in Alexandria, Scriptures are read on Wednesday and Friday and the teachers interpret them, and everything is done except the solemn practice of the Offering.”!>’

[XXV.] Concerning Confession Confession has not been abolished in our churches. For it is not customary to administer the body of Christ except to those who have been previously examined and absolved. The people are also most diligently taught concerning faith in the word of absolution, about which there was a great silence before now. People are taught to make the most of absolution because it is the voice of God and is pronounced following the command of God. The power of the keys is praised and remembered for bringing such great consolation to terrified consciences, both because God requires faith so that we believe such absolution as

God’s own voice resounding from heaven and because this faith truly obtains and receives the forgiveness of sins. In former times, satisfactions were immoderately extolled; nothing was mentioned about faith, the merits of Christ, or the righteousness of faith. On this point our churches can scarcely be faulted. For even our adversaries are compelled to grant us that the teaching concerning confession has been most carefully treated and brought to light by our people. What is more, they teach concerning confession that an enumeration of faults is not necessary and that consciences should not be burdened with the anxiety of having to enumerate all their faults. For it is impossible to recite every misdeed, as the psalm [19:12] testifies: “Who can detect their errors?”

And Jeremiah [17:9]: “The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse.” But if

no sins were forgiven except those which are recounted aloud, consciences

159. oblatio. Here used as a technical term for the Lord’s Supper.

40

41

74 10 11

12

13

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XX VI: Foods

sins that we can enumerate, we would be helped but little. That is why it is not necessary to compel people to enumerate sins in detail. This was also the view of the Fathers, as one finds it in dist. 1 of Concerning Confession!®® where these words of Chrysostom are quoted: “I do not say that you should offer yourself up in public, or accuse yourself, or plead guilty before another person. Instead obey the prophet who says, ‘Reveal your way to the Lord’ [Ps. 37:5, Vulgate]. Therefore confess to the Lord God, the true judge, in your prayer. Do not speak your sin with the tongue, but in your conscience.” Here one can clearly see that Chrysostom does not force anyone to enumerate sins in detail. The marginal note in the Decretum, Concerning Confession, dist. 5,151 also teaches that confession is not commanded in Scripture but was instituted by the church. Nevertheless, the preachers on our side diligently teach that confession is to be retained because of absolution (which is confession’s principal and foremost part) for the comfort of terrified consciences and because of other reasons.!¢2

[XXVI.] Concerning the Distinction among Foods In former times it was taught, preached, and written that distinction among foods and similar traditions instituted by human beings serve to earn grace and make satisfaction for sin.!®3 For this reason, new fasts, new ceremonies, new monastic orders, and the like were invented daily. They were fervently and strictly promoted, as if such things were a necessary service of God whereby people earned grace if they observed them or committed a great sin if they did not. Many harmful errors in the church have resulted from this. In the first place, the grace of Christ and the teaching concerning faith are thereby obscured. The gospel holds these things up to us with great earnestness and strongly insists that everyone regard the merit of Christ as sublime and precious and know that faith in Christ is to be esteemed far above all works. For this reason,

St. Paul

fought

vehemently

against the Law

of Moses

and

against human tradition so that we should learn that we do not become righteous before God by our works but that it is only through faith in Christ that we obtain grace for Christ’s sake. Such teaching has been almost completely extinguished by the instruction to earn grace with prescribed fasts, distinction among foods, dress, etc.

160. Gratian, Decretum 11, chap. 33, q. 3 (De poenitentia, dist. 1, chap. 87, 4). The quotation is from Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews, Homily 31.6 (MPG 63:216; NPNF, ser. 1, 14:508).

161. A gloss to Gratian, Decretum, De poenitentia 5, 1. It reads: “It is better to say that it [confession] was instituted by some tradition of the universal church than from the authority of the Old or New Testament.” 162. See, for example, the appreciation of private confession by Luther, Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:507, 17-27; LW 37:368-69).

163. For example, Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 11, 2, q. 147, a. 1. “Fasting is practiced for three principal reasons: first, to restrain the concupiscence of the flesh ..., second . . ., because through it the mind is more easily elevated to the contemplation of sublime things . . ., third, to make satisfaction for sin.” (Thomas’s Summa hereafter cited as STh.)

'

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVI: Foods

75

could never find peace, because many sins cannot be seen or remembered. The ancient writers also testify that such enumeration is not necessary. For Chrysostom is quoted in the canons as saying: “I do not say that you should appear in public or should accuse yourself before others. But I want you to obey the prophet who says [Ps. 37:5, Vulgate], ‘Reveal your way before the Lord. Therefore, confess your sins to God, the true judge, with prayer. Declare your sins not with the tongue but with the memory of your conscience.” The marginal note in Concerning Confession (dist. 5, chap., “Consider”) admits that confession is a matter of human law. Nevertheless, confession is retained among us both because of the great benefit of absolution and because of other advantages for consciences.

[XXVI.] Concerning the Distinction of Foods It has been a general conviction, not only of the people but also of those who teach in the churches, that distinction of foods and similar human traditions are useful works for meriting grace and making satisfaction for sins. That the world thought so is evident from the fact that daily new ceremonies, new ordinances, new holy days, and new fasts were instituted and that the teachers in places of worship exacted these works as necessary worship for meriting grace and viciously terrified consciences if people omitted any of them. Much misfortune has ensued in the church from this conviction concerning traditions. In the first place,it has obscured the teaching concerning grace and the righteousness of faith, which is the chief part of the gospel and which ought to be present and prominent in the church so that the merit of Christ is wellknown and that faith, which believes in the forgiveness of sins on account of Christ, may be exalted far above works and other acts of worship. That is why Paul puts the greatest weight on this article and removes the law and human traditions to show that Christian righteousness is something other than works of this kind. Christian righteousness is faith that believes we are received into grace on account of Christ. This teaching of Paul has been almost completely smothered by traditions, which have given rise to the opinion that grace and righteousness are supposed to be merited through distinctions of food and similar acts of worship. No mention of faith was made in the practice of repentance;'%4 only these works of satisfaction were proposed. The whole of repentance was thought to consist of them.

164. poenitentia. See CA XII, n. 65.

10 11

12

13

76

10

11

12

13

14 15

16—17

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXVI: Foods

In the second place, such traditions have also obscured God’s commands. For these traditions are placed far above God’s commands. This alone was considered the Christian life: whoever observed festivals this way, prayed in this way, fasted in this way, and was dressed in this way was said to live a spiritual, Christian life. On the other hand, other necessary good works were considered secular, unspiritual ways of life: that each person is obliged to act according to his or her calling—for example, that the father of a family works to support his wife and children and raises them in the fear of God; that the mother of a family bears children and looks after them; that a prince or rulers govern a country; etc. Such works, commanded by God, had to be a “secular and imperfect” way of life, while the traditions had to have impressive names, so that only they were called “holy and perfect” works.!> That is why there was no end or limit in the making of such traditions. In the third place, such traditions turned out to be a heavy burden to consciences. For it was not possible to keep all the traditions, and yet people thought that keeping them was required for true service to God. Gerson writes!66 that many fell into despair doing this. Some even committed suicide because they had heard nothing about the comfort of Christ’s grace. For reading the summists'®” and theologians discloses how consciences became confused when these people tried to collate the traditions and sought fairness!®® in order to help consciences. They were so occupied with such efforts that in the meantime they ignored all wholesome Christian teaching concerning more important matters, such as faith, comfort in spiritual trials,’®® and the like. Many upright and learned people before our time have also complained a lot about the fact that such traditions cause much quarreling in the church and thereby prevent devout people from coming to a right understanding of Christ. Gerson and others complained bitterly about this. In fact, Augustine also was displeased that consciences were burdened with so many traditions. That is why in this connection he gives instruction that no one should regard them as necessary.!7 Consequently, our people have not taught about these matters out of malice or contempt toward ecclesiastical authority. But dire need has necessitated instruction about the above-mentioned matters, which have arisen from a misunderstanding of tradition. For the gospel demands that in the church one

165. Scholastic theologians argued that monks, friars, and bishops lived in status perfectionis.

See, for example, Thomas Aquinas, STh II, 2, q. 184, a. 5.

166. John Gerson, Concerning the Spiritual Life (De vita spirituali animae), lectio 2. 167. Authors of collections of cases of conscience, written to instruct confessors, often entitled

Summa summaruin.

168. 1580 Book of Concord: epieikeia. Often left untranslated, this Stoic term was used by reformers to mean equity, balance, or mitigation, especially with laws or social norms. 169. hohe Anfechtungen. 170. Augustine, Epistle 54 to Januarius, I1.2

(CSEL 34:160, 9ff.; NPNF, ser. 1, 1:300).

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVI: Foods

77

In the second place, these traditions obscured the precepts of God because traditions were preferred far more than the precepts of God. All Christianity

was thought to consist of the observance of certain holy days, rites, fasts, and

vestments. These observances possessed the most distinguished titles because they were the “spiritual life” and the “perfect life.” Meanwhile the commands of God pertaining to one’s calling were not praised: that the head of the household should rear the children, that a mother should bear them, that a prince should govern his country. These were considered as “worldly” and “imperfect”

works, far inferior to those splendid observances. This error greatly tormented

pious consciences. They grieved that they were bound to an imperfect kind of life: in marriage, in government, or in other civil functions. They admired the monks and others like them and falsely imagined that the observances of such people were more pleasing to God. In the third place, traditions brought great dangers to consciences because it was impossible to keep them all, and yet people judged these observances to be necessary acts of worship. Gerson writes that many fell into despair, and some even took their own lives because they felt that they could not keep the traditions. Meanwhile, they never heard the consolation that comes from the righteousness of faith and from grace. We see that the summists and theologians collected the traditions, looking for a fair and gentle solution'”! for consciences. They did not altogether succeed; instead, in the process they entangled consciences even more. Schools'’? and sermons were so busy gathering traditions that they had no time even to mention Scripture or to look for more useful teachings concerning faith, the cross, hope, the dignity of civil affairs, and the consolation of consciences in adverse temptations. Hence Gerson and certain other theologians bitterly complained that they were so bogged down by these quarrels over traditions that they could not turn their attention to a better kind of teaching. Augustine also forbids burdening consciences with such observances and prudently reminds Januarius that these things must be observed as an indifferent matter; that is what he said. Our people, therefore, must not be viewed as having taken up this cause by chance or because they hate bishops, as some wrongly suspect. There was great need to warn the churches of those errors which had grown out of a misunderstanding of traditions. For the gospel compels us to insist in the church on the teaching concerning grace and the righteousness of faith, which can never be understood if human beings think that they merit grace by observances of their own choice.

171. epieikeia. 172. scholae: universities.

10

11

12

13

14 15 16

17

18

19 20

78

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXVI: Foods

should and must emphasize the teaching concerning faith. But this cannot be

understood if people imagine that grace is earned through self-chosen works. 21

22

23

24 25 27

28

29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36

37 38

Concerning this the following is taught. No one can earn grace, become reconciled with God, or make satisfaction for sin by observing the aforesaid human traditions. That is why they should not be made into a necessary serv-

ice of God. Reasons for this are cited from Scripture. In Matthew 15[:9] Christ

defends the apostles for not observing customary traditions, saying: “In vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.” Since he calls them “vain worship” they must not be necessary. Then soon thereafter he says: “It is not what goes into the mouth

that defiles a person”

[Matt.

15:11].

Likewise, Paul says in Romans 14[:17]: “For the kingdom of God is not food and drink,” and in Colossians 2[:16]: “Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing . . . sabbaths.” Peter says in Acts 15[:10-11]: “Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” Here Peter forbids the burdening of consciences with additional external ceremonies, whether from Moses or

others. In 1 Timothy 4[:1-3] such prohibitions as forbidding food, marriage, and the like are called teachings of the devil. For it is directly opposed to the gospel to institute or perform such works for the purpose of earning forgiveness of sin through them or to suppose that no one may be a Christian without such service. But the accusation that our people, like Jovinian,!”? prohibit mortification and discipline will not be found in their writings, which reveal something

quite different. For concerning the holy cross they have always taught that Christians are obliged to suffer, and that this is proper and real, not contrived, mortification. In addition, it is also taught that all are obliged to conduct themselves regarding bodily discipline, such as fasting and other work, in such a way as not to give occasion to sin, but not as if they earned grace by such works.!”* Such bodily discipline should not be limited only to specific days but should be maintained continually. Christ speaks about this in Luke 21{:34]: “Be on guard so that your hearts are not weighed down with dissipation,” and [Mark 9:29:]

“This kind [of demon] can come out only through prayer and fasting.”!”> Paul says that he punished his body and enslaved it [1 Cor. 9:27], indicating that 173. A Roman ascetic of the fourth century who opposed the monastic teaching about merits and the stages of ethical perfection. (In fact, he did not oppose “mortification and discipline,” as Jerome had contended in slanderous writings against him.) 174. See, for example, Luther, The Freedom of the Christian (1520) (WA 7:59, 24-60, 29; LW

31:358-59). The original text is in the singular. For.the word “grace” the 1531 editio princeps reads “forgiveness of sins or would be thereby pronounced righteous before God.” 175. Cited here according to the alternative reading in the NRSV, which corresponds to the German and Latin texts.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVI: Foods

79

So they teach that we cannot merit grace or make satisfaction for sins through the observance of human traditions. Hence observances of this kind are not to be thought of as necessary acts of worship. They add testimonies from Scripture. In Matthew 15[:1-20] Christ defends the apostles for not observing a customary tradition, despite the fact that it was considered a neutral matter!’6 and to have a connection with the purifications of the law. However, he says [Matt. 15:9]: “In vain do they worship me” with human precepts. So he does not require a useless act of worship. Shortly thereafter he says [Matt. 15:11]: “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person.”

Again, Romans 14[:17]: “For the kingdom of God is not food and drink.” Colossians 2[:16]: “Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of

food and drink or of observing festivals . . . or sabbaths.” Again [Col. 2:20-21]: “If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’?”177 Peter says in Acts 15[:10-11]: “Now

therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” Here Peter prohibits the burdening of consciences with additional rites, whether of Moses or others. And 1 Timothy 4[:1-3] calls the prohibition of food teachings of demons because to institute or perform such works

for the purpose

of meriting grace through

them

21

22

23 24 25 26

27

28

29

or to think that

Christian righteousness might not be able to exist without such acts of worship conflicts with the gospel. Here our adversaries charge that our people, like Jovinian, prohibit discipline and the mortification of the flesh. But something quite different may be detected in the writings of our people. For concerning the cross they have

always taught that Christians should endure afflictions. To be disciplined by

30

31 32

various afflictions and crucified with Christ is a true and serious, not a simulated, mortification.

In addition, they teach that all Christians should so train and restrain themselves with bodily discipline, or bodily exercises and labors, that neither overexertion nor idleness may lure them to sin. But they do not teach that we merit forgiveness of sins or make satisfaction for them through such exercises. Such bodily discipline should always be encouraged, not only on a few prescribed days. As Christ commands [Luke 21:34]: “Be on guard so that your hearts are not

weighed down with dissipation.” Again [Mark 9:29]: “This kind [of demon] can come out only through prayer and fasting.” And Paul says: “I punish my body

and enslave it” [1 Cor. 9:27]. Here he clearly shows that he punished his

176. media res: the Latin equivalent of adiaphora, things that can be done or omitted without harming the conscience. 177. The 1531 editio princeps and the 1580 and 1584 Latin versions of the Book of Concord add the words in italics.

33

34 35 36 37 38

80

39

40

41 42 43

44 45

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXVII: Vows

mortification should not serve the purpose of earning grace but of keeping the body in a condition that does not prevent performing the duties required by one’s calling. So fasting in itself is not rejected. Instead, we reject making it a required service with prescribed days and foods, for this confuses the consciences. Our side also retains many ceremonies and traditions, such as the order of the Mass and other singing, festivals, and the like, which serve to preserve order in the church. At the same time, however, the people are taught that such external worship of God does not make them righteous before God and that it is to be observed without burdening consciences, that is, no one sins by omitting it without causing offense. The ancient Fathers also maintained such liberty with respect to external ceremonies. For in the East the festival of Easter was celebrated at a date different from that in Rome.!”® When some wanted to divide the church over this difference, others admonished them that there was no need to have uniformity in such customs. As Irenaeus says: “Diversity in fasting does not dissolve unity in faith”!7® Furthermore, concerning such diversity in human ordinances, dist. 12 also states that they are not in conflict with the unity of Christendom.!®® The Tripartite History, Book 9, gathers many examples of diverse church customs and establishes a useful Christian saying: “It was not the intention of the apostles to institute festivals but to teach faith and love.”!8! [XXVII.] Concerning Monastic Vows In speaking of monastic vows, it is necessary, first of all, to consider how they

were viewed earlier, what kind of life there was in the monasteries, and how

much happened in them daily that was contrary not only to God’s Word but also to papal canons. For at the time of St. Augustine monastic vocations were voluntary. Later, when proper discipline and teaching became corrupted, monastic vows were contrived. With them, as in a prison of their own devising, people wanted to restore discipline.!®2

178. In Asia Minor, Easter was observed on the day of the Jewish Passover (Nisan 14), the day

of the full moon after the spring equinox. In the West, as in Palestine and Egypt, it was observed on the Sunday following.

179. In Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History V, 24, 13 (MPG 20:493-98; NPNF, ser. 2,

1:243). 180. Gratian, Decretum I, dist. 12, chap. 10.

181. Cassiodorus, Tripartite Ecclesiastical History IX, 38, quoting from Socrates Scholasticus,

Ecclesiastical History V, 22 (MPG 67:628; NPNF, ser. 2, 2:130).

182. Until the Benedictine rule gained ascendancy in the West in about the eighth century, there were a variety of monastic rules. Withdrawal from monastic life was originally allowable.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVII: Vows

81

body not to merit forgiveness of sins through such discipline but to keep the body under control and fit for spiritual things and to carry out his responsibilities according to his calling. Therefore, fasting itself is not condemned, but traditions that prescribe, with peril to conscience, certain days and foods, as if works of this kind were necessary acts of worship. Nevertheless, many traditions are kept among us, such as the order of readings in the Mass, holy days, etc., which are conducive to maintaining good order in the church. But at the same time, people are warned that such acts of worship do not justify before God and that no punishable sin is committed if they are omitted without offense. Such freedom in human rites was not unknown to the Fathers. For in the East, Easter was kept at a different time than in Rome, and when the Romans accused the East of schism because of this difference, they were admonished by others that such customs need not be alike everywhere. Irenaeus says, “Disagreement about fasting does not dissolve the unity in faith,” and Pope Gregory'83 indicates (dist. 12) that such diversity does not damage the unity of the church. In the Tripartite History, Book IX, many examples of dissimilar rites are collected, and this statement is made: “It was not the intention of the apostles to make decrees about festivals but to preach good conduct among people and godliness.” [XXVII.] Concerning Monastic Vows What is taught among us concerning monastic vows will be better understood if it is remembered what the condition of the monasteries was and how much was done every day in these monasteries that was contrary to the canons. In Augustine’s time they were voluntary associations. Afterward, wherever disci-

pline became corrupt, vows were added for the purpose of restoring discipline, as in a carefully planned prison. '

183. Perhaps from Pope Gregory 1, Letters, bk. 9, ep. 12 (MPL 77: 955-58; NPNF 13:8-9).

39 40 41 42 43

44 45

82

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXVII: Vows

In addition to monastic vows many other things were introduced, and a great number of bonds and burdens were laid on many even before they had attained an appropriate age.!4 Many persons also entered monastic life in ignorance. Although they were

not too young, they nevertheless did not sufficiently estimate and understand their capabilities. All of those who were entangled and ensnared in this way were forced and compelled to remain in such bondage, in spite of the fact that even papal canons would have set many of them free.!®> It was more difficult in nunneries than in monasteries, even though it would have been seemly to

spare the women as the weaker gender. Such rigor and severity also displeased

many devout people in former times. For they certainly noticed that both boys

and girls had been stuck away in monasteries for the sake of keeping them alive. They certainly also noticed how badly this arrangement turned out and what offense and burdening of consciences it caused. Many people complained 10

12

13

14 15

that the canons were not respected at all. In addition, monastic vows have such

a reputation that even many monks with little understanding were clearly displeased. It was pretended that monastic vows would be equal to baptism, and that through monastic life one could earn forgiveness of sin and justification before God.18¢ Indeed, they added that one earns through monastic life not only righteousness and innocence, but also that through it one keeps the commands and counsels written in the gospel.!8” In this way monastic vows were praised more highly than baptism. It was also said that one could obtain more merit through the monastic life than through all other walks of life, which had been ordered by God, such as the office of pastor or preacher, the office of ruler, prince, lord, and the like. (These all serve in their vocations according to God’s command, Word, and mandate without any contrived spiritual status.) None of these things can be denied, for one can find them in their own books.

Furthermore, whoever was so ensnared and ended up in the monastery learned little about Christ. At one time there were schools of Holy Scripture and other disciplines useful for the Christian church in the monasteries, so 184. The dedication of children to monastic life by their parents was common in the Middle Ages and allowed by canon law. 185. See above, n. 142.

186. The comparison of monastic profession and baptism was common in the Middle Ages. See, for example, Thomas Aquinas, STh II, 2, q. 189, a. 3 ad 3. “It may reasonably be said that through entering a religious order a person attains remission of all sins . . . wherefore it is read in the Lives of the Fathers that those entering a religious order attained the same grace as the baptized.” 187. Medieval theologians, following a development that can be traced back to Tertullian, distinguished between “precepts of the gospel,” which must be observed for salvation, and “counsels of the gospel,” which are not obligatory but enable one to attain salvation “better and more quickly” See, for example, Bonaventure, Brief Speech (Breviloquium) V, 9. Thomas Aquinas, STh 11, 1, q. 108, a. 4, states: “This is the difference between a counsel and a precept, that a precept implies necessity, but a counsel is left up to the choice of the one to whom it is given.”

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVII: Vows

Many

83

other observances were gradually added to the existing vows.

Moreover, these chains were put on many, contrary to the canons, before they

had reached legal age. Many entered this kind of life mistakenly, for even though they were old enough, they could not assess their own strengths. Those who were thus entangled were compelled to remain, even though some could

have been freed by appealing to the canons. This was more the case in the

monasteries of women than in those of men, although the weaker gender should have been the more spared. Such rigor displeased many good people before our time. They saw girls and boys thrust into monasteries for the sake of survival. They saw the unfortunate results of such an arrangement, what

scandals it created, and what snares were laid for consciences. They regretted that in this most perilous matter the authority of the canons was completely neglected and despised. To make matters worse, vows had such a reputation that it clearly displeased those monks of former times who were a little wiser. People said that vows were equal to baptism, and they taught that vows merited forgiveness of sins and justification before God through this kind of life. Indeed, they added that monastic life merited not only righteousness before

God

but

even

more:

that it kept

not

only precepts

but

11

12

also the

Evangelical counsels. In this way they were convinced that the monastic pro-

fession was far better than baptism and that the monastic life was more meri-

torious than the life of magistrates, pastors, and the like, who are subject to God’s commands in their callings without artificial religious observance. None of these things can be denied, for they appear in their books. What happened later on in the monasteries? In former times they were schools of Holy Scripture and of other subjects useful to the church; bishops and pastors were taken from there. Now everything is different, and it is unnec-

13

14 15

84

16

17

18

19 20

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XX VII: Vows

that pastors and bishops were taken from the monasteries. But now the picture is quite different. In former times, people adopted the monastic life in order to study Scripture. Now they pretend that the monastic life is of such a nature that through it a person may earn God’s grace and righteousness before God—indeed that it is a state of perfection, far above all other walks of life instituted by God.!88 All this is mentioned, without any disrespect intended, in order that everyone may better grasp and understand what and how our people teach and preach. In the first place, it is taught among us concerning those who are inclined to marry, that all those who are not suited for celibacy have the power, authority, and right to marry. For vows cannot annul God’s order and command. Now God’s command

reads (1 Cor. 7[:2]): “But because of cases of sexual

immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” Not only God’s command urges, compels, and insists upon this, but also God’s creation and order direct all to the state of marriage who are not blessed with the gift of virginity by a special work of God, according to God’s own Word (Gen. 2[:18]): “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make

22

23

24 25 26

27 28

him a helper as his partner.” What objections can be raised against this? People may praise the vow and obligation as highly as they want, but they still cannot force the abrogation of God’s command. The teachers say that vows made contrary to papal law are not even binding.!®® How much less should they be binding or have legal standing when they are contrary to God’s command! If there were no reasons for allowing the annulment of the binding vows, popes would also not have given dispensation and release from them. For no human being has the right to break an obligation derived from divine laws. That is why the popes were well aware that some balance should be used in regard to this obligation and have often given dispensation, as in the case of the king of Aragon!*° and many others. If, then, dispensations were granted for the maintenance of temporal interests, how much more fairly should dispensations be granted for the sake of the souls’ needs. Next, why do our opponents insist so strongly that vows must be kept without first ascertaining whether a vow has integrity? For in matters within human power a vow should not be forced but voluntary.!*! However, it is well known 188. For example, Thomas Aquinas, STh II, 2, q. 186, a. 1. The words Stand and Stinde are translated “state” and “walks of life,” respectively.

189. Gratian, Decretum 11, chap. 20, q. 4, c. 2, states that a vow made by a monk without the consent of his abbot is without effect.

190. Ramiro 11, a monk, was released from his vows after the death of his childless brother so

that he might assume the throne. The story is told by John Gerson, Concerning Gospel and the State of Perfection (De consiliis evangelicis et statu perfectionis), in 191. See Thomas Aquinas, STh II, 2, q. 88, a. 8. “A vow is a promise made to one can obligate himself or herself for something in the power of another, but his or her own power.”

the Counsels of the his Opera II, 678c. God. However, no only for what is in

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVII: Vows

85

essary to present an account of what is well known. In former times they were suitable places for learning. Now people pretend that this kind of life was instituted to merit grace and righteousness. Indeed, they proclaim that it is a state of perfection, and they greatly prefer it above all other kinds of life instituted by God. For this reason we have recounted these things, while exaggerating nothing out of malice, so that the teaching of our people concerning this matter may be better understood. In the first place,'®? concerning those who marry our people teach that this is lawful for all who are not fit for celibacy, because vows cannot abrogate the institution and command of God. Moreover, this is the command of God [1

Cor. 7:2]: “Because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife.” Not only God’s command, but also God’s creation and institution drive those into marriage who, apart from a special work of God, are not exempted according to Genesis 2[:18]: “It is not good that the man should be alone.” Consequently, those who comply with this command and institution of God do not sin. What objection can be raised to this? No matter how anyone exaggerates the obligation of a vow, it still cannot be made to abrogate the command of God. The canons teach that every vow is subject to the right of a superior. How much less valid are the vows that are contrary to the commands of God! Now if the obligation of vows could not be changed for any reasons, the Roman pontiffs would not have granted dispensations. For it is not lawful for a human being to repeal an obligation that is plainly a matter of divine right. However, the Roman pontiffs have prudently decided that such an obligation should be treated with fairness. That is why we read that they often granted dispensation from vows. Indeed, the story of the king of Aragon, who was recalled from a monastery, is well known, and there is no lack of examples in our time. Furthermore, why do our adversaries exaggerate the obligation or effect of a vow while remaining silent about the nature of this vow, which should be in the realm of possibility, voluntary, and chosen freely and deliberately? Yet it is

192. The second argument begins in par. 36.

16

17

18

19 20

21

22

23

24 25 26

27 28

86

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXVII: Vows

to what degree perpetual chastity lies within human 29

30

31

32 33

34

35

36

Moreover, there are few—men

or women—who

power

and ability.

have taken monastic vows on

their own, willingly and after due consideration. They were talked into taking monastic vows before they understood what was involved. At times, they were also forced and driven to do so. Accordingly, it is not right to argue so rashly and insistently about the obligation of vows, in view of the fact that everyone confesses it is against the nature and integrity of a vow to be taken by force, but rather it should be taken with good counsel and due consideration. Some canons and papal laws annul vows made under the age of fifteen years.1?? For they take into consideration that before this age a person does not have sufficient understanding to decide how possibly to determine or arrange an entire life. Another canon concedes still more years to human frailty, for it forbids taking monastic vows before the eighteenth year.!* This provides an excuse and reason for a great many to leave the monasteries. For a majority entered the monastery in childhood before attaining such age. Finally, even if the breaking of monastic vows might be censured, it could not be concluded from this that the marriage of those who broke them should be dissolved. For St. Augustine, cited in Marriage Matters (q. 27, chap. 1),!% says that such a marriage should not be dissolved. Now St. Augustine certainly does not have a low reputation in the Christian church, even though some have subsequently differed from him. Although God’s command concerning marriage frees and releases many from monastic vows, our people offer still more reasons why monastic vows are null and void. For all service of God instituted and chosen by human beings without God’s command and authority to obtain righteousness and God’s grace is contrary to God, the holy gospel, and God’s decree, as Christ himself says (Matt. 15[:9]): “In vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as

37

38

39 40

doctrines.” St. Paul also teaches everywhere that righteousness is not to be sought in our precepts and services of God contrived by human beings, but that righteousness and innocence before God come from faith and trust, when we believe that God receives us in grace for the sake of Christ, his only Son. Now it is quite evident the monks have taught and preached that their contrived spiritual status makes satisfaction for sin and obtains God’s grace and righteousness.! What is this but to diminish the glory and praise of the grace of Christ and to deny the righteousness of faith? It follows from this that the customary vows have been improper and false services of God. That is why they are also not binding. For a godless vow, made contrary to God’s com-

193. Gratian, Decretum 11, chap. 20, q. 1, c. 10. 194. Gratian, Decretum II, chap. 5.

195. Nuptiarum. Augustine, Concerning the Goodness of Widowhood (De bono viduitatis), chap. IX.12 (CSEL 41:317-18; NPNF, ser. 1, 3:445f.), cited in Gratian, Decretum Il, chap. 27, q. 1, c. 41. 196. See Thomas Aquinas, as cited above, n. 187.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVII: Vows

87

not known to what extent perpetual chastity is within human capability. How many have taken the vow voluntarily and deliberately? Girls and boys are persuaded—sometimes even compelled—to take the vow before they are able to judge. That is why it is not fair to debate so narrow-mindedly about obligation, when everyone concedes that it is contrary to the nature of the vow to make a promise that is neither voluntary nor deliberate.

Many canons annul vows contracted before the age of fifteen, because before such an age a person does not seem to have sufficient judgment concerning the rest of his or her life. Another canon, conceding more to human frailty, adds a few years, since it prohibits taking a vow before the age of eighteen. But whether we follow the one or the other, the overwhelming majority have an excuse to leave the monastery since many took vows before they reached such an age. Finally, even though the violation of the vow could perhaps be censured, still it does not seem to follow immediately that the marriages of such people ought to be dissolved. For Augustine (cited in c. 27, q. 1, chap., “Of Marriages”) denies that they should be dissolved. His authority is not inconsiderable, although others have subsequently differed from him. Moreover, although God’s command concerning marriage appears to free many from their vows, our people offer still another reason why vows may be invalid: every service of God instituted and chosen by human beings without the command of God,in order to merit justification and grace, is ungodly, just as Christ says [Matt. 15:9]: “In vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.” Paul also teaches everywhere that righteousness is not to be sought in our observances or acts of worship devised by human beings, but that it comes through faith to those who believe that they are received by God into grace on account of Christ.

However, very clearly the monks have taught that their humanly invented observances make satisfaction for sins and merit grace and justification. What is this but to detract from the glory of Christ and to obscure and deny the righteousness of faith? It follows, therefore, that such customary vows were ungodly acts of worship and are invalid for that reason. For an ungodly vow

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

88

41 42 43

44 45

46

47-48

49

50

51 52 53 54

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXVII: Vows

mand, is null and void, just as the canons also teach that an oath should not bind a person to sin.!’ : St. Paul says in Galatians 5[:4]: “You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace” Therefore, those who want to be justified by vows are also cut off from Christ and fall away from the grace of God. For they rob Christ, who alone justifies,” of his honor and give such honor to their vows and monastic life. No one can deny that the monks also taught and preached that they become righteous and earn forgiveness of sins through their vows and monastic life. In fact, they have contrived an even more useless and absurd claim, saying that they imparted their good works to others. Now if someone wanted to take all this to an extreme and bring accusation against them, how many items could be assembled that the monks themselves are now ashamed of and wish had never occurred! Besides all this, they persuaded the people that these humanly contrived spiritual orders were states of Christian perfection.!®® Surely this means to praise works as the means of becoming righteous. Now it is no small offense in the Christian church to present to the people a service of God, which human beings have contrived without God’s command, teaching that such service of God makes people innocent and righteous before God. For righteousness of faith, which ought to be emphasized most, is obscured when people are bedazzled with this strange angelic spirituality and false pretense of poverty, humility, and chastity.!® In addition, the commands

of God and proper, true service of God are

obscured when people hear that only monks must be in the state of perfection. For Christian perfection is to fear God earnestly with the whole heart and yet also to have a sincere confidence, faith, and trust that we have a gracious, merciful God because of Christ; that we may and should pray for and request from God whatever we need and confidently expect help from him in all affliction, according to each person’s vocation and walk of life; and that meanwhile we should diligently do external good works and attend to our calling. This is true perfection and true service of God—not being a mendicant or wearing a black or gray cowl, etc. However, the common people form many harmful opinions from false praise of the monastic life, such as when they hear the state of celibacy praised above all measure. For it follows that their consciences are troubled because they are married. When the common people hear that only mendicants may be perfect, they cannot know that they may keep possessions and transact business without sin. When the people hear that it is only a “counsel” [of the gospel] not to take revenge, some will conclude that it is not sinful to 197. Gratian, Decretum 11, chap. 22, q. 4, c. 22. 198. Cited above, n. 188.

199. By the later Middle Ages the monastic vow was centered on three things: poverty, chastity, and obedience. See Thomas Aquinas, STh 11, 2, q. 186, a. 7. “The religious state . . . comprises three vows of obedience, continence, and poverty, in which vows religious perfection consists.”

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVII: Vows

89

made contrary to God’s command is invalid. For no vow ought to be a bond of iniquity, as the canon says. Paul says [Gal. 5:4]: “You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.” Therefore those who want to be justified by vows fall away from Christ and are cut off from grace. For those who ascribe justification to vows, ascribe to their own works what properly belongs to the glory of Christ. It cannot be denied that the monks taught that they were justified and merited forgiveness of sins through vows and observances. In fact, they added greater absurdities to this when they boasted that they could transfer their works to others. If anyone wants to exaggerate this out of hatred, how much could be collected about which the monks themselves would be ashamed! Moreover, they persuaded people that their humanly invented observances constituted a state of Christian perfection. Is this not ascribing justification to works? It is no minor scandal in the church to propose to the people a certain act of worship invented by human beings without a command of God and to teach that such worship justifies human beings. For the righteousness of faith, which ought to be taught in the church most of all, is obscured when these astonishing angelic observances and this pretense of poverty, humility, and celibacy are blinding people. Furthermore, the precepts of God and true worship of God are obscured when people hear that only monks are in a state of perfection. For Christian perfection means earnestly to fear God and, at the same time, to have great

41 42 43 44

45 46

47

48

49

faith and to trust that we have a gracious God on account of Christ; to ask for and to expect with certainty help from God in all things that are to be borne in

connection with our calling; and, in the meantime, diligently to do good works for others and to serve in our calling. True perfection and true worship of God consist in all these things, not in celibacy, mendicancy, or shabby clothing. On that account, the people form many pernicious opinions from such false commendations of monastic life. They hear celibacy praised without restraint, and so they live in marriage with a troubled conscience. They hear that only mendicants are perfect, and so they keep their possessions or engage in business with a troubled conscience. They hear that it is an Evangelical counsel not to take revenge, and so some are not afraid to take vengeance in their private lives, since they are told that this is prohibited by a counsel and not by a precept.

50 51 52 53 54

90 55 56

57

58

59 60

61

62

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXVIII: Bishops

take revenge outside their office. Still others think that revenge is not right for Christians at all, even on the part of political authority.?% Many examples are recorded of people leaving wife and child—even their civil office—and putting themselves into a monastery. This, they said, is fleeing from the world and seeking a life that is more pleasing to God than the other life. They were unable to realize that one should serve God by observing the commandments he has given and not through the commandments contrived by human beings. Now the life supported by God’s command is certainly a good and perfect state, but the life not supported by God’s command is a dangerous state. It has been necessary to keep people well informed about such matters.

In former times, Gerson also rebuked the errors of the monks about perfection. He showed that it was an innovation in his day to speak of monastic life as a state of perfection.?! There are so many ungodly notions and errors attached to monastic vows: that they justify and make righteous before God; that they must be Christian perfection; that through them a person may keep both the counsels of the gospel and the commandments; that they contain works of supererogation, beyond what is owed to God.??? Since, then, all of this is false, useless, and humanly contrived, monastic vows are null and void.?%

[XXVIIL.] Concerning the Power of Bishops®* Many and various things have been written in former times concerning the

power of bishops. Some have improperly mixed the power of bishops with the secular sword, and such careless mixture has caused many extensive wars, uprisings, and rebellions. For the bishops, under the guise of power given to

w

them by Christ, have not only introduced new forms of worship??> and bur-

dened consciences with reserved cases?% and with forcible use of the ban, but they also took it upon themselves to set up and depose emperors and kings according to their pleasure. Such outrage has long since been condemned by learned and devout people in Christendom. That is why our people have

200. A veiled reference to the teaching of some Anabaptists and others not allied with the reformers. For par. 54-55 see CA XXVIL.12 and n. 188. 201. See John Gerson, Concerning the Counsels of the Gospel and the State of Perfection (De consiliis evangelicis et statu perfectionis), in his Opera, 11, 680. 202. Works in addition to those that every Christian is obliged to perform, such as the “counsels of the gospel,” which earned a higher degree of merit. 203. The 1531 editio princeps contains some variations of the text of this article without, however, varying in substance. See the variations in BSLK 110-13. 204. Based on an earlier draft entitled “Concerning the Power of the Keys.” See the text in BSLK 120-24. h 205. Gottesdienst, literally, service of God. See above CA XXVI and XXVIL

206. Cases in which absolution was reserved for bishops or the pope.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVIII: The Church’s Power

91

Others err still more, for they judge that all magistracy and all civil offices are unworthy of Christians and in conflict with an Evangelical counsel. Cases can be read of people who, deserting marriage and participation in the administration of the state, withdrew into a monastery. They called this “fleeing from the world” and “seeking a holy kind of life.” They did not see that God is to be served in those commands he himself has handed down, not in commands invented by human beings. The good and perfect kind of life is one that has God’s command. It was necessary for people to be instructed about these matters. Before our time, Gerson, too, reproved the error of the monks concerning perfection and testified that it was a novelty in his day to say that the monastic life was a state of perfection. So there are many ungodly opinions attached to vows: that they justify, that

55

precepts, that they do works of supererogation. All these things, because they are false and without substance, make vows invalid.

62

56 57

58 59 60

61

they constitute Christian perfection, that monks keep both the counsels and

[XXVIIL] Concerning the Church’s Power In former times, there were serious controversies about the power of bishops,

in which some people improperly mixed the power of the church and the power of the sword. Tremendous wars and rebellions resulted from this confusion, while the pontiffs, relying on the power of the keys, not only instituted new forms of worship and burdened consciences with reservations of cases and violent excommunications but also attempted to transfer earthly kingdoms and to take away from emperors the right to rule. Devout and learned people have long since condemned these vices in the church. That is why our people

92

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXVIII: Bish

been compelled, for the sake of comforting consciences, to indicate the d

ference between spiritual and secular power, sword, and authority. They he

taught that, for the sake of God’s command, everyone should honor a; esteem with all reverence both authorities and powers as the two highest gi of God on earth. Our people teach as follows. According to the gospel the power of tl keys**7 or of the bishops is a power and command of God to preach the gosp( to forgive or retain sin, and to administer and distribute the sacraments. F

Christ sent out the apostles with this command

10

11

12

13

14 15 16 17

18

(John 20[:21-23]): “As tt

Father has sent me, so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive tt sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they ai retained.” The same power of the keys or of the bishops is used and exercised only b teaching and preaching God’s Word and by administering the sacraments t many persons or to individuals, depending on one’s calling. Not bodily bu eternal things and benefits are given in this way, such as eternal righteousness the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. These benefits cannot be obtained excep through the office of preaching and through the administration of the holy sacraments. For St. Paul says [Rom. 1:16]: “The gospel is the power of God fo salvation to everyone who has faith.” Now inasmuch as the power of the church or of the bishops bestows eternal benefits and is used and exercised only through the office of preaching, it does not interfere at all with public order and secular authority. For secular authority deals with matters altogether different from the gospel. Secular power does not protect the soul but, using the sword and physical penalties, it protects the body and goods against external violence.?08 That is why one should not mix or confuse the two authorities, the spiritual and the secular. For spiritual power has its command to preach the gospel and to administer the sacraments. It should not invade an alien office. It should not set up and depose kings. It should not annul or disrupt secular law and obedience to political authority. It should not make or prescribe laws for the secular power concerning secular affairs. For Christ himself said [John 18:36]: “My kingdom is not from this world.” And again [Luke 12:14]: “Who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?” And St. Paul in Philippians 3[:20]: “Our citizenship is in heaven.” And in 2 Corinthians 10[:4-5]: “For the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds . .. arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God.” In this way our people distinguish the offices of the two authorities and powers and direct that both be.honored as the highest gifts of God on earth.

207. The original title of this article. See the Torgau Articles.

208. Gewalt, otherwise translated “power.”

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVIII: The Church’s Power

93

have been compelled, for the sake of instructing consciences, to show the difference between the power of the church and the power of the sword. They have taught that because of the command of God both are to be devoutly respected and honored as the highest blessings of God on earth. However, they believe that, according to the gospel, the power of the keys or the power of the bishops is the power of God’s mandate to preach the gospel,

to forgive

and

retain

sins, and

to administer

Christ sent out the apostles with this command

the sacraments.

For

[John 20:21-23]: “As the

Father has sent me, so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive

the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if your retain the sins of any, they are

retained.” And Mark 16[:15]: “Go . . . and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. ... This power is exercised only by teaching or preaching the gospel and by administering the sacraments either to many or to individuals, depending on one’s calling. For not bodily things but eternal things, eternal righteousness, the Holy Spirit, eternal life, are being given. These things cannot come about except through the ministry of Word and sacraments, as Paul says [Rom. 1:16]: “The gospel . . . is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith” And Psalm 119[:50]: “Your promise gives me life.” Therefore, since this

power of the church bestows eternal things and is exercised only through the ministry of the Word, it interferes with civil government as little as the art of singing interferes with it. For civil government is concerned with things other than the gospel. For the magistrate protects not minds but bodies and goods from manifest harm and constrains people with the sword and physical penalties. The gospel protects minds from ungodly ideas, the devil, and eternal death. Consequently, the powers of church and civil government must not be mixed. The power of the church possesses its own command to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. It should not usurp the other’s duty, transfer earthly kingdoms, abrogate the laws of magistrates, abolish lawful obedience, interfere with judgments concerning any civil ordinances or contracts, prescribe to magistrates laws concerning the form of government that should be established. As Christ says [John 18:36]: “My kingdom is not from this world.” And again [Luke 12:14]: “Who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?” And St. Paul says in Philippians 3[:20], “Our citizenship is in heaven,” and in 2 Corinthians 10[:4]: “For the weapons of our warfare are not mere-

ly human, but they have divine power to destroy . .. arguments. ...” In this way our people distinguish the duties of the two powers, and they command that both be held in honor and acknowledged as a gift and blessing of God.

10

11

12

13

14 15 16 17 18

94 19

21

22

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXVIII: Bishops However, where bishops possess secular authority and the sword, they pos-

sess them not as bishops by divine right but by human, imperial right, given by Roman emperors and kings for the secular administration of their lands. That has nothing at all to do with the office of the gospel. Consequently, according to divine right it is the office of the bishop to preach the gospel, to forgive sin, to judge doctrine and reject doctrine that is contrary to the gospel, and to exclude from the Christian community the ungodly whose ungodly life is manifest—not with human power but with God’s Word alone. That is why parishioners and churches owe obedience to

23

bishops, according to this saying of Christ (Luke 10[:16]): “Whoever listens to you listens to me.” But whenever they teach, institute, or introduce something

24

dient (Matt. 7[:15]): “Beware of false prophets.” And St. Paul in Galatians 1[:8]:

25 26

27 28

29

30

31

32 33

contrary to the gospel, we have God’s command in such a case not to be obe-

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!” And in 2 Corinthians 13[:8]: “For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.” And again [2 Cor. 13:10]: . . using the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.” Canon law also commands the same in Part II, Question 7, in the chapters entitled “Priests” and

“Sheep.’2% And St. Augustine writes in the letter against Petilian that one should not obey bishops, even if they have been regularly elected, when they err or teach and command something contrary to the holy, divine Scripture.?! Whatever other power and jurisdiction bishops have in various matters, such as marriage or tithes,?!! they have them by virtue of human right. However, when bishops neglect such duties, the princes are obligated— whether they like it or not—to administer justice to their subjects for the sake of peace, in order to prevent discord and great unrest in their lands. Furthermore, it is also debated whether bishops have the power to establish ceremonies in the church as well as regulations concerning food, festivals, and the different orders of the clergy. For those who grant bishops this power cite this saying of Christ (John 16[:12-13]): “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” They also cite the example in Acts 15[:20, 29],2!* where the eating of blood and what is strangled was prohibited. They appeal as well to the transference of the sabbath to Sunday—contrary to the Ten 209. Sacerdotes and Owves. Gratian, Decretum 11, q. 7, c. 8, 13. Compare Luther, That a Christian Assembly . . . Has the Right . . . to Judge All Teaching . . . (1523) (WA 11:408-16; LW 39:301-14).

210. Augustine, Concerning the Unity of the Church (De unitate ecclesiae) 11,28 (MPL 43:410f; CSEL 52:264). This is his second response to Petilian. 211. The payment of one-tenth of the gross income from all lands and industries to the church. Such obligation was also part of Mosaic and Roman law, and it first became an obligation to the church in Ireland in the sixth century. 212. These passages were cited by John Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplaces (Enchiridion

Locorum Communiorum) chap. 4 (p. 46).

(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), chap. 1 (pp. 9, 13, 14), chap. 2 (p. 19), and

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVIII: The Church’s Power

95

If bishops possess any power of the sword, they possess it not through a

command of the gospel but by human right, granted by kings and emperors for the civil administration of their lands. This, however, is a different function from the ministry of the gospel. So, when asking about the jurisdiction of bishops, one must distinguish political rule from the church’s jurisdiction. Consequently, according to the gospel, or, as they say, by divine right, this jurisdiction belongs to the bishops as bishops (that is, to those to whom the ministry of Word and sacraments has been committed): to forgive sins, to reject teaching that opposes the gospel, and to exclude from the communion of the church the ungodly whose ungodliness is known—doing all this not with human power but by the Word. In this regard, churches are bound by divine right to be obedient to the bishops, according to the saying [Luke 10:16], “Whoever listens to you listens to me.” However, when they teach or establish anything contrary to the gospel, churches have a command from God that prohibits obedience. Matthew

19

20 21

22

23

7[:15]: “Beware of false prophets.” Galatians 1[:8]: “If . . . an angel from heav-

24

that one be accursed!” 2 Corinthians 13[:8, 10]: “For we cannot do anything

25

en should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let against the truth, but only for the truth,” and, “Using the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.” The canons require the same thing in Part II, q. 7, chaps. “Priests” and “Sheep.” Augustine also says in the letter against Petilian that one should not agree with catholic bishops if they perchance should err and hold anything contrary to the canonical Scriptures of God. If they possess any other power or jurisdiction in deciding certain cases (for example, concerning marriage or tithes, etc.), they have it by human right. Wherever these overseers leave off doing such things, princes are compelled— even against their will—to administer justice to their subjects for the sake of maintaining public peace. Moreover, it is debated whether bishops or pastors have the right to institute ceremonies in the church and make laws concerning food, holy days, ranks or orders of ministers, etc. Those who attribute this right to bishops cite this testimony [John 16:12-13]: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” They also cite the example of the apostles [Acts 15:20, 29] who commanded abstinence from blood and from what is strangled. The sabbath,

which—contrary to the Decalogue, it seems—was changed to Sunday, is also

26

27 28

29

30

31

32 33

96

34

35 36 37

39

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXVIII: Bishops

Commandments, as they view it. No other example is so strongly emphasized and quoted as the transference of the sabbath. Thereby they want to maintain that the power of the church is great, because it has dispensed with and altered part of the Ten Commandments.?!? Concerning this question, our people teach that bishops do not have the power to institute or establish something contrary to the gospel, as is indicated above and as is taught by canon law throughout the ninth distinction.?! Now it is patently contrary to God’s command and Word to make laws out of opinions or to require that by observing them a person makes satisfaction for sin and obtains grace. For the honor of Christ’s merit is slandered when we take it upon ourselves to earn grace through such ordinances. It is also obvious that, because of this notion, human ordinances have multiplied beyond calculation while the teaching concerning faith and the righteousness of faith have been almost completely suppressed. Daily new festivals and new fasts have been commanded; new ceremonies and new venerations of the saints have been instituted in order that by such works grace and everything good might be earned from God. Moreover, those who institute human ordinances also act contrary to God’s command when they attach sin to food, days, and similar things and burden Christendom with bondage to the law, as if in order to earn God’s grace there

40 4

had to be such service of God among Christians which God supposedly commanded the apostles some have written. It is quite believable that some by the example of the Law of Moses. This is how into being: for example, that it is supposed to be

like the Levitical service,?!® and bishops to establish, as bishops have been deceived countless ordinances came a mortal sin to do manual

labor on festivals, even when it offends no one else; that it is a mortal sin to

42

omit the seven hours;?1¢ that some foods defile the conscience; that fasting is a work that appeases God; that in a reserved case sin is not forgiven unless one first asks to be forgiven by the person for whom the case is reserved—despite the fact that canon laws do not speak of the reservation of guilt but only of the reservation of church penalties.?!” Where, then, did the bishops get the right and power to impose such ordinances on Christendom and to ensnare consciences? For in Acts 15[:10] St. Peter

prohibits placing the yoke on the necks of the disciples. And St. Paul tells the Corinthians [2 Cor. 10:8] that they have been given authority for building up and not for tearing down. Why then do they increase sin with such ordinances? 213. Thomas Aquinas, STh I1, 2, q. 122, a. 4 ad 4. “The observation of the Lord’s Day [Sunday]

in the new law succeeded the observation of the sabbath, not from the power of a prescribed law, but from the power of the church’s constitution and the custom of the Christian people.” 214. Gratian, Decretum I, dist. 9, chaps. 8ff. 215. A reference to Old Testament prescriptions, for example in the Book of Leviticus. 216. The canonical hours, or seven daily hours of prayer, prescribed for members of religious orders and often observed by other Christians. 217. See above, n. 206.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVIII: The Church’s Power

97

cited. No example is brought up more often than this change of the sabbath. Great, they contend, is the power of the church, that it dispensed with a commandment of the Decalogue! However, concerning this question, our people teach, as has been shown above, that bishops do not have the power to establish anything contrary to the gospel. The canons disclose this throughout dist. 9. Furthermore, it is contrary to Scripture to establish traditions in order that, by observing them, we may make satisfaction for sins and merit justification. For the glory of Christ’s merit is violated when we think that we are justified by such observances. However, it is evident that because of this notion countless traditions have arisen in the church, while the teaching concerning faith and the righteousness of faith has been suppressed. For repeatedly more holy days were created, fasts were announced,

and

new

ceremonies

and

orders were

instituted, because

34

35 36

37

the

authors of these things imagined that they merited grace through such works. So the penitential canons increased in former times, and we can still see traces of them in the satisfactions. Again, the authors of traditions act contrary to the command of God when they attach sin to food, days, and similar things and burden the church with the bondage of the law, as if, in order to merit justification, there had to be acts of worship among Christians similar to the Levitical ones, and as if God had commissioned the apostles and bishops to institute them. For some have written this way, and the pontiffs seem to have been deceived in.some measure by the example of the Law of Moses. From this came burdens such as these: that it is a mortal sin to do manual labor on holy days, even when it does not offend others; that certain foods pollute the conscience; that fasting, when it is not natural but inflicts bodily pain, is a work pleasing to God; that it is a mortal sin to omit the canonical hours; that in a reserved case a sin cannot be forgiven without the approval of the person who has reserved the case, although the canons themselves do not speak here about reserving guilt but only of reserv’ ing ecclesiastical penalties. Where did the bishops get the right to impose such traditions on the churches in order to ensnare consciences? Given the fact that Peter prohibits putting a yoke on the disciples and Paul says that they were given power to build up not to tear down, why do they increase sins through such traditions?

38 39

40 4

42

98 43

44 45

46 47 48 49

50 51

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXVIII: Bishops

Indeed, clear sayings of divine Scripture prohibit the establishment of such ordinances for the purpose of earning God’s grace or as if they were necessary

for salvation. St. Paul says in Colossians 2[:16-17]: “Therefore do not let any-

one condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” Again [Col. 2:20-23]: “If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch?’ All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings. These have indeed an appearance of wisdom. .. ” Again, in Titus 1[:14] St. Paul clearly prohibits paying attention to Jewish myths or human commandments, which obstruct the truth. In Matthew 15[:14] Christ himself also speaks of those who drive the people to human commandments: “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind.” And he rejects such service of God, saying [Matt. 15:13]: “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.” If, then, bishops have the power to burden the churches with innumerable ordinances and to ensnare consciences, why does divine Scripture so frequently prohibit the making and keeping of human ordinances? Why does it call them teachings of the devil? Could the Holy Spirit possibly have warned against all this in vain? Inasmuch as it is contrary to the gospel to establish such regulations as necessary to appease God and earn grace, it is not at all proper for the bishops to compel observation of such services of God. For in Christendom the teaching of Christian freedom must be preserved, namely, that bondage to the law is not necessary for justification, as Paul writes in Galatians 5[:1]: “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to the

52

53

54

yoke of slavery.” For the chief article of the gospel must be maintained, that we obtain the grace of God through faith in Christ without our merit and do not earn it through service of God instituted by human beings. How, then, should Sunday and other similar church ordinances and ceremonies be regarded? Our people reply?!® that bishops or pastors may make regulations for the sake of good order in the church, but not thereby to obtain God’s grace, to make satisfaction for sin, or to bind consciences, nor to regard such as a service of God or to consider it a sin when these rules are broken without giving offense. So St. Paul prescribed in Corinthians that women should cover their heads in the assembly [1 Cor. 11:5], and that preachers in the assembly should not all speak at once, but in order, one after the other [1 Cor. 14:30-33].

55

Such regulation belongs rightfully in the Christian assembly for the sake of love and peace, to be obedient to bishops and pastors in such cases, and to keep 218. A reply was called for since John Eck had attacked the Lutherans for erroneous views of the Lord’s Day in his 404 Theses, nos. 177-79.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVIII: The Church’s Power

99

" Nevertheless, there are clear testimonies that prohibit the establishment of traditions for the purpose of appeasing God or as if they were necessary for sal-

vation. Paul says in Colossians 2[:16, 20-23]: “Therefore do not let anyone con-

demn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths,” and, “If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’? All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings. These have indeed an appearance of wisdom.” Titus 1{:14]: “Not paying attention to Jewish myths or to commandments of those who reject the truth ... Christ says in Matthew 15[:14], concerning those who require traditions: “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind.” And he rejects such acts of worship [Matt. 15:13]: “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.” If bishops have the right to burden consciences with such traditions, why does Scripture so often prohibit the establishment of traditions? Why does it call them teachings of demons? Did the Holy Spirit warn against them in vain? Therefore, it follows that it is not lawful for bishops to institute such acts of worship or require them as necessary, because ordinances that are instituted as necessary or with the intention of meriting justification conflict with the gospel. For it is necessary to retain the teaching concerning Christian freedom in the churches, that bondage to the law is not necessary for justification, as it is written in Galatians [5:1]: “Do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” It is necessary to retain the chief article of the gospel: that we obtain grace through faith in Christ, not through certain observances or through acts of worship instituted by human beings. What, therefore, should one think of Sunday and similar rites in places of worship? To this our people reply that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to establish ordinances so that things are done in the church in an orderly fashion, not so that we may make satisfaction for our sins through them or so that consciences may be obliged to regard them as necessary acts of worship. Thus, Paul ordered that women should cover their heads in the assembly [1 Cor. 11:5] and that interpreters should be heard in the church in an orderly way [1

Cor. 14:30].

It is fitting for the churches to comply with such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquillity and to keep them insofar as they do not offend others.

43 44 45

46

47 48

49 50

51 52

53

54

55

100 56

57 58 59 60

61

62

63

64

o

2

o

65 66

The Augsburg Confession—-Germafi Text—Article XXVIII: Bishops

such order to the extent that no one offends another—so that there may not be disorder or unruly conduct in the church. However, consciences should not be burdened by holding that such things are necessary for salvation or by considering it a sin when they are violated without giving offense to others; just as no one would say that a woman commits a sin if, without offending people, she leaves the house with her head uncovered. ' The same applies to the regulation of Sunday, Easter, Pentecost, or similar festivals and customs. For those who think that the sabbath had to be replaced by Sunday are very much mistaken. For Holy Scripture did away with the sabbath, and it teaches that after the revelation of the gospel all ceremonies of the old law may be given up. Nevertheless, the Christian church instituted Sunday because it became necessary to set apart a specific day so that the people might know when to assemble; and the church was all the more pleased and inclined to do this so that the people might have an example of Christian freedom and so that everyone would know that neither the keeping of the sabbath nor any other day is necessary. There are many faulty debates about the transformation of the law, the ceremonies of the New Testament, and the change of the sabbath.?!’ They have all arisen from the false and erroneous opinion that in Christianity one would have to have services of God that correspond to the Levitical or Jewish ones, and that Christ commanded the apostles and the bishops to invent new ceremonies that were necessary for salvation. Christianity

has been permeated with these kinds of errors because the righteousness of faith was not taught or preached with purity and sincerity. Some argue that although Sunday cannot be kept on the basis of divine law, it must be kept almost as if it were divine law; and they prescribe the kind and amount of work that may be done on the day of rest. But what else are such debates except snares of conscience? For although they presume to moderate and mitigate?2° human ordinances, there certainly cannot be any mitigation and moderation as long as the opinion remains and prevails that they are necessary. Now this opinion will persist as long as no one knows anything about the righteousness of faith and Christian freedom. The apostles directed that one should abstain from blood and from what is strangled. But who observes this now? Yet those who do not observe it commit no sin. For the apostles themselves did not want to burden consciences with such bondage, but prohibited such eating for a time to avoid offense. For in this ordinance one must pay attention to the chief part of Christian doctrine which is not abolished by this decree.??! 219. For example, Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 1, q. 103, considers such questions as whether the ceremonies of the law antedated the law, whether they ceased when Christ came, and whether it is

a mortal sin to observe them subsequent to Christ’s coming,. 220. Epikeiziern, a German verb, from the Greek noun epieikeia, meaning “equity.” Aristotle

used the term to describe the sensible fulfillment of a law. See above, CA XXVI1.14, n. 168.

221. The so-called apostolic decree in Acts 15:23-29.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article XXVIII: The Church’s Power

101

Thus, everything may be done in an orderly fashion in the churches without confusion, but in such a way that consciences are not burdened by thinking such things are necessary for salvation or that they sin when violating them without offense. Just as no one would say that a woman commits a sin by leaving the house with her head uncovered in an inoffensive way. Such is the case with the observance of Sunday, Easter, Pentecost, and similar festivals and rites. For those who judge that the necessary observance of Sunday in place of the sabbath was instituted by the church’s authority are mistaken. Scripture, not the church, abrogated the sabbath. For after the revelation of the gospel all Mosaic ceremonies can be omitted. Yet, since it was necessary to establish a certain day so that the people would know when they should assemble, it appears that the church designated Sunday for this purpose. Apparently, this was even more pleasing because people would have an example of Christian freedom and would know that it was not necessary to keep either the sabbath or any other day. There are still tremendous debates concerning the change of the law, concerning ceremonies of the new law, concerning the change of the sabbath, all of which have arisen from the false assumption that worship in the church should be like the Levitical worship and that Christ commissioned the apostles and bishops to devise new ceremonies that were necessary for salvation. These errors crept into the church when the righteousness of faith was not taught with sufficient clarity. Some argue that the observance of Sunday is not “in fact” of divine right, but “as if it were” of divine right, and they prescribe to what extent one is allowed to work on holy days. What are debates of this kind but snares for consciences? For although they try to bring equity to??? the traditions, fairness can never be achieved as long as the opinion remains that they are necessary. This opinion necessarily persists where righteousness of faith and Christian freedom are ignored. The apostles commanded abstention from blood, etc. Who keeps this command now? Those who do not keep it certainly do not sin, because the apostles did not wish to burden consciences through such bondage. They issued the prohibition for a time to avoid scandal. For the general intention of the gospel must be considered in connection with the decree.

222, epiikeizare. See note 220.

56

57 58 59 60

61

62

63

64

65 66

102 67 68

69 70

71

72

73 74

75

76

77 78

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Article XXVIII: Bishops

Hardly any of the ancient canons are observed according to the letter. Many of their rules fall daily into complete disuse, even among those who observe such ordinances most diligently. Consciences can neither be counseled nor helped unless we keep this moderation in mind: that such ordinances are not to be considered necessary, and even disregarding them does no harm to consciences. ' Bishops could easily foster obedience if they did not insist on the observance of ordinances that cannot be observed without sin. However, now they engage in prohibiting both kinds of the holy sacrament or prohibiting marriage for the clergy; they admit no one to the ministry who refuses to swear an oath not to preach this doctrine, even though it is undoubtedly in accord with the holy gospel. Our churches do not desire that the bishops restore peace and unity at the expense of their honor and dignity (even though it is incumbent on the bishops to do this, too, in an emergency). They ask only that the bishops relax certain unreasonable burdens which did not exist in the church in former times and which were adopted contrary to the custom of the universal Christian church. Perhaps there were some reasons for introducing them, but they are not in tune with our times. Nor can it be denied that some ordinances were adopted without being understood. Accordingly, the bishops should be so gracious as to temper these ordinances, since such change does not harm the unity of the Christian church. For many ordinances devised by human beings have fallen into disuse with the passing of time and need not be observed, as papal law itself testifies.??3 If, however, this is impossible and permission cannot be obtained from them to moderate and abrogate such human ordinances as cannot be observed without sin, then we must follow the apostolic rule which commands us to obey God rather than any human beings [Acts 5:29]. St. Peter prohibits the bishops to rule as if they had the power to force the churches to do whatever they desired [1 Peter 5:2]. Now the question is not how to take power away from the bishops. Instead, we desire and ask that they would not force consciences into sin. But if they will not do so and despise this request, let them consider how they will have to answer to God, since by their obstinacy they cause division and schism, which they should rightly help to prevent.??4 223. For example, the penitential rules of the ancient church were supplanted in the early Middle Ages when the sacrament of penance was developed.

224. Of the variants in the text of the 1531 editio princeps, listed in BSLK 133, n. 1, these are

most important. For par. 50—52: “For in the church this chief article of the gospel must be kept pure and clear: that we do not earn forgiveness of sins through our work and that we are not pronounced righteous on account of our self-chosen service of God, but instead for the sake of Christ

through faith. Furthermore, the following teaching must be known and kept: that no such service of God, as is found in the Law of Moses, with its appointed foods and clothing and the like, is necessary in the New Testament and that no one should burden the church and create sins out of such things. For Paul says in Galatians 5[:1]: ‘Do not submit again to a yoke of slavery’ ” For par. 60: “They ordered Sunday so that the Word of God could be heard and learned. In the same way the festivals, such as Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, were set up to teach the marvelous story of

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Article

XX VIII: The Church’s Power

103

But scarcely any of the canons are observed according to the letter. Many of them become obsolete daily even among those who defend traditions. It is not possible to counsel consciences unless this measure of fairness is preserved. As a result, we know that traditions may be kept as long as they are not held to be necessary and as long as they may not harm consciences, even if human prac-

67 68

However, the bishops could easily retain lawful obedience if they did not insist on keeping traditions that cannot be observed with a good conscience. Now they impose celibacy, and they accept no one unless he swears that he will not teach the pure doctrine of the gospel. Our churches do not ask that the bishops restore concord at the expense of their honor—which, nevertheless, good pastors ought do. They only ask that the bishops relax unjust burdens that are new and were accepted contrary to the custom of the catholic church. Perhaps in the beginning there were acceptable reasons for these ordinances, but they are not suited for later times. It also seems that some were adopted by mistake. Bishops, therefore, could show their clemency by mitigating them, because such change would not threaten the unity of the church. For many human traditions have been changed with the passing of time, as the canons themselves show. But if it is impossible to obtain a relaxation of observances that cannot be kept without sin, we must obey the apostolic injunction [Acts 5:29] which commands us to obey God rather than human beings. Peter prohibits bishops from domineering over and coercing the churches. The present matter does not involve bishops abandoning their exercise of lordship, but only one thing is requested, namely, that they permit the teaching of the gospel in its purity and relax those few observances that cannot be kept without sin. If they do not do this, they will have to see to it how they will render an account before God, given that they provide a cause for schism by their obstinacy.

69

tice changes in such a matter.

70 71 72

73 74

75

76 77

78

The Augsburg Confession—German Text—Conclusion

104

[Conclusion[??°

These are the chief articles that are regarded as controversial. For although many more abuses and errors could have been added, we listed only the principal ones in order to avoid prolixity and undue length. The others can easily be assessed in the light of these. In the past, there were many complaints about indulgences, pilgrimages, and the misuse of the ban. Moreover, pastors had endless quarrels with monks about hearing confession, funerals, sermons on special occasions, and countless other matters. All this we have passed over,

being as considerate as we could, so that the chief points at issue may be better discerned. Moreover, it must not be thought that anything has been said or introduced out of hatred or effrontery. On the contrary, we have listed only matters that we thought needed to be brought up and reported on. We did this in order to make it quite clear that among us nothing in doctrine or ceremonies has been accepted that would contradict either Holy Scripture or the universal Christian church. For it is manifest and obvious that we have very diligently and with God’s help (to speak without boasting) prevented any new and godless teaching from insinuating itself into our churches, spreading, and finally gaining the upper hand. In keeping with the summons,??¢ we have desired to present the above arti-

cles as a declaration of our confession and the teaching of our people. Anyone who should find it defective shall willingly be furnished with an additional account based on divine Holy Scripture. Your Imperial Majesty’s most humble, obedient [servants] Jonn, duke of Saxony, elector GEORGE, margrave of Brandenburg[-Ansbach] ErNEsT, duke of Liineburg PuiL1p, landgrave of Hesse Joun FreDERICK, duke of Saxony Francis, duke of Lineburg WOLFGANG, prince of Anhalt The Mayor and Council of Nuremberg The Mayor and Council of Reutlingen??’

salvation. Thus, having a fixed time is helpful, so that people remember such things more firmly. It is not our opinion that such celebration must be held in a Jewish way, as if there were a neces-

sary worship in the New Testament, but rather that it should be held because of the teaching.” 225. Based on an earlier draft by Philip Melanchthon. A slightly different ending is found in the 1531 editio princeps. See the texts in BSLK 135-36. 226. See above, CA, “Preface;” 1. 227. For information concerning these rulers, see the biographical index. Some manuscripts mistakenly include Albert, count of Mansfeld, but he did not have official standing at the imperial diet. In July 1530 the imperial cities of Windsheim, Heilbronn, Kempten, and Weissenburg (im Nordgau) also subscribed.

The Augsburg Confession—Latin Text—Conclusion

105

[ Conclusion]

We have recounted the chief articles that are regarded as controversial. For although more abuses could be mentioned, we have included only the principal ones to avoid prolixity. There have been grave complaints about indulgences, pilgrimages, and the misuse of excommunication. Parishes have been

vexed by preachers who sell indulgences. There have been endless quarrels between pastors and monks concerning parochial rights, confessions, burials,

and countless other matters. We have omitted matters of this sort so that the chief points, having been briefly set forth, can be more readily understood. Nothing has here been said or related to insult anyone. Only those things have

been recounted which seemed to need saying. This was done in order that it may be understood that nothing has been accepted among us, in teaching or ceremonies, that is contrary to Scripture or the catholic church. For it is manifest that we have most diligently been on guard so that no new or ungodly doctrines creep into our churches.

In accord with the edict of Your Imperial Majesty, we have desired to present the above-mentioned articles. They exhibit our confession and contain a summary of the instruction by our teachers. If anything is found to be lacking in this confession, we are ready, God willing, to present more extensive information according to the Scriptures.

Your Imperial Majesty’s faithful and humble [subjects] JonN, duke of Saxony, elector

GEORGE, margrave of Brandenburg ErRNEsT, With His Own Hand PHiLIP, landgrave of Hesse, subscribes JouN FREDERICK, duke of Saxony

Francis, duke of Liineburg WOLFGANG, prince of Anhalt

Senate and Mayor of Nuremberg

Senate of Reutlingen

Apology of the Augsburg Confession Editors’ Introduction to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession The Apology, or defense, of the Augsburg Confession by Philip Melanchthon slowly came into its final form over the course of the fifteen months following the reading of the Augsburg Confession at the Diet of Augsburg. Its complicated history helps explain the origin of its intricate arguments. Immediately after the Augsburg Confession was presented to Emperor Charles V on 25 June 1530, there was debate within each camp at the imperial

diet about what to do next. The princes defending the old faith were at first unsure whether to answer their opponents’ confession, fearing a response by the Evangelical side. (On 9 July the emperor even asked the signers of the Augsburg Confession whether they would write any other document, to which they replied only if the other side did.) An answer by the “other side,” a first draft of the Confutation, or rebuttal, of the Augsburg Confession, was presented on 12 July. By the end of July, with a second draft of the Confutation in the works, Melanchthon reported to Luther—who because of his status as an outJlaw of the empire was sequestered at the Saxon elector’s Coburg Castle—that plans were afoot among the Evangelical princes “to respond again.” For the first

time he used the Greek term antapologeisthai, from which the word apology was born. When this second, milder draft of the Confutation was read before the emperor on 3 August and accepted by him, the Evangelical side was already preparing a reply. The emperor sought to prevent this by refusing to distribute copies of the Confutation to the Evangelicals unless they agreed not to respond. Perhaps foreseeing this eventuality, the Evangelical side used several stenographers to record the Confutation as it was being read. In the weeks that followed, the threat of such a response was one part of a complicated bargaining strategy by the Saxon court.! Thus, after an initial document was quickly prepared, work on a defense came to a standstill as first one and then another committee of the imperial diet strove to prevent a complete breakdown of negotiations that, everyone thought, would result in war (and, in 1547, finally did). By the end of August, Melanchthon was rewriting the initial response, 1. In this same time the city of Nuremberg asked for and received from its preacher, Andrew Osiander, their own defense, which was later shared with Melanchthon.

107

108

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

focusing among other things on original sin, the meritorious nature of works, the seven sacraments, the sacrifice of the Mass, and the term leitourgia. On 22 September, the emperor refused to allow the Evangelical princes to read the Apology, now a very pointed response to the Confutation, at the diet. With that refusal talks broke down, and the Diet of Augsburg came to an end. Melanchthon, however, continued to work on the Apology, even during the return journey to Wittenberg. Once Melanchthon reached home, plans were set in motion almost immediately for a publication of both the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, in part to counteract an earlier unauthorized printing of the Confession. However, when Melanchthon in late October came into possession of the actual text of the Confutation, he felt constrained to answer what he called its insidious and deceitful arguments, especially in the article on justification (Ap IV). This expansion continued into the next year as the text, even while being typeset, continued to undergo changes. This included by the very end of February adding subtitles to Article IV. This first edition, printed with the Augsburg Confession, appeared at the end of April or in early May 1531. It is called the quarto edition because of its printing format. Still not completely satisfied, Melanchthon sent copies to several theologians (including Martin Bucer, John Agricola, and John Brenz) with

requests for suggestions on improving it, especially the article on justification. He also worked hand in hand with Luther and others in Wittenberg to refine the text, again especially regarding justification. (In the spring of 1532, looking back on this process, Luther remarked that “Philip would never have published his Apology if he had not been forced to—he always wanted to improve on it.”)? In September 1531 the second edition of the Apology, called the octavo edition because of its smaller format, was published in a version that pleased Melanchthon greatly. Always intended, like its predecessors, more as public defense than private polemic, this second edition was signed by the theologians who gathered at Smalcald in 1537. This edition appeared at the same time Justus Jonas was preparing a German translation. For the most part he pat-

terned his translation after the octavo edition, including, for example, many of the changes in Articles IV, X, and XXVIIL | The octavo edition remained the “official” version of the Latin Apology until the publication of the German version of the Book of Concord in 1580, where in Article VII of the Solid Declaration the quarto edition was cited. That same year an unauthorized Latin translation of the Book of Concord appeared that used the octavo edition of the Apology. Aware of discrepancies between that version and the quarto text, especially in Article X, but unsure of the text’s genesis in Wittenberg so many years earlier, the theologians who produced the official Latin version in 1584 returned (for the first time since 1531) to the first

edition of April/May 1531. Some even considered that “Luther’s” position in the first edition had been distorted by Melanchthon in the second. In fact, the 2. WATR 2, no. 2606b.

109

Preface

opposite was the case, as Luther had provided more direction and improvements for the second edition. The present translation, unlike the version prepared by Theodore E. Tappert in 1959, uses as its basis the octavo edition of September 1531. Where there are important variations in the text we have printed the text in italics and provided references to the paragraphs in the Tappert edition. In this way, readers may compare some of the work that went into sharpening this defense of the Evangelical faith confessed at Augsburg. Because Jonas’s translation in large measure follows the octavo edition, readers will now have a text of the Apology that for the most part corresponds to the text used in the 1580 German Book of Concord. In using this approach, we follow the most recent modern German translation of the Book of Concord.’

Apology of the Augsburg Confession Preface! Greetings from Philip Melanchthon to the reader. Following the public reading of our princes’ Confession, a number of theologians and monks prepared a Confutation of our writing, which His Imperial Majesty then had read before the assembly of the princes. At that time he also ordered our princes to accept this Confutation. Since we had heard that the Confutation condemned many articles that we could not in good conscience surrender, our party requested a copy of the Confutation in order to see what the opponents condemned and to refute their arguments. Since this matter involves religion and the teaching of consciences, we assumed that the opponents would readily provide us with a copy of the document. Unfortunately, we could have obtained it only on terms so perilous that we could not accept them.? In the negotiations that followed, it was clear that our side was willing to put up with anything, however unpleasant, as long as it did not violate our consciences. But the opponents stubbornly insisted that we approve some obvious abuses and errors. When we could not do this, His Imperial Majesty again ordered our princes to accept the Confutation, which they refused to do. How could they accept a document on matters of religion that they had not even 3. See Evangelische Bekenntnisse: Bekenntnisschriften der Reformation und neuere theologische Erklérungen, ed. Rudolf Mau et al., vol. 1 (Witten, Germany: Luther Verlag, 1997), 99-306. For the

English translation of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologica, we have employed Summa theologiae: Latin Text and English Translation, Introductions, Notes, Appendices, Glossaries, 61 vols. (London: Blackfriars; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964—80).

1. This preface was written for the first edition of the Apology in April 1531 and reprinted in the second edition. MBW #1148. 2. The emperor demanded that the Evangelical party not respond in print to the Confutation if its representatives, among them Melanchthon, received a copy of its text.

110

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

seen—especially a document that purportedly condemned several articles on

which we could not reconcile with the opponents’ position without doing wrong? They [the princes] commanded me and several others to prepare a defense [apologia) of our Confession in order to address the opponents’ objections for His Imperial Majesty and to explain to why we could not accept the Confutation. We did this on the basis of notes on the main points of its argumentation that that some of us had taken during its reading. The princes finally offered the apology to His Imperial Majesty, to show him that very weighty reasons prevented us from approving the Confutation. His Imperial Majesty, however, did not accept it.> Later, a decree appeared in which the opponents

boasted that they had refuted our Confession from the Scriptures. Therefore, dear reader, you now have our Apology. It will show you both the judgments of the opponents (we have reported faithfully) and their condemnations of several articles in opposition to the clear writing of the Holy 10

Spirit. Only, they fail to undermine our positions using the Scriptures. At first,

we undertook the composition of the Apology in consultation with others, but as it was going to the press I added some things. Therefore I am signing my name so that no one can complain that the book has appeared anonymously.

11

12

13

14 15

16

In these controversies I have always made it a point to adhere as closely as possible to traditional doctrinal formulas in order to promote the attainment of concord. I am doing much the same thing here, even though I could lead our contemporaries still further from the opponents’ position. But the opponents show by their actions that they care for neither truth nor concord; they want only our blood. Now, I have written as moderately as I could. If any expression seems too strong, let me explain that my quarrel is with the theologians and monks who wrote the Confutation, not with the emperor or the princes, whom I hold in due esteem. But recently, when I saw the Confutation, I realized it was written so cleverly and slanderously that in some places it could deceive even the cautious reader. I have not taken up all of their sophistries since this would be an endless task. I have instead assembled their principal arguments in order to bear witness to the entire world that we hold to the gospel of Christ correctly and faithfully. We take no pleasure in discord, nor are we unaware of our danger, the extent of which is evident from the bitter hatred inflaming the opponents. But we cannot surrender truth that is so clear and necessary for the church. We believe, therefore, that we must endure difficulties and dangers for the

17

glory of Christ and the good of the church. We trust that God approves our dutiful action, and we hope that posterity will judge us more equitably. For neither is it possible to deny that we have brought to light many topics of Christian teaching that the church desperately needs. We need not describe here how they lay hidden under all kinds of dangerous opinions in the writings 3. On 22 September 1530, while the imperial diet was still in session, the Evangelical princes presented to Charles V an eariier version of the Apology. The Emperor refused to receive it.

111

Article II: Original Sin

of the monks, canonists, and sophistical theologians. Many good people have

testified publicly and thanked God for this great blessing, that on many topics our Confession’s teaching is better than that which appears everywhere in the opponents’ writings. And so we shall commend our cause to Christ, who will one day judge these controversies. We pray that he will help his afflicted and scattered churches and restore them to a godly and lasting concord.

[I: God] Our opponents approve the first article of our Confession.! In it we explain that we believe and teach that there is one divine essence, undivided, etc.,2 and

that there are nevertheless three distinct and coeternal persons of the same divine essence, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We have always taught and defended this article, maintaining that its testimonies in the Holy Scriptures are solid, firm, and cannot be overthrown. And we constantly affirm that those who

believe otherwise? stand outside the church of Christ, are idolaters, and regard

God with contempt.

[11:] Original Sin The opponents approve the second article concerning “Original Sin,”* but do so in such a way that they nevertheless find fault with the definition of original sin that we had related in passing. Here, immediately at the very outset, His Imperial Majesty will discover that those who wrote the Confutation lack not only judgment, but honesty. For whereas we simply wished to review those things that original sin includes, they severely distort a statement—by fabricating vicious interpretations of it—that in itself had nothing wrong with it. As a result, they say that to be without the fear of God and without faith is actual guilt; and so they deny that it is original guilt.” 1. Roman Confutation: “Especially when in the first article they confess the unity of the divine essence in three persons according to the decree of the Council of Nicea, their confession must be accepted, since it agrees in all respects with the rule of faith and the Roman Church .. ” (pt. I, art. I). For the Latin text of the Confutation, see CR XXVII, 82-183, and Herbert Immenkaétter, ed., Die

Confutatio der Confessio Augustana vom 3. August 1530 (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1979). 2. The “etc.” probably refers to the other attributes predicated of the godhead in CA I such as eternity and incorporeality. It would also include those attributes named in the Athanasian Creed (par. 8-12) to describe the unity of the Trinity.

3.See CA I for a listing of some of the Antitrinitarian groups to which Melanchthon is probably referring. 4. Roman Confutation (pt. I, art. II): “In the second article we approve their confession, in common with the Catholic Church, that the fault of origin is truly sin, condemning and bringing eternal death upon those who are not born again by baptism and the Holy Spirit. . . .” 5. Roman Confutation (pt. I, art. II): “2. But the declaration of the article, that Original Sin

means that people are born without the fear of God and without trust in God, is to be entirely

18

19

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

112

It is quite clear that these subtle arguments originated in the schools® and

not in the council of the emperor. Even though this sophistry can easily be refuted, nevertheless, in order that all good people might see that we teach nothing absurd on this matter, we ask that the text of the German confession first be examined. This will clear us from the suspicion of innovation. For there it is written . . .

Furthermore, it is taught among us that since the fall of Adam, all human beings who are born in the natural way are conceived and born in sin. This means that from birth they are full of evil lust and inclination and cannot by nature possess

true fear of God and true faith in God.”

This passage testifies that we deny to those conceived and born according to the course of nature not only the act of fearing and trusting God, but also the ability or gifts needed to produce such fear and trust. For we say that those who have been born in this way have concupiscence and are unable to produce true fear and trust in God. What is wrong with this? Indeed, we think that in the eyes of fair-minded people we are sufficiently exonerated. For in this sense the definition in the Latin text denies the ability to human nature® (that is, the gift and power needed to produce fear and faith in God), and it also denies to adults the act of producing it. So when we use the word “concupiscence,” we understand not only its acts or fruits, but the continual tendency of our nature.’ Later we shall show at length that our definition agrees with the traditional one. But in order to make our explanation clear, we must first show why we used these terms. Even our scholastic opponents admit that concupiscence is the so-called material element of original sin.!? Hence concupiscence must not be left out of the definition, especially now when so many philosophize about original sin irreligiously. For some!! argue that original sin is not a fault or correjected, since it is manifest to every Christian that to be without the fear of God and without trust in God is rather the actual guilt of an adult than the offense of a recently born infant, which does not possess as yet the full use of reason. ... ‘ 6. Much of Apology II deals with medieval scholastic theology. 7. CA 111, quoted in the German. 8. The German translation adds, “even to innocent infants.” 9. Augustine, Against Julian 5, 12 (MPL 44:682). See also Martin Luther’s lectures on Romans (WA 56:351; LW 25:340). 10. Thomas Aquinas, STh 11, 2, q. 82, a. 3 (Eng. trans.: 26:39). 11. Ulrich Zwingli, An Account of the Faith (in On Providence and Other Essays, ed. W. J. Hinke

[reprint, Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth, 1983]), 40. Original sin “is therefore properly a disease and

condition—a disease, because just as he fell from self-love, so also do we; a condition, because just as he became a slave and subject to death, so also are we born slaves and children of wrath and sub-

ject to death. . .. For Adam is the one by whose fault death hangs upon our shoulders. . .. Therefore we also die, but by his [Adam’s] guilt, yet by our own condition and disease, or, if you prefer, by our sin, improperly so called” See also his Declaration regarding Original Sin (in On Providence, 5). “For this reason, I have said that the original contamination of man is a disease, not a sin, because

sin implies guilt. ...

'

e

113

Article II: Original Sin

ruption in human nature, that those descended from account of someone else’s ly damned on account of

but only a subjection to or a condition of mortality Adam endure through no fault of their own, but on guilt. Furthermore, they add that no one is eternaloriginal sin, just as children born to a slave woman

inherit their enslaved condition through no fault of their own, but on account

of their mother’s

misfortune.

In order to show our displeasure with this

ungodly opinion, we mentioned “concupiscence.” With the best of intentions we identified and diagnosed it as a disease because human nature is born corrupt and faulty.!? We not only mentioned “concupiscence,” but we also said that the fear of God and faith were lacking. We added this point because the scholastic teachers, who do not sufficiently understand the definition of original sin that they inherited from the Fathers, trivialize original sin. They contend that the “tin-

7

der of sin”!? is a condition in the body and, in their usual ineptitude, they ask

whether this condition was contracted through contact with the fruit or from the breath of the serpent, and whether it can be cured with medicine.!* With such questions they have suppressed the main point. Thus, when they speak about original sin they fail to mention the more serious defects of human nature like being ignorant of God, despising God, lacking fear and confidence in God, hating the judgment of God, fleeing this judging God, being angry with God, despairing of his grace, and placing confidence in temporal things, etc. The scholastics do not even notice these maladies, which are completely opposed to the law of God. Indeed, they attribute to human nature the unimpaired powers to love God above all things and to keep the commandments of God “according to the substance of the act.”!> Nor do they see how they contradict themselves. For what else is the ability to love God above all things with one’s own power and to keep the commandments of God than original righteousness? What becomes of original sin if human nature by itself has the power 12. Augustine had used the term “concupiscence” in connection with original sin. By the late Middle Ages it was understood as sensuality unchecked by reason or the will. 13. The tinder of sin (fomes peccati) is often equated with concupiscence itself and thus used synonymously. Most often it was used in the sense of a “weakness” or “inclination” to sin that was not sin in itself unless a person yielded to it. It was not considered to be original sin itself, but a punishment or burden that was imposed by God upon the human race on account of sin. See Peter Lombard, Sentences I1, d. 30, 7 (MPL 192:722), and Thomas Aquinas, STh III, q. 15, a. 25 q. 27,a.3.

'

14. According to Gregory of Rimini, the infection of the flesh was a new element introduced by the poisonous breath of the devil. Gabriel Biel, who summarized late-medieval theology, did not reject this opinion, but for him this diabolic attack merely actualizes a potentially present rebellion. 15. Doing something “according to the substance of the act” was often distinguished from doing it “according to the intention of the lawgiver (God).” The distinction means that although the sinner can perform the substance of the acts required by God’s law, these are nevertheless not fully meritorious (meritum de condigno; cf. Ap IV) without the presence of the grace-assisted habitus of love, since God intends the law to be fulfilled with the assistance of such grace. Biel, II Sent,, d. 28, q. 11, a. 2, concl.3.

10

114

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

to love God above all things, as the scholastics confidently affirm?!¢ What need will there be for the grace of Christ if we can become righteous by our own righteousness? What need will there be for the Holy Spirit if by our human power alone we can love God above all things and keep God’s commandments? Who cannot see how ridiculously the opponents think? They acknowledge the lesser maladies in human nature; but they do not acknowledge the more severe ones, about which, nevertheless, the Scripture everywhere warns us and about which the prophets continually complain, namely, carnal complacency, contempt for God, hatred of God, and similar defects with which we are born. Now the scholastics mingled Christian teaching with philosophical views about the perfection of nature and attributed more than was proper to the freedom of the will and to “elicited acts”” by teaching that human beings are justified before God by philosophical or civil righteousness (which we also admit are subject to human reason and are somehow within our ability). As a result they failed to see the inner impurity of human nature. For this cannot be

diagnosed except by the Word of God—something the scholastics do not often use in their discussions. These were the reasons why in our definition of original sin we mentioned concupiscence and also denied to the natural powers of the human creature fear of and trust in God. We wanted to show that original sin also included these maladies: ignorance of God, contempt for God, the absence of the fear of and trust in God, and the inability to love God. These are the chief defects of human nature—in conflict especially with the first table of the Decalogue.'8 We have said nothing new here. The traditional definition, rightly understood, says precisely the same thing when it states, “Original sin is the absence of original righteousness.”!® But what is righteousness? Here the scholastics quibble over philosophical questions and do not explain what original righteousness is. Furthermore, in the Scriptures this righteousness includes not only

the second table of the Decalogue, but also the first, which requires fear of God, faith, and love of God. Thus original righteousness was intended to include not only a balanced physical constitution,?® but these gifts as well: a more certain knowledge of God, fear of God, and confidence in God, or at least the uprightness and power needed to do these things. And Scripture affirms this when it says [Gen. 1:27] that humankind was formed in the image and likeness of God. 16. Biel, III Sent., d. 27, q. 1, a. 3, dub. 5 Q; IV Sent., d. 14, q. 1, a. 2, concl. 55. Duns Scotus, Sent. 111, d. 27, q. 1.

17. From the time of Augustine, it was believed that our actions were elicited by the will and ordered by reason. 18. That is, the first three commandments.

19. Anselm of Canterbury in The Virgin Conception and Original Sin, c. 27, defines original sin as the deprivation of original righteousness. 20. In the German translation, Justus Jonas lists “perfect health in all respects, pure blood, and

unimpaired powers of the body.” Cf. Thomas Aquinas, STh IL, 1, q. 82, a. 1: Original sin “is a disordered disposition growing from the dissolution of that harmony in which original justice was founded.”

Article II: Original Sin

115

What else does this mean except that a wisdom and righteousness that would grasp God and reflect God was implanted in humankind, that is, humankind

received gifts like the knowledge of God, fear of God, trust in God, and the like? This is how Irenaeus interpreted the likeness of God.?! After having discussed many other things related to this topic, Ambrose then says, “That soul is not in the image of God in which God is not always present.””? And in

19 20

Ephesians [5:19] and Colossians [3:10] Paul shows that the image of God is

the knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth. Even Peter Lombard is not afraid to say that original righteousness is the very likeness of God, which was implanted in the human creature by God.?> The statements of the ancients that we cited do not contradict Augustine’s interpretation concerning the image of God.** Thus, when the traditional definition says that sin is the absence of righ-

21

22

23

teousness, it excludes not only the obedience of the lower human powers but

also the knowledge of God, trust in God, fear and love of God, or certainly the power needed to produce those things. Even the scholastic theologians teach that these cannot be produced without certain gifts and without the assistance of grace.?> In order to make things clear, we identify these gifts as the knowledge of God, fear of God, and trust in God. From this it is evident that the traditional definition says exactly the same thing we do when we deny to human nature the fear of God and confidence in God, namely, not only the actions but also the gifts and power needed to produce them. This is the intention of the definition that appears in Augustine, who usually defines original sin as concupiscence.? He means that concupiscence fol-

24

lows the loss of righteousness. For our weak nature, because it cannot fear, love,

or believe in God, seeks and loves carnal things; it either despises the judgment

of God in its complacency or hates it in its terror. Thus Augustine also includes both the deficiency and the defective disposition [habitus] that follows it.

However, concupiscence is not simply a corruption of the physical constitution, but a perverse turning toward carnal things in the higher powers. Thus, those who attribute to the human creature simultaneously both a concupiscence that has not been put to death by the Holy Spirit and a love for God above all things do not realize what they are saying.

21. Irenaeus, Against Heresies V, 11, 2 (MPG 7:1151; ANF 1:537). 22. Ambrose, Hexaemeron V1, 8, 45: “Is not that, therefore, in which God is ever-present, made to the likeness of God?” (MPL 14:260A; CSEL 32/1: 236, 17; Hexameron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel, The Fathers of the Church 42 [New York: Fathers of the Church, 1961], 258). 23. Peter Lombard, Sentences 11, d. 16, c. 4 (MPL 192:684). “Therefore humankind, with

respect to the soul, was made in the image and likeness not of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, but the entire Trinity. Thus with respect to the soul it is said that humankind is the image of God, because the image of God is in it.” 24. Augustine, On the Trinity XII, 7, 12 (MPL 44:1003, 1048, 1051; NPNF, ser. 1, 5:273-74). 25. For example, see Thomas Aquinas, STh IL, 1, q. 109, a. 6; q. 112, a. 2, ad 1. 26. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 1, 27 (MPL 44:429; NPNF, ser. 1, 5:274).

25

116 26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Apology of the Augsburg Confession Therefore we correctly expressed both components in our description of

original sin, namely, these deficiencies: the inability to believe God and the inability to fear and love God; and concupiscence, which seeks carnal things contrary to the Word of God, that is, it pursues not only the desires of the body, but also carnal wisdom and righteousness in which it trusts while despising God. Not only the ancient theologians, but even the more recent ones—at least the more judicious ones among them—teach that both of these things are truly original sin, namely, the deficiencies that I have enumerated and concupiscence. Thus Thomas says: “Original sin denotes the absence of original righteousness together with a disordered disposition [habitus] among the parts of the soul. Consequently, it is not pure privation, it is indeed a corrupt disposition [habitus] ¥’ And Bonaventure writes, “When it is asked, ‘What is original

sin?’ it is correct to answer that it is unrestrained concupiscence. It is also right to respond that it is an absence of required righteousness. And in either of these responses, the other is included.”?® Hugh means the same thing when he says that original sin is ignorance in the mind and concupiscence in the flesh.? He implies that from birth we bring along the ignorance of God, unbelief, distrust, contempt, and hatred of God. For he included all these things when he mentioned ignorance. These statements agree with the Scriptures. At times Paul expressly identifies the deficiency as in 1 Corinthians 2[:14]: “Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit.”*° Elsewhere [Rom. 7:5], he identifies the concupiscence at work in our members bringing forth evil fruits. We could quote many passages with regard to both parts of our definition, but the matter is so clear that there is no need for further testimonies. The discerning reader can easily see that to be without the fear of God and without faith is not merely actual guilt but is an abiding deficiency in an unregenerate nature. So we teach nothing about original sin that is alien either to Scripture or to the church catholic. We have simply cleansed and brought into the light the most important statements in the Scriptures and the Fathers that had been obscured by the sophistic quarreling of recent theologians. Now the issue itself suggests that recent theologians have not noticed what the Fathers meant to say about this deficiency. 27. Thomas Aquinas, STh 11, 1, g. 82, a. 1, ad 1 (Eng. trans.: 26:31). “As in bodily illness there

is privation, in that the balance of health is upset, yet also something positive, the disturbed bodily humours, so also in original sin there is privation, the lack of original justice, yet along with that there are the disturbed powers of the soul. Thus it is not pure privation, but also a corrupt habit of sorts.” 28. Bonaventure, Commentary on the Sentences, lib. II, d. 30, q. 1, a. 2c. 29. Hugh of St. Victor, The Sacraments of the Christian Life I, 7, c. 28 (MPL 176:299).

30. The Vulgate reads: “The unspiritual person does not perceive those things that are of the Spirit of God.”

Article II: Original Sin

117

Knowledge of original sin is a necessity. For we cannot know the magnitude

of Christ’s grace unless we first recognize our malady.’! The entire righteous-

ness of the human creature is sheer hypocrisy before God unless we admit that by nature the heart is lacking love, fear, and trust in God. Thus the prophet says [Jer. 31:19], “And after I was discovered, I struck my thigh.” Again [Ps. 116:11], “I said in my consternation, ‘Everyone is a liar, ” that is, they do not think rightly about God. Here the opponents lash out at Luther, who wrote that “original sin remains after baptism.”>2 They add that this article was rightly condemned by Leo X.>* But His Imperial Majesty will detect an obvious slander here. For the opponents know in what sense Luther intended the statement that original sin remains after baptism. He has always written that baptism removes the guilt of original sin, even if the “material element” of sin, as they call it, remains, namely, concupiscence.>* He even added about the material element that when the Holy Spirit is given through baptism he begins to put concupiscence to death and to create new impulses in the human creature.>> Augustine also says the same thing when he states, “In baptism sin is forgiven, not that it no longer exists, but that it is not accounted [as sin].”3® Here he clearly confesses that sin

remains, even if it is not accounted [as sin]. This position so pleased subsequent generations that it was cited in the decretals.”” And in Against Julian, Augustine says, “That law, which is in the members, is forgiven by the regeneration of the spirit, but it remains in mortal flesh. It is forgiven because the guilt

31. The German translation adds, “As Christ says in Matthew 9[:12] and Mark 2[:17]: “Those

who are well have no need of a physician.” 32. See John Eck, 404 Articles, no. 186: “Original Sin always remains (Luther).” Eck first heard this at the Leipzig Debates (cf. WA 2:160, 34-35; LW 31:317). See also Luther’s Against Latomus (1521) (WA 8:101-102; LW 32:220-21).

33. Roman Confutation (pt. I, art. II): “3. Moreover, the declaration is also rejected whereby they call the fault of origin concupiscence if they mean thereby that concupiscence is a sin that remains sin in a child even after baptism. For the Apostolic See has already condemned two articles of Martin Luther concerning sin remaining in a child after baptism, and concerning the formes of sin hindering a soul from entering the kingdom of heaven. 4. But if, according to the opinion of St. Augustine, they call the vice of origin concupiscence, which in baptism ceases to be sin, this ought to be accepted.” Cf. the papal bull Exsurge Domine of 15 June 1520 (WA 7:328-45; LW 32:19-29). 34. Already in Luther’s marginal notes on Lombard’s Sentences (1509/10) (WA 9:74-75).

35. B.g., Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520) (WA 6:534; LW 36:65-67). 36. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 1, 27 (MPL 44:430; NPNF, ser. 1, 5:275). “This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. It is the daughter of sin, as it were; and whenever it yields assent to the commission of shameful deeds, it becomes also the mother of many sins.” See also 1, 25 (MPL 44:430; NPNF, ser. 1, 5:274). 37. Melanchthon probably had in mind Gratian, Decretum IlI, “Concerning Consecration,”

dist. 4, chap. 2, citing Augustine, On the Baptism of Infants 1, 39 (MPL 44:131; NPNE, ser. 1, 5:30).

33

34

35

36

118

37

38

39

40

Apolbgy of the Augsburg Confession

is absolved in the sacrament by which the faithful are reborn. But it remains because it produces desires against which the faithful struggle.”>® The opponents know that this is what Luther thinks and teaches. But since they cannot refute the principle, they twist the words in order to crush an innocent man by their fabrication. They contend that concupiscence is punishment, not sin.*® Luther maintains that it is sin. But earlier it was shown that Augustine defined original sin in terms of concupiscence. So let them take issue with him if this definition has anything wrong with it. In any case, Paul says [Rom. 7:7], “Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet. ”4? Again [Rom. 7:23], “But I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.” These testimonies cannot be overthrown by sophistry. For clearly they call concupiscence sin,

which nevertheless is not reckoned to those who are in Christ even though it is 41

42

by nature worthy of death where it is not forgiven. This is undoubtedly what the Fathers thought. For with lengthy arguments Augustine refuted the opinions of those who maintained that concupiscence in the human creature is not a defect, but an adiaphoron [neutral thing] as the color of skin or ill health are said to be neutral matters.*! But if the opponents contend that the “tinder of sin” is a neutral matter, they will contradict not only the many statements of Scripture but clearly the entire church. Even if a perfect consensus is not attainable, no one would dare

43

say that the following things are neutral: doubting the wrath of God, the grace of God, and the Word of God; being angry with the judgment of God; being indignant that God does not rescue us immediately from afflictions; grumbling that the ungodly experience more good fortune than the upright; being stirred up by rage, lust, desire for glory, wealth, and the like. And devout people acknowledge that these things are present in them as the Psalms and the prophets make clear. In the schools, however, they have taken over from phi-

losophy the completely alien notions that our passions make us neither good nor evil, neither praiseworthy nor contemptible.*? Again, they say that nothing

38. Augustine, Against Julian 11, 3 (MPL 44:675; The Fathers of the Church 35 [New York: Fathers of the Church, 1957], 61). 39. See John Eck, Enchiridion locorum communium (1529), chap. 5: “In Christ’s faithful, who

with the mind keep the law of God and by the concupiscence of the flesh fight against the law of the mind, there can be no sin. The Apostle calls this sin because it is caused by sin and is the punishment of sin.”

,

40. The Latin Vulgate reads: “I would not have known that concupiscence is sin if the law had

not said: do not covet” [concupisces].

41. Augustine, Against Julian IV, 9ff. (MPL 44:740ff,; The Fathers of the Church 35:213).

42. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 11, 5 (following the English translation of Martin Ostwald [Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962], 40-41): “Now the virtues and vices cannot be emotions,

because we are not called good or bad on the basis of our emotions, but on the basis of our virtues and vices. Also, we are neither praised nor blamed for our emotions. . . . For the same reason, the

Article II: Original Sin

119

is sin unless it is voluntary.#> These statements in the philosophers speak about the judgment of civil courts, not about the judgment of God.* It is no wiser to say, for example, that “nature is not evil” In its place, we do not object to this statement; but it is not right to distort it for the purpose of trivializing original sin. And et these things are said among the scholastics who improperly mingle philosophical or social ethics with the gospel. These things were not simply debated in the schools, but, as often happens, instead of remaining purely in academe these ideas spread among the people where they prevailed and fos-

tered trust in human powers and suppressed the knowledge of the grace of

44

Christ. Therefore, when Luther wanted to expose the magnitude of original sin and human weakness, he taught that the remnants of original sin in the human being are not in their essence neutral, but need both the grace of Christ, so that they might not be held [against us], and also the Holy Spirit, so that they might be put to death. Although the scholastics trivialize both sin and its penalty when they teach that individuals by their own power are capable of keeping the commandments of God, Genesis describes a different penalty imposed on account of original sin. For there human nature was not only subjected to death and other bodily ills,%> but also to the reign of the devil. There this horrible sentence is pronounced [Gen. 3:15]: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers.” The deficiency and concupiscence are both penalty and sin. Death and other bodily ills, together with the tyranny of the devil, are penalties in the proper sense. For human nature is enslaved and held captive by the devil, who deceives it with ungodly opinions

45

ourselves from that slavery. World history itself shows how great is the strength of the devil’s rule. Blasphemy and wicked teachings fill the world, and in these bonds the devil holds enthralled those who are wise and righteous in the eyes of the world.

49

and errors and incites it to all sorts of sins. However, just as the devil is not conquered without Christ’s help, so we, by our own powers, are unable to free

virtues cannot be capacities, either, for we are neither called good or bad nor praised or blamed simply because we are capable of being affected.” Thomas Aquinas, STh 11, 1, q. 24, a. 1, ad 3 (Eng. trans., 19:35), comments: “Aristotle means that we are not praised or blamed for our emotions

considered intrinsically; but he does not deny that they may become praiseworthy or blameworthy to the extent that they are under rational control.” 43. Thomas Aquinas, STh 11, 1, q. 71, a. 5 (Eng. trans., 25:17), citing Augustine, On True Religion 14 (MPL 34:133): “So true is it that every sin is voluntary that unless it be voluntary, it is no sin at all. But nothing can be called voluntary unless an act of the will is involved. Every sin, therefore, implies an act.” 44. The German version adds, “For it is true, as the lawyers say, there is the law of thinking [L(ex) cogitationis], where thoughts are exempt from restraint and punishment. But God searches

the heart. It is thus different with God’s judgment.” The proverb is used by both Ulpian and Cicero. 45. Thomas Aquinas, STh 11, 1, q. 85, a. 5,ad 3.

46

47

48

120 50

51

.

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

In others even greater vices appear. But since Christ was given to us in order to bear both these sins and penalties as well as to destroy the reign of the devil, sin, and death, the benefits of Christ cannot be recognized unless we understand our evil. Therefore our preachers have diligently taught about these matters, and in the process they have said nothing new. Instead they have set forth the Holy Scripture and the statements of the holy Fathers. We think that this will satisfy His Imperial Majesty with regard to the childish and trivial quibbling with which the opponents have slandered this article. For we know that we believe rightly and in agreement with Christ’s church catholic. But if the opponents reopen this controversy, there will be no lack of those who will respond and defend the truth. For in this matter the opponents frequently do not know what they are talking about. They often contradict themselves and fail to explain logically and correctly either the “formal element” of original sin or its “deficiency,” as they say. But we have been reluctant at this point to take up their arguments at greater length. Instead, we have thought it worthwhile to cite in customary and familiar phrases the view of the holy Fathers, which we also follow. [III: Christ] The opponents approve the third article,*® in which we confess that there are two natures in Christ, namely, that the human nature was assumed by the Word into the unity of his person; and that this same Christ suffered and died in order to reconcile the Father to us and rose from the dead in order to rule over, justify, and sanctify believers, etc., according to the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed.

[IV:] Justification In the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, as well as later in the twentieth, they condemn us for teaching that people receive the forgiveness of sins not on account of their own merits but freely on account of Christ, by faith in Him. They condemn us both for denying that people receive the forgiveness of sins on account of their own merits*’ and for affirming that people receive the forgiveness of sins by faith and are justified by faith in Christ.8 But since this controversy deals with the most important topic of Christian teaching which,

46. Confutation (pt. I, art. III): “In the third article there is nothing to offend, since the entire

Confession agrees with the Apostles’ Creed and the right rule of faith.” 47. Confutation IV (pt. I, art. IV): “For it is entirely contrary to Holy Scripture to deny that our works are meritorious.” 48. The first draft of the Confutation is even more explicit here: “On the other hand, when they say that we are justified by faith, this is the great and principal error of the preachers. For to faith alone they ascribe that which is proper to charity and to the grace of God.”

Article IV: Justification

121

rightly understood, illumines and magnifies the honor of Christ*” and brings the abundant consolation that devout consciences need, we ask His Imperial Majesty kindly to hear us out on this important matter. Since the opponents understand neither the forgiveness of sins, nor faith, nor grace, nor righteous-

ness, they miserably contaminate this article, obscure the glory and benefits of Christ, and tear away from devout consciences the consolation offered them in

Christ. But in order both to substantiate our confession and to remove the objections that the opponents raise, we need first to say a few things by way of a preface in order that the sources of both versions of the doctrine, the opponents’ and ours, can be recognized. All Scripture should be divided into these two main topics: the law and the promises.’® In some places it communicates the law. In other places it communicates the promise concerning Christ, either when it promises that Christ

will come and on account of him offers the forgiveness of sins, justification,

and eternal life, or when in the gospel itself, Christ, after he appeared, promises the forgiveness of sins, justification, and eternal life. Now when we refer to

the “law” in this discussion we mean the commandments of the Decalogue,

wherever they appear in the Scriptures. For the present we will say nothing about the ceremonial and civil laws of Moses. Of these two topics, the opponents single out the law (because to some extent human reason naturally understands it since reason contains the same

judgment divinely written on the mind), and through the law they seek the forgiveness of sins and justification. But the Decalogue requires not only outward civil works that reason can produce to some extent; it also requires other

works that are placed far beyond the reach of reason, such as, truly to fear God, truly to love God, truly to call upon God, truly to be convinced that he hears us, and to expect help from God in death and all afflictions. Finally, it requires obedience to God in death and all afflictions so that we do not flee or avoid these things when God imposes them. Here the scholastics in line with the philosophers teach only the righteousness of reason, namely, civil works. In addition, they fabricate the idea that reason, without the Holy Spirit, can love God above all things. Now as long as the human mind is undisturbed and does not feel God’s wrath or judgment, it can imagine that it wants to love God and that it wants to do good for God’s sake. In this way the scholastics teach that people merit the forgiveness of sins by “doing what is within them,”! that is, whenever reason, while grieving over 49. Jonas’s German translation adds the words: “ . . which is especially useful for the clear, correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, and alone shows the way to the unspeakable treasure and right knowledge of Christ, and alone opens the door to the entire Bible.” 50. Melanchthon defined this arrangement in his Loci 1521 (Eng. trans., pp. 70-71). There he distinguished law and gospel with respect to their function (killing and making alive) and explained that both Testaments contain law and gospel. 51. For Gabriel Biel and others, “to do what is in one” (facere quod in se est) was to exercise one’s natural powers without the assistance of grace. This did not justify a person but constituted

122 10

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

sin, elicits an act of love for God or does good for God’s sake.>? Because this opinion naturally flatters people, it has brought forth and multiplied many

kinds of worship in the church, like monastic vows and abuses of the Mass. On 11

12

the basis of this opinion some devised some types, others other types of devotional acts or observances. And in order to nourish and increase trust in such works, the scholastics have asserted that God necessarily gives grace to those who do these things, by a necessity not of coercion but of unchanging order.>? Many great and destructive errors, which would take too long to enumer-

ate, lurk behind this opinion. But let the discerning reader consider only this:

if this is Christian righteousness, what is the difference between philosophy and the teaching of Christ? If we merit the forgiveness of sins by these elicited acts>* of ours, what does Christ provide? If we can be justified through reason 13

14 15

16

17

and the works of reason, why do we need Christ or regeneration? As a result of

these opinions, the matter has degenerated to such an extent that many ridicule us for teaching that we must seek another righteousness beyond that offered by philosophy.>> We have heard of some who, having laid aside the gospel, expound on the Ethics of Aristotle in their sermons. And indeed they should, if the things that the opponents defend are true. After all, Aristotle wrote so eruditely about social ethics that nothing further needs to be added. We also see that there are books that compare certain teachings of Christ with the teachings of Socrates, Zeno, and others, as though Christ had come to bring certain kinds of laws through which we merit the forgiveness of sins rather than receiving it freely on account of his merits. So if we accept the opponents’ doctrine that we merit the forgiveness of sins and justification by the works of reason, there will indeed be no difference between philosophical—or at least Pharisaic—righteousness and Christian righteousness. So that they do not bypass Christ entirely, the opponents require a knowledge of the story of Christ and credit him with meriting for us a certain disposition [habitus], or, as they call it, “Initial grace,”> which they understand to a merit of congruity, that is, a work rewarded with righteousness not because of its intrinsic worth but out of God’s goodness. 52. Biel held that the requirement for love of God for God’s sake or above everything else, while not easy, was still within the reach of human beings without the assistance of grace. They ascend from self-love to a love of everything that is to their advantage (including God) to a love of God as such. 53. Bonaventure, in Sent. 111, d. 12, a. 2.9.1. See Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will

(1525) (WA 18:634; LW 33:64).

54. Elicited acts are those performed by the strength of the human will, which has freedom of choice in matters of salvation. 55. Melanchthon had in mind such things as Erasmus of Rotterdam’s attack on Luther in On the Freedom of the Will or John Cochlaeus’s attack on Melanchthon in a book of the same name. Jonas’s German translation mentions the schools of Louvain and Paris that condemned Luther. 56. Disposition of grace (habitus gratiae) or-of love (habitus dilectionis) elevates a person’s

nature to a higher level and replaces the added gift of stabilizing grace (donum superadditum) lost as a result of the fall into sin. This grace was an inner power that enhanced a person’s natural qual-

Article IV: Justification

123

be a disposition [habitus] that inclines us to love God more easily.”” Nevertheless, what they attribute to this disposition [habitus] is of little consequence, because they imagine that the acts of the will prior to this disposition [habitus] and subsequent to this disposition [habitus] are of the same kind.”® They imagine that the will can love God, but that this disposition [habitus]

nevertheless stimulates it to do so more willingly.>® They first urge us to earn this disposition [habitus] through preceding merits; then they urge us to earn an increase of this disposition [habitus] and eternal life by the works of the Jaw.5° Thus they bury Christ so that people do not use him as a mediator and on account of him believe that they freely receive the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation. Instead, they should foolishly imagine that by their own fulfillment of the law they merit the forgiveness of sins and that by their own fulfillment of the law they are accounted righteous before God—in spite of the fact that no one ever lives up to the law and in spite of the fact that reason does nothing except some works for society’s welfare, while neither fearing God nor truly believing that God cares. And even though they speak about this disposition [habitus], yet without the righteousness of faith a person can neither love God nor understand the love of God. And when they invent a distinction between a merit of congruity®! and a merit of condignity,®? they are only masquerading lest they appear to be outright Pelagians. For if God gives grace for the merit of congruity of necessity, it is then no longer the merit of congruity but the merit of condignity.®> But they do not realize what they are saying. They suppose that after receiving “the disposition [habitus] of love”® a person can perform a merit of condignity. Yet they demand that people doubt whether this disposition [habitus] is present.® How, therefore, do they know whether they perform a merit of congruity or a merit of condignity? But this entire matter was invented by idle people who

ities and provided supernatural virtues. In Biel’s thought this habitus is bestowed on the basis of doing what is in one. 57. Duns Scotus, for example, argued that the natural ability to love God was intensified by the infused habitus of love, leading to meritorious works.

58. Scotus argued that in both cases the will can be directed to love God. 59. Scotus said that love (caritas) strengthened natural ardor (dilectio).

60. This is an outline of Gabriel Biel’s doctrine of justification. 61. Merit of congruity (meritum de congruo): good works that merit a reward solely on the basis of God’s generosity. For Biel, when persons in a state of sin do what is in them and love God according to the substance of the act, God rewards them (de congruo) with the infusion of first

grace. 62. Merit of condignity (meritum de condigno): good works that merit a reward from God on the basis of their intrinsic worth. For Biel it is an act performed in a state of grace that is then worthy of divine acceptance. Persons first earn congruent merit by doing what is in them; upon receiving a grace-induced habit of love they can then perform condign merit for eternal reward. 63. That is, grace must be earned; God’s generosity means nothing. 64. Identical with the habitus of grace (cf. par. 17).

65. This demand was made to Luther already in 1518 by Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg. See the

Proceedings at Augsburg (1518) (WA 2:13, 6-16, 3; LW 31:270-74).

18

19

20

124

'

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

have no idea how the forgiveness of sins takes place and how, confronted by the judgment of God and the terrors of the conscience, trust in works shakes us. Complacent hypocrites always think that they perform everything deserving a merit of condignity, whether or not that disposition [habitus] is present, because people naturally trust in their own righteousness. But terrified consciences waver and doubt, and then immediately seek to accumulate other works in order to find rest. They never believe that they perform anything deserving a merit of condignity, and so they rush headlong into despair unless, beyond the teaching of the law, they hear the gospel concerning the gracious forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of faith.% 21

Thus the opponents teach nothing but the righteousness of reason or at the

very least, the righteousness of the law, upon which they fasten their attention

just as the Jews did upon the veiled face of Moses [2 Cor. 3:13]. And in com-

22

placent hypocrites, who suppose that they satisfy the law, our adversaries arouse a presumptuous and futile trust in works as well as a contempt for the grace of Christ. Conversely, they drive frightened consciences to despair who, beset by doubt, can never experience what faith is and how efficacious it is. In the end they utterly despair. Now we maintain that God requires the righteousness of reason and that because of God’s command honorable works prescribed in the Decalogue are necessary according to [Gal. 3:24]: “The law was our disciplinarian”; and [1 Tim. 1:9]: “The law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and

23

24

25 26

27

disobedient.” God wants those who live according to the flesh to be restrained by such civil discipline, and to preserve it he has given laws, learning, teaching, governments, and penalties. And to a certain extent, reason can produce this righteousness by its own powers, although it is often shackled by its natural weakness and by the devil, who drives it to shameful acts. Moreover, we will-

ingly give this righteousness of reason the praises it deserves, for our corrupt nature has no greater good than this, as Aristotle rightly said: “Neither the evening star nor the morning star is more beautiful than righteousness.”®” God even honors it with temporal rewards. Still, it ought not be praised at Christ’s expense. For it is false that we merit the forgiveness of sins through our works. It is also false that people are accounted righteous before God because of the righteousness of reason. And it is furthermore false that reason by its own powers is able to love God above all things and to fulfill God’s law, namely, truly to fear God, truly to conclude that God hears prayer, willingly to obey God in death and in other visi66. Jonas’s German translation adds a story about Franciscans who praised their order and good works in vain to some pious consciences who were dying. In the end they could only say: “Dear man, Christ has died for you.” This revived and refreshed them in their time of trouble and

alone gave them peace and comfort. 67. Nicomachean Ethics V, 3, 2.

Article IV: Justification

125

tations of God, and not to covet things that belong to others, etc.—although reason can produce civil works. It is also false and an affront to Christ to say that people who observe the commandments of God without grace do not sin. We have support for our position not only from the Scriptures but also from the Fathers. Augustine argues at length against the Pelagians that grace is not given on account of our merits. In On Nature and Grace, he says, “If natural capacity with the help of free will is in itself sufficient both for learning how one ought to live and for leading a holy life, then Christ died for nothing [Gal. 2:21], and then the scandal of the cross [Gal. 5:11] has been removed. Why should I also not cry out here? Yes, with a Christian’s sorrow I will cry out and I will chide them: ‘You who want to be justified by nature have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace’ [Gal. 5:4, Vulgate]; for ‘being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish your own, you have not submitted to God’s righteousness’ [Rom. 10:3]. For just as Christ is the ‘end of the law; so Christ is the Savior of corrupted human nature, for the righteousness to ‘all who believe’ [Rom. 10:4].768

And John 8[:36] says, “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” Therefore reason cannot free us from sins and merit the forgiveness

28

29

30

31

of sins. And in John 3[:5] it is written, “No one can enter the kingdom of God

without being born of water and Spirit.” But if we must be born anew through the Holy Spirit, then the righteousness of reason does not justify us before God; it does not keep the law. And Romans 3[:23] says: “All have sinned and

fall short of the glory of God,” that is, they lack the wisdom and righteousness of God, which acknowledges and glorifies God. Again Romans 8[:7-8], “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” These witnesses are so clear that, to use the words of Augustine as he used them in discussing this case, they do not require an acute intellect, only attentive listening.%® If the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God, the flesh certainly does not love God. If it cannot submit to the law of God, it cannot love God. If the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God, the flesh sins even when we perform outward civil works. If it cannot submit to the law of God, it certainly sins even when we perform works that are excellent and praiseworthy in human eyes. The opponents consider only the commandments of the second table, which entail the civil righteousness that reason understands. Being content with this they suppose that they satisfy the law of God. Meanwhile they fail to notice the first table, which instructs us to love God, to conclude that God is angry with sin,

truly to fear God, truly to conclude that God hears our prayers. But without the Holy Spirit the human heart either despises the judgment of God in its com68. Augustine, On Nature and Grace 40, 47 (MPL 44:270; NPNF, ser. 1, 5:137). 69. In Augustine, Grace and Free Will 8, 19 (MPL 44:892-93; NPNF, ser. 1, 5:451).

32

33

34

126 35

36

37

38

39

Apolégy of the Augsburg Confession

placency or in the face of punishment flees and hates God who judges them. Thus it does not obey the first table. Therefore since these things (contempt for God, doubt about the Word of God and about its threats and promises) cling to human nature, people truly sin even when they do respectable works without the Holy Spirit, because they do them with a godless heart, according to the text [Rom. 14:23], “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Such people perform their works with contempt for God, just as when Epicurus did not think that God cared for him, paid attention to him, or heard his prayer.”® This contempt for God corrupts works that appear to be honorable, because God judges the heart. Finally, it was very foolish for the opponents to write that human beings, guilty of eternal wrath, merit the forgiveness of sins through an elicited act of love”! since it is impossible to love God until the forgiveness of sins is first grasped by faith. For the heart that truly believes that God is angry is unable to love God until he is shown to be reconciled. For as long as he terrifies us and appears to be casting us into eternal death, human nature cannot bring itself to love such a wrathful, judging, and punishing God. It is easy for complacent minds to fabricate some foolish dreams about love, namely, that a person guilty of mortal sin can love God above all things, because they themselves do not realize what the wrath or judgment of God is. But in its agony and its battles’ the conscience experiences the emptiness of such philosophical speculations. Paul says [Rom. 4:15]: “The law brings wrath.” He does not say that through the law people merit the forgiveness of sins. For the law always accuses and terrifies consciences. Therefore it does not justify since the conscience that is terrified by the law flees the judgment of God. They err, therefore, who trust that they merit the forgiveness of sins through the law and through their own works. Enough has been said for now about this righteousness of reason or of the law, which the opponents teach. Later, when we set forth our position on the righteousness of faith, the subject matter itself will compel us to marshal more

testimonies, which will also be useful for refuting those errors of the

opponents that we have considered to this point.

40

Therefore, because people cannot by their own powers live according to the law of God and because all are under sin and guilty of eternal wrath and death, we cannot be set free from sin and be justified through the law. Instead, what has been given us is the promise of the forgiveness of sins and justification on

account of Christ, who was given for us in order to make satisfaction for the

41

sins of the world, and who has been appointed as the mediator and propitiator.”> This promise is not conditional upon our merits; it freely offers the for70. Cicero, Laws 1, 7, 21-22.

71. Roman Confutation (pt. I, art. IV): “As was rejected and disapproved above so now we reject and disapprove . . . concerning good works that we do not merit forgiveness of sins.” 72. Jonas’s German translation: “with Satan.™~

.

73. Throughout this article and occasionally in Ap XII and XXI, Melanchthon calls Christ propitiator (the one who atones for our sins by sacrificing himself), echoing the Latin translation of

Article IV: Justification

127

giveness of sins and justification, just as Paul says [Rom. 11:6]: “If it is by works, it is no longer on the basis of grace”’* And elsewhere he says [Rom. 3:21]: “Apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed,” that is, the forgiveness of sins is offered freely. Reconciliation does not depend upon our merits. But if the forgiveness of sins depended upon our merits and reconciliation were by the law, it would be useless. For since we do not keep the law, it would also follow that the promise of reconciliation would never apply to us. Thus Paul argues in Romans 4[:14]: “If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.” For if the promise required the law and condition of our merits, it would follow that the promise is useless since we never keep the law. But since justification takes place through a free promise, it follows that we cannot justify ourselves. Otherwise, why would a promise be needed? And since the promise cannot be grasped in any other way than by faith, the gospel (which is, strictly speaking, the promise of the forgiveness of sins and justification on account of Christ) proclaims the righteousness of faith in Christ, which the law does not teach. Nor is this a righteousness of the law. For the law requires of us our own works and our own perfection. But the promise freely offers to us, who are oppressed by sin and death, reconciliation on account of Christ, which is received not by works, but by faith alone. This faith does not bring to God trust in our own merits, but only trust in the promise or the mercy promised in Christ.

42

43

44

Therefore it follows that personal faith—by which an individual believes that his or her sins are remitted on account of Christ and that God is reconciled and gracious on account of Christ—receives the forgiveness of sins and justifies us. Because in repentance,’ that is, in terrors, faith consoles and uplifts hearts, it regenerates us and brings the Holy Spirit that we might then be able to live according to the law of God, namely, to love God, truly to fear God, truly to assert that God hears prayer, to obey God in all afflictions, and to mortify concupiscence, etc. Thus because faith, which freely receives the forgiveness of sins, sets against the wrath of God Christ as the mediator and propitiator, it does not offer up our merits or our love. This faith is the true knowledge of

45

fillment of the law. Concerning this faith, not a syllable exists in the teaching of our opponents. Hence we criticize our opponents for teaching only a righteousness of the law and not the righteousness of the gospel, which proclaims the righteousness of faith in Christ.

47

46

Christ; it uses the benefits of Christ, it renews hearts, and it precedes our ful-

Romans 3:25 (NRSV: “sacrifice of atonement”) and 1 John 2:2 (NRSV: “atoning sacrifice”). See below, Ap IV.82. Jonas translates the word as Versohner, “reconciler”

74. Cited according the alternate reading in the NRSV. 75. Throughout this article, the Latin word poenitentia is translated “repentance.” It also may mean “penance” or “penitence.” See CA XII and Ap XII.

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

128

What Is Justifying Faith? 48

The opponents imagine that faith is nothing more than a knowledge of history, and so they teach that it can coexist with mortal sin.”® As a result they say noth-

ing about the faith by which (as Paul so often says) we are justified, because those who are accounted righteous before God do not continue living in mortal sin. But the faith that justifies is not only a knowledge of history; it is to assent’’ to the promise of God, in which forgiveness of sins and justification are bestowed freely on account of Christ. To avoid the suspicion that it is merely knowledge, we will add further that to have faith is to desire and to receive

49

50

51

the offered promise of the forgiveness of sins and justification. It is easy to determine the difference between this faith and the righteousness of the law. Faith is that worship’® which receives the benefits that God offers; the righteousness of the law is that worship which offers God our own merits. God wants to be honored by faith so that we receive from him those things that he promises and offers. But faith signifies not merely a knowledge of history but the faith which assents to the promise, as Paul clearly testifies when he says [Rom. 4:16] righteousness “depends on faith, in order that the promise may . . . be guaranteed.” He realizes that the promise cannot be received in any other way than by faith. Therefore he compares how the promise and faith relate to one another and connects them together. It will be easy to determine what faith is if we consid-

er the Creed where this article, “the forgiveness of sins,” is set forth. Thus it is not enough

52 53

to believe that Christ was born, suffered, and was

raised again

unless we also add this article, which is the real purpose”® of the narrative: “the forgiveness of sins” The rest must be referred back to this article, namely, that on account of Christ and not on account of our merits, the forgiveness of sins is given to us. For why was it necessary to give Christ for our sins if our merits could make satisfaction for them? Therefore, whenever we speak about justifying faith, we must understand that these three elements belong together: the promise itself; the fact that the promise is free; and the merits of Christ as the payment and atoning sacrifice. The promise is received by faith; the word “free” excludes our merits and means that the blessing is offered only through mercy; the merits of Christ are 76. In late-medieval theology, faith alone, “unformed faith” (fides informata), was the assent of the human being to the truth of Christian teaching. Even the devils possessed this “dead faith.” Only when infused with the disposition (habitus) of love was faith “formed” and hence justifying. Thomas Aquinas in STh II, 1, q. 71, a. 4 (Eng. trans., 25:15): “This takes into account the fact that

faith and hope remain in an imperfect state [unformed] after mortal sin, thus lacking the habitual perfection necessary for virtue.” See also STh III, q. 49. a. 1, ad 5. 77. Jonas’s German translation: “to embrace.”

78. Latreia (Rom. 12:1). According to John of Damascus, this is proper only to God (in contrast to proskunasis offered to icons). See also Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles L11I, c. 120.

79. causa finalis: final cause or goal. Melanchthon uses the technical language of Aristotelian logic to describe the Creed.

Article IV: Justification

129

the payment because there must be some definite atoning sacrifice for our sins. Scripture contains frequent pleas for mercy, and the holy Fathers often teach that we are saved through mercy. Therefore, every time mercy is mentioned, we must bear in mind that faith is also required, for it receives the promised mercy. Conversely, every time we speak about faith, we want the object [of faith] to be understood as well, namely, the promised mercy. For faith does not justify or save because it is a worthy work in and of itself, but only because it receives the promised mercy. This worship, this latreia, is especially praised throughout the Prophets and

Psalms. Although the law does not appear to teach about the free forgiveness of sins, the patriarchs knew about the promise concerning Christ, that God intended to forgive sins on account of Christ. Therefore, since they understood that Christ would be the payment for our sins, they also knew that our works could not make so high a payment. Thus they received the free mercy and forgiveness of sins by faith, just like the saints in the New Testament. The frequent pleas for mercy and faith in the Psalms and Prophets also belong here, as, for example [Ps. 130:3]: “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, Lord, who could

stand?” Here the psalmist confesses his sin, but does not bring up his merits. He adds [v. 4], “But there is forgiveness with you.”8" Here he encourages himself with confidence in the mercy of God. And he quotes the promise: “I wait for the Lord, my soul waits, and in his Word I hope,” that is, “because you have promised the forgiveness of sins, I am sustained by your promise.” And® Paul cites this text concerning Abraham [Rom. 4:3]: “Abraham believed

God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” that is, Abraham realized that he had a gracious God only on account of God’s promise. He assented to the promise and did not allow himself to be pulled away from it, even though he saw that he was unclean and unworthy. He realized that God keeps a promise on account of his faithfulness and not on account of our works or merits. Terrified hearts are unable to find rest if they are supposed to think that they please God on account of their own works or their own love or the fulfilling of the law, because sin clings to the flesh and always accuses us. However, hearts only find rest when in these terrors they are convinced that we please God because he has promised, and that God keeps his promise on account of his faithfulness, and not on account of our worthiness. Thus Abraham heard this voice, “Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield,” etc. [Gen. 15:1]. This revived him and he realized that God was gracious to him, not because he deserved it, but because God’s promise had to be judged as true. This faith, therefore, is reckoned to him as righteousness. That is, because he assents to the promise and receives the reconciliation offered, he is now truly righteous and acceptable to God, not on account of his own worthiness, but because he received the free promise of God. It was not without reason that this testimony 80. Literally, following the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint, “atoning sacrifice.” Jonas’s German translation renders this, following the German Bible, “forgiveness.” 81. Melanchthon inserts this italicized portion in the second, octavo edition.

54 55

56

57

58

130

59

60

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

from Genesis found favor with Paul. We can see how he expands on it, and how attentively he dwells on it, because he saw that the nature of faith was easily ascertained in this passage. He saw that the testimony about the reckoning of righteousness is clearly included. He saw that the credit for meriting justification and quieting the conscience is denied to works. Since Abraham is pronounced righteous because he assents to the promise and receives the offered reconciliation, he does not set his merits or works against the wrath of God. Therefore, once this passage has been diligently considered, it can teach godly minds abundantly about the entire subject. Indeed, it can be understood in this way whenever terrified minds apply it to themselves and are convinced in the same way that they ought to assent to the free promise. For they are not able to find rest in any other way until they convince themselves that they are reconciled to God because he promises it and not because our nature, life, and works are worthy. Thus the patriarchs, too, were justified not through the law, but through the promise and faith. It is incredible that the opponents belittle faith so much, although they see it praised everywhere as the foremost act of worship as in Psalm 50[:15]: “Call on me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you.” This is how God wants to become known and worshiped, namely, that we receive blessings from him, and indeed, that we receive them on account of his mercy and not on account of our merits. This is the richest consolation in all afflictions, which the opponents destroy when they trivialize and disparage faith and only teach people to deal with God through works and merits.

Only8? Faith in Christ Justifies 61

62

First, lest anyone think that we are speaking about an idle knowledge of history, we must first explain how faith comes into being. Thereafter, we will show both that it justifies and how this ought to be understood. We will then remove the objections of the opponents.% In the last chapter of Luke [24:47], Christ commands the preaching of repentance and the forgiveness of sins in his name. The gospel accuses® all people of being under sin and subject to eternal wrath and death and for Christ’s sake offers the forgiveness of sins and justification, which are received by faith. The proclamation of repentance, which accuses us, terrifies consciences with genuine and serious terrors. In the midst of these, hearts must

once again receive consolation. This happens when they believe the promise of Christ, namely, that on his account we have the forgiveness of sins. This faith,

which arises and consoles in the midst of those fears, receives the forgiveness of sins, justifies us, and makes alive. For this consolation is a new and spiritual

63

life. These things are plain and clear. They can be understood by the faithful, 82. Added to the second, octavo edition. 83. These sections begin with par. 69, 75, and 183 (cf. 122), respectively. 84. Cf. John 16:8-11.

Article IV: Justification

131

and they have the testimonies of the church. Nowhere can our opponents say how the Holy Spirit is given. They imagine that the sacraments confer the Holy Spirit ex opere operato® without the recipient being favorably stirred as if in actual fact the bestowing of the Holy Spirit were without any effect. Because we are speaking about the kind of faith that is not an idle thought, but which frees us from death, produces new life in our hearts, and is a work of the Holy Spirit, it does not coexist with mortal sin. Instead, as long as it is present, it brings forth good fruit—as we will discuss later.** What can possibly be said more simply and clearly about the conversion of the ungodly or about the manner of regeneration? Let them bring forward a single commentary on the Sentences out of such a vast array of writers that has indicated how regeneration takes place.’” When they speak about the disposition [habitus] of love, they imagine that people merit [the Holy Spirit] through works—just as the present-day Anabaptists teach—and do not teach that it is received through the Word.88 However, God cannot be dealt with and cannot be grasped in any other way than through the Word. Accordingly, justification takes place through the Word, just as St. Paul notes [Rom. 1:16]: the gospel “is the power

64 65

66

67

of God for salvation to everyone who has faith.” Likewise [Rom. 10:17], “Faith

comes from what is heard.” At this point we could even take up the argument that faith justifies, because if justification takes place only through the Word and the Word is grasped only by faith, it follows that faith justifies. But there are other and more important arguments. We have discussed these things so far in order to show how regeneration takes place and in order that it might be understood what kind of faith we are talking about. | would remind the we all, of First justifies. faith®? Now we shall show that that Christ is the proposition the uphold to readers that just as it is necessary how will Christ For justifies. faith that maintain mediator, so it is necessary to and if we justification in mediator a as him be the mediator if we do not use do not realize that on his account we are regarded as righteous? But this means to believe in and rely on the merits of Christ, that on his account God certainIy wants to be reconciled toward us. Likewise, just as we ought to maintain that the promise of Christ is needed beyond the law, so we must maintain that faith

justifies. After all, the law does not teach the free forgiveness of sins. Likewise,

85. Since the thirteenth century, ex opere operato (by the mere performance of the rite or by the outward act) was a formula customarily applied to grace in the sacraments in order to affirm their objective efficacy, namely, that they did not depend upon the condition of their recipient or distributor. Or, as was usually said, the sacraments were efficacious as long as the recipients did not impose an obstacle and if they had a “historical faith” (that is, if they assented to the facts of revelation) rather than trust.

86. See par. 122ff. 87. The Sentences of Peter Lombard was the basic theological textbook of the Middle Ages, on which many scholastic theologians, including Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and Gabriel Biel, wrote commentaries. 88. See the rejection of the Anabaptists’ position in CA 'V, 4. 89. Jonas’s German txanslation adds, “and nothing else.”

68

69

70

132

71

72

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

the law cannot be kept without the prior reception of the Holy Spirit. Therefore we must maintain that the promise of Christ is needed. It cannot, however, be received in any other way than by faith. Therefore those who deny that faith justifies do away with both the gospel and Christ and teach nothing but law. But perhaps when we say that faith justifies, some will think that it refers to a foundational principle, namely, that faith is the beginning of justification or the preparation for justification. As a result, it is not by faith itself that we are accepted by God, but by the works that follow. They foolishly imagine that faith is therefore praised so highly because it is foundational.”® For the foundation is very important, as people commonly say, “the beginning is half of everything.”! It is as if someone should say that grammar produces the teachers for all the disciplines since it prepares the way for all other disciplines, even though it is a person’s own field that really makes each one an expert. We do not think of faith in this way. Instead, we maintain that, properly and truly, by faith itself we are regarded as righteous for Christ’s sake, that is, we are accept-

73

able to God. And because “to be justified” means that out of unrighteous people righteous people are made or regenerated, it also means that they are pronounced or regarded as righteous. For Scripture speaks both ways. Accordingly, we first want to show that faith alone makes a righteous person out of an unrighteous one, that is, it alone receives the forgiveness of sins. The little word “alone” offends some, even though Paul says [Rom. 3:28]: “For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law”; and again in Ephesians 2[:8-9]: “It is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast”;?? and again in Romans [3:24]: . . justified by his grace as a gift . . .” If anyone dislikes the exclusive particle “alone,” let them banish the exclusive terminology, “freely,” “not by works,” “it is a gift,” etc., from Paul as well. For these, too, are exclusive. However, we reject the notion

4 LR

74

of merit. We do not exclude the Word or sacraments, as the opponents falsely charge. For we said above that faith is sparked by the Word, and we give the highest praise to the ministry of the Word. To be sure, love and good works ought to follow faith. For this reason they are not excluded as though they did not follow faith. However, trust in the merit of love or works in justification is excluded. This we will clearly show.

90. This position, held by such Roman controversialists as Caspar Schatzgeyer, was later supported by the Council of Trent, session VI, 8. 91. Plato, Laws 753E (bk. 6).

-

92. Latin: literally, “not from you and not by works.” Cf. Martin Luther, On Translating: An

Open Letter (1530) (WA 30/2: 632—-43; LW 35:182-98).

Article IV: Justification

133

We Obtain the Forgiveness of Sins Only by Faith in Christ First,?> we think that even the opponents will admit that in justification the forgiveness of sins is necessary,’* for we are all are under sin. Given this, we

argue as follows: To obtain the forgiveness of sins is to be justified according to [Ps. 32:1]: “Blessed [NRSV: Happy] are those whose transgression is forgiven.” We obtain the forgiveness of sins only by faith in Christ, not through love, nor on account of love or works, although love follows faith. Therefore we are justified by faith alone, justification being understood as the making of a righteous person out

75

76 77 78

of an unrighteous one or as regeneration.

It will thus be easy to explain the minor premise® if we know how the forgiveness of sins takes place. Our opponents debate quite feebly whether or not the forgiveness of sins and the infusion of grace constitute a single transformation.% Being lazy people, they have no answer. In the forgiveness of sins, the terrors of sin and eternal death in our hearts must be conquered, just as Paul

79

testifies in 1 Corinthians 15[:56, 57]: “The sting of death is sin, and the power

of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our

Lord Jesus Christ.” In other words, sin terrifies consciences. This happens

through the law, which shows us the wrath of God against sin. But we gain the victory through Christ. How? By faith, when we encourage ourselves by confidence in the mercy promised on account of Christ. Therefore, we prove the minor premise as follows: the wrath of God cannot be conciliated as long as we set our own works against it, because Christ has been set forth as the propitiator in order that on account of him the Father may be reconciled with us. But Christ is not grasped as the mediator in any other way than by faith. By faith alone, therefore, we obtain the forgiveness of sins when we are encouraged by trust in the mercy promised on account of Christ. Likewise, in Romans 5[:2] Paul says: “Through him we have access to the Father,” and he adds, “through faith.”¥’ Therefore we are reconciled to the Father and we receive the forgiveness of sins when we are comforted by a confidence in the mercy promised on account of Christ. Our opponents think that Christ is a mediator and propitiator because he has merited the disposition [habitus] of love,?8 and so they do not urge us to use him as our mediator now. Instead, they completely bury Christ by imagining that we have access to God 93. For the other “admissions,” see par. 82—84. 94. True for Duns Scotus and his followers. Thomas Aquinas defined the logical structure of the process of justification, beginning with the infusion of grace. See STh I-11, q. 113, a. 8c. 95, The statement of par. 77: “We obtain the forgiveness of sins only by faith in Christ.” 96. Duns Scotus in Sent. IV,, d. 16., q. 2, 4: “The infusion of grace and the expulsion of guilt or,

more properly speaking, the remission of guilt, are not simply one change.” Both are bound only according to the ordained power of God. 97. Citing the Vulgate and Erasmus’s Greek text. NRSV: ©. . . through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand.” The words “by faith,” inserted after the word “access,” are placed in a footnote as the reading of “other ancient authorities.” 98. For example, Duns Scotus in Sent. 111, d. 19, q. 1, along with I, d. 27, q. 1, par. 3—4.

80

81

134

82

Apologjz of the Augsburg Confession

through our own works, and through them merit this disposition [habitus], and then by this love find peace of conscience.”® Does this not completely bury Christ and do away with the entire teaching of faith? Paul, on the contrary, teaches that we have access, that is, peace,'% through Christ. To show how this happens, he adds that we have access “through faith.” By faith, therefore, on account of Christ, we receive the forgiveness of sins. We cannot set our own love and our own works against the wrath of God. Second, it is certain that sins are forgiven on account of Christ, the atoning sacrifice, according to Romans 3[:25]: “ .. whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement . . ” Moreover, Paul adds: “effective through faith.” Thus, this atoning sacrifice benefits us when by faith we grasp the mercy promised in him and set it against the wrath and judgment of God. Hebrews 4[:14-16] was writ-

83

84

ten with the same meaning: “Since, then, we have a great high priest . . . let us approach with confidence.”!%! For it urges us to approach God, not with confidence in our own merits, but with confidence in Christ the high priest. Therefore it requires faith. Third, in Acts 10[:43] Peter says: “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” How could he say it more clearly? We receive the forgiveness of sins, he says, through his name, that is, on account of him, and therefore not on account of our merits and not on account of our contrition, attrition, love, acts of worship, or works. And he adds: “When we believe in him.” He therefore requires faith. For we cannot take hold of the name of Christ in any other way than by faith. In addition, he cites the consensus of all the prophets—which is really to cite the authority of the church. But we will have to speak about this topic again a little later when we consider repentance.!%2 Fourth, the forgiveness of sins is something promised on account of Christ. Therefore it cannot be received in any other way than by faith alone, since a promise cannot be received in any other way than by faith alone. In Romans 4[:16], Paul says, “For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed.” It is as though he said, “If the matter depended upon our merits, the promise would be uncertain and useless since we could never determine when we had earned enough merit.” Experienced consciences can readily understand this. Therefore Paul says in Galatians 3[:22] that “Scripture has consigned everyone under sin, so that, by faith in Jesus Christ, the promise might be given to those who believe.”19> Here he excludes our merits because he says that all are guilty and imprisoned under sin. Then 99. Quarto: “gain access to God.” 100. Quarto: “reconciliation.”

101. NRSV: “with boldness.” Melanchthon follows the Vulgate. 102. See Article XII, 66ff. 103. Melanchthon cites the Vulgate. The NRSV -reads: “scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”

135

Article IV: Justification

he adds that the promise, namely, the forgiveness of sins and justification, is given. And he then proceeds to show how the promise can be received, namely, by faith. Thus Paul’s chief argument, which he often repeats, is based upon the nature of a promise. Nothing that one can either devise or imagine is able to overthrow Paul’s argument. Therefore faithful minds should not allow themselves to be diverted from this declaration that we receive the forgiveness of sins on account of Christ only by faith. In this they have certain and firm consolation against the terrors of sin, against eternal death, and against all the gates of hell [Matt. 16:18].

Since we receive the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation on account of Christ!% by faith alone, faith alone justifies. This is because those who are reconciled are regarded as righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy on account of Christ, as long as they take hold of this mercy by faith. Thus Scripture testifies [Rom. 4:5] that we are reckoned righteous by faith. Therefore we will add some testimonies'® that clearly state that faith is the very righteousness by which we are reckoned righteous before

85

86

God, not because it is a work that is worthy in and of itself, but because it

receives the promise by which God has pledged that on account of Christ he desires to be gracious to those who believe in him and because it knows that “Christ Jesus . . . became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption” [1 Cor. 1:30]. Paul discusses this topic especially in the Epistle to the Romans and advances the thesis that we who believe that God is reconciled with us on account of Christ are justified freely by faith. And in chapter 3[:28] he sets forth

10 this proposition, which contains the essential point of the entire discussion:

“For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law” The opponents interpret this as referring to the Levitical ceremonies.!%7 But Paul is talking not only about the ceremonies, but about the

entire law. For later [Rom. 7:7] he quotes from the Decalogue: “Do not covet.”

If moral works merited the forgiveness of sins and justification, there would be no need for Christ, and the promise and everything that Paul says about the promise would be overthrown. He would also be wrong when he writes to the Ephesians [2:8], “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.” Likewise, Paul refers to Abraham and David who at least had a command from God regarding circumcision [Rom. 4:1-6]. Thus if any works did justify, surely these works (since they had a command) would have had to justify. However, Augustine correctly teaches in his 104. Quarto: “the Holy Spirit” 105. Par. 86-121.

106. The words “proposition” (propositum), “essential point” (status), and “discussion” (disputatio) are technical terms in rhetoric, employed especially by Melanchthon to interpret Romans. See

Philip

Melanchthon,

Concordia, 1992), 98-103.

Commentary

on

Romans

(1540),

trans.

Fred

Kramer

(St.

Louis:

107. See the Confutatio (pt. I, art. VI), citing Ambrosiaster. This was also Erasmus’s opinion.

87

136

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

lengthy argument in On the Spirit and the Letter that Paul is talking about the entire law. He

88

89

concludes, “Now

that we have

considered

these matters

and

treated them thoroughly according to the abilities which the Lord sees fit to give us, we conclude that a person is not justified by the precepts of a good life, but only through faith in Jesus Christ.”198 And lest we think that the statement “faith justifies” slipped from Paul at random, he reinforces and supports it with a lengthy discussion in Romans 4 and then repeats it in all of his letters. Thus in the fourth chapter of Romans [4:4-5] he says: “Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.” Here he clearly says that faith itself is reckoned as righteousness. It is faith, therefore, that God pronounces

to be righteousness. Paul adds that it is reckoned freely and denies that it could be reckoned freely if it were owed on account of works. Therefore he excludes even the merit of those works done according to the moral law. For if justification before God were owed for these works, faith would not be reckoned as 90 g1

92

93

righteousness

apart from works. And

later

[4:9], “Faith was

reckoned

to

Abraham as righteousness.” In chapter 5[:1] he says: “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God,” that is, we have tranquil and joyful consciences before God. And in Romans

10[:10]: “For one believes with the

heart and so is justified.” Here he states that faith is the righteousness of the heart. Galatians 2[:16]: “And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that

we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by . . . works of the law.” Ephesians 2[:8-9]: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast.”

95

John 1[:12-13]: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.” John 3[:14-16]: “And just as

96

life” Likewise

94

97

Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may . . . not perish but may have eternal [John 3:17-18], “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the

world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned.” Acts 13[:38-39]: “Let it be known to you therefore, my brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you; by this Jesus everyone who believes is set free'% from all those sins from which you could not be freed!10 by the law of Moses.” How is it possible to speak more clearly about the

108. Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter 13,22 (MPL 44:214f.; CSEL 60:176, 13; NPNF, ser.

1, 5:93).

'

109. Melanchthon follows the Vulgate, which has “justified.” 110. Melanchthon follows the Vulgate, which has “justified.”

Article IV: Justification

137

work of Christ and justification? The law, he says, did not justify. As a result, Christ was given in order that we might believe that we are justified on account of him. He clearly denies justification to the law. Therefore we are reckoned righteous on account of Christ when we believe that God has been reconciled with us on account of him. Acts 4[:11-12]: “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the

98

builders; it has become the cornerstone. There is salvation in no one else, for

there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.” But the name of Christ is grasped only by faith. Therefore we are saved by trusting in the name of Christ and not in our works. For here “name” signifies the cause called upon, because salvation takes place on account of it. To call upon the name of Christ is to trust in the name of Christ as the cause or the payment on account of which we are saved. Acts 15[:9]: “and in cleansing their hearts by faith.” Therefore that faith about which the apostles speak is not vain knowledge, but is that which receives the Holy Spirit and justifies us. Habakkuk 2[:4]: “But the righteous live by their faith.” Here he writes first that people are righteous by faith, by which they believe that God is reconciled, and he adds that this same faith makes alive, because it produces peace, joy, and eternal life in the heart. Isaiah 53[:11]: “By the knowledge of him he will justify many”!!! But what is it to know Christ other than to know the blessings of Christ,!!2 the promises, which through the gospel he has scattered throughout the world? And to know these blessings, in a proper and true sense, is to believe in Christ, to believe that God will keep the promises which he makes on account of Christ. But Scripture is full of such testimonies. In

99

100

101

102

some places it commends the law, in other places it commends the promises

concerning Christ and concerning the forgiveness of sins and our gracious acceptance on account of Christ. Similar testimonies are also found scattered throughout the holy Fathers. Ambrose!!® wrote in a letter to a certain Irenaeus: “Moreover, the world was subjected to him through the law, because by the prescriptions of the law everyone was indicted and by the works of the law no one is justified. In other words, through the law sin is recognized, but its guilt is not relieved. The law was shown to be harmful since all are made sinners, but when the Lord Jesus came, he forgave the sin for everyone, which no one could avoid, and he blotted out the bill of indictment that stood against us by the pouring out of his blood [Col. 2:14]. This is what Paul says [Rom. 5:20], ‘the sin abounded through the law; but grace superabounded through Jesus. For after the entire world was placed in subjection, he took away the sin of the entire world, just as John testified, saying [John 1:29], 111. Following the Vulgate. NRSV: “He shall find satisfaction through his knowledge.” 112. See Philip Melanchthon’s Loci communes theologici (1521) in Melanchthon and Bucer, ed. Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 21.

113. Ep 73 (MPL 16:1307£; St. Ambrose: Letters, trans. Mary M. Beyenka, The Fathers of the Church 26 [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1954], 464-68).

103

138

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

‘Behold the Lamb of God, behold, the one who takes away the sin of the world. And so let no one glory in works, because no one is justified by their deeds. But those who are righteous have it as a gift, because after the washing

104 105

[of baptism] they were justified. It is faith, therefore, that frees people through the blood of Christ: ‘blessed are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered’ [Ps. 32:1].” These words of Ambrose clearly support our posi-

tion. He denies justification to works and attributes it to faith, which frees us

through the blood of Christ. Let them gather into one place all the commentators on the Sentences who are adorned with magnificent titles. Some of them

are called “angelic”; others, “subtle”; and others “irrefutable.”!!* Read and

106

107 108

109

110

reread all of them. They will still contribute less to an understanding of Paul than this one statement from Ambrose. Augustine writes many things in the same vein against the Pelagians. In On the Spirit and the Letter, he says this: “The righteousness of the law is set forth in this statement, ‘the person who does it shall live by it’ [Rom. 10:5; cf. Lev. 18:5], so that all who have recognized their own infirmity, may—conciliating the one who justifies—attain to, do, and live in the law not by their own strength or by the letter of the law itself but by faith.” Here he clearly says that the Justifier is conciliated by faith and that justification is obtained by faith. And a little later Augustine says: “By the law we fear God; by faith we hope in God. But to those who fear punishment, grace is hidden; let the soul that labors under this fear . . . flee by faith to the mercy of God, in order that he may give what he commands.”11> Here he teaches that our hearts are terrified by the law, but that they receive consolation by faith. And he teaches [us] to take hold of the mercy by faith before we attempt to keep the law. A little later we shall quote several other statements as well. It is truly amazing that the opponents remain unmoved by so many passages from Scripture that clearly attribute justification to faith and moreover deny it to works. Surely, they do not think that the same thing is repeated over and over for no reason, do they? Surely they do not think that these words fell from the Holy Spirit inadvertently, do they? But they have devised a piece of sophistry with which to evade them. They say that these passages ought to be interpreted as referring to “formed faith.”!16 In other words, they do not attribute justification to faith except on account of love. Indeed, they do not in any way attribute justification to faith, but only to love, because they imagine that faith can exist alongside mortal sin. For where does this end but with the abo114. Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and Alexander of Hales, respectively. 115. Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter 29, 51 (MPL 44:232-33; NPNF, ser. 1, 5:105).

116. Scholastic theologians, using Aristotelian categories of form and matter, argued that faith (defined as assent to the historical truths) provided only the “material,” but that this material must

be “formed” (shaped and given reality) by love (caritas). They often cited as proof Galatians 5:6 (see below, par. 111), “faith working through charity.” Thomas Aquinas, STh 11, 1,q. 113,a. 4, ad 1:

“The movement of faith is only perfect if it is informed by charity; therefore in the justification of the unrighteous, there is also a movement of charity together with the movement of faith.”

Article IV: Justification

139

lition of the promise again and a return to the law? If faith receives the forgiveness of sins on account of love, the forgiveness of sins will always be uncertain because we never love as much as we should. Indeed, we do not love at all until our hearts truly realize that the forgiveness of sins has been given to us. Thus as long as our opponents require a trust in our own love for the forgive-

ness of sins and justification, they completely abolish the gospel concerning the free forgiveness of sins. For they neither render love nor understand it unless they believe that the forgiveness of sins is freely received. We, too, say that love should follow faith, as Paul also says [Gal. 5:6], “For

in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith made effective through love”!” But we should not conclude from this that we receive the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation by trusting in this love or on account of this love, just as we do not receive the forgiveness of sins on account of any other works that follow it. Only by faith, and indeed, by faith in the strict sense of the word, do we receive the forgiveness of sins, because a promise cannot be received in any other way than by faith. But faith, strictly speaking, is that which assents to the promise. This is the faith about which Scripture speaks. And because faith receives the forgiveness of sins and reconciles us to God, we are first regarded as righteous by this faith on account of Christ before we love and keep the law, although love necessarily follows. And this faith is no idle knowledge, nor can it coexist with mortal sin; but it is a work of the Holy Spirit that frees us from death and raises and makes alive terrified minds. And because this faith alone receives the forgiveness of sins, makes us acceptable to God, and brings peace and tranquillity to the conscience,''® it can more correctly be called a “grace that makes us pleasing to God”!!° than an effect that follows, namely, love. Up to this point, in order to make the matter very clear, we have demon-

strated fully enough both from the testimonies of Scripture and from arguments derived from the Scripture that by faith alone we obtain the forgiveness of sins on account of Christ and by faith alone we are justified, that is, out of unrighteous people we are made righteous or are regenerated. It can easily be determined how necessary the knowledge of this faith is, because through it alone we understand the work of Christ and by it alone we receive the benefits of Christ. This alone brings a sure and firm consolation to godly minds. Moreover, there needs to be a teaching in the church from which the faithful

may receive the certain hope of salvation. For the opponents give bad advice when they command people to doubt whether or not they have obtained the

117. 118. 119. theology

Following the alternate reading in the NRSV. Quarto: “brings the Holy Spirit.” Latin: gratia gratum faciens (grace that makes us acceptable), as distinguished in medieval from gratia gratis data (grace given freely). The gratia gratum faciens designated the sacra-

mental infusion of the disposition (habitus) of charity that formed the material of faith, trans-

ported people into a state of grace, and made them inclined toward meritorious work.

111

112

113 114

115 116

17

118

119

140

120

121

Apologj/ of the Augsburg Confession

forgiveness of sins.!?® How will their people, who have heard nothing about this faith and who assume that they must doubt whether or not they have obtained the forgiveness of sins, sustain themselves when dying? Furthermore, the gospel, that is, the promise that sins are remitted freely on account of Christ, must be retained in the church of Christ. Those who teach nothing about the faith that we are discussing completely destroy that gospel. But the scholastics do not teach a single word about this faith. By following them and rejecting this faith, our opponents fail to see that they thereby abolish the entire promise of the free forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of Christ. Love and the Fulfilling of the Law!?!

122

123

At this point, the opponents raise objections with such texts as: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” [Matt. 19:17]; “It is . . . the doers of the law who will be justified” [Rom. 2:13]; and many other such passages about the law and works. But before we respond to these, we must first set forth what we believe about love and the fulfilling of the law. It is written in the prophet, “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts” [Jer. 31:33]. And in Romans 3[:31] Paul says: “Do we then

overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” And Christ says [Matt. 19:17]: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the 124

125

commandments.” Again, “If I . .. do not have love, I gain nothing” [1 Cor. 13:3].

These statements, and others like them, assert that we ought to begin to keep the law and then keep it more and more. Now, we are not talking about ceremonies, but about that law which deals with the impulses of the heart, namely, the Decalogue. Because faith truly brings the Holy Spirit and produces a new life in our hearts, it must also produce spiritual impulses in our hearts. The prophet shows what those impulses are when he says [Jer. 31:33], “I will put my

law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.” Therefore, after we have

been justified and reborn by faith, we begin to fear and love God, to pray for

and expect help from him, to thank and praise him, afflictions. We also begin to love our neighbor because al and holy impulses. These things cannot happen until after we have reborn, and received the Holy Spirit. This is because,

127 128

and to obey him in our our hearts have spiritu-

by faith been justified, first, it is impossible to

keep the law without Christ and, second, it is impossible to keep the law with-

out the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is received by faith according to the passage in Paul, Galatians 3[:14]: “So that we might receive the promise of the

Spirit through faith.” Again, how can the human heart love God as long as it 120. Thus Gabriel Biel, in Sent. II, d. 27, q. 1, a. 3, dub. 5Q, wrote that “it is difficult to know

whether one possesses this love, and perhaps it is by nature impossible.” This question was first posed to Luther by Cardinal Cajetan in Augsburg in 1518 (WA 2:6-26; LW 31:255-92). 121. Some editions of the Book of Concord treat this as a separate article.

Article IV: Justification

141

believes that he is terribly angry and that he is oppressing us with temporal and

eternal calamities? However, the law always accuses us; it always shows that God is angry. Therefore God is not loved until after we grasp his mercy by faith. Not until then does he become someone who can be loved. Even though civil works, that is, the outward works of the law, can be carried out to some extent without Christ and without the Holy Spirit, neverthe-

less, it is evident from what we have said, that those things which go to the heart of the divine law (that is, those attitudes of the heart toward God that are

taught in the first table) cannot be rendered without the Holy Spirit. But our opponents are fine theologians. They focus on the second table and civil works; they pay no attention to the first, as though it were irrelevant, or at best they require only outward observances. They do not at all consider that eternal law, which is placed far above the sense and understanding of all creatures, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart” [Deut. 6:5]. But Christ was given for this very purpose: that on account of him the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit, who produces in us a new and eternal life and also eternal righteousness, may be given to us. First,'1?* the Spirit reveals Christ, just as it is written in John 16[:14], “He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” Then he also brings the other gifts: love, prayer, thanksgiving, chastity, endurance, etc. Therefore we cannot truly keep the law until we have received the Holy Spirit through faith [John 16:15]. Therefore Paul states that the law is established, not abolished, through faith, because the law can be kept only when the Holy Spirit is given. And Paul teaches in 2 Corinthians 3[:15] that the veil, by which the face of Moses was covered, cannot be removed except by faith in Christ, by which the Holy Spirit is received. For this is what he says, “Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” [3:15-17]. Paul understands the “veil” to

be human opinion about the entire law (the Decalogue and ceremonial laws), as when hypocrites suppose that external and civil works satisfy the law of God and that sacrifices and rituals justify before God ex opere operato.!*> But this “veil” is removed from us (that is, this error is taken away) when God shows our hearts our impurity and the magnitude of our sin. Then we see for the first time that we are far from fulfilling the law. Then we learn how our smug and indifferent flesh does not fear God and does not truly believe that God looks out for us, but instead thinks that human beings are born and die by chance. Then we experience how we fail to believe that God pardons us and hears us. But when we are consoled by faith through hearing the gospel and the forgiveness of sins, we receive the Holy Spirit, so that we are now able to think right-

122. Added in the second, octavo edition.

123. See p. 131, n. 85, for an explanation of this term, “by the mere performance of the rite.”

129 130

131

132

133

134 135

142

136

ly about God, to fear God, and to believe him, etc. These things make it clear that the law cannot be kept without Christ and without the Holy Spirit. We openly confess, therefore, that the keeping of the law must begin in us and

137 138

139

Apologj/ of the Augsburg Confession

then

increase

more

and

more.

And

we

include

both

simultaneously,

namely, the inner spiritual impulses and the outward good works. Therefore the opponents’ claims are false when they charge that our people do not teach about good works since our people not only require them but also show how they can be done.!?* Experience proves that hypocrites who try to keep the law by their own strength cannot accomplish what they set out to achieve. For human nature is far too weak to resist the devil by its own strength. He holds everyone captive who has not been set free through faith.

Against the devil the power of Christ is needed. That is, because we know that on account of Christ we have the promise and are heard, we pray for the Holy Spirit to govern and defend us so that we may neither be deceived and thus err nor be driven to undertake anything against God’s will. So the psalm

[68:18] teaches, “You ascended the high mount, leading captives in your train

140

141

and receiving gifts from people.” For Christ conquered the devil and gave us his promise and the Holy Spirit so that with God’s help we, too, might conquer. And 1 John 3[:8], “The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.” Furthermore, we not only teach how the law can be kept, but also in what way it pleases God when we keep any of it, that is, not because we live up to the law but because we are in Christ—as we shall show a little later. It is clear, then, that our teachers require good works. In fact, we add that it is impossible to separate love for God (however meager it may be) from faith. For through Christ we have access to the Father, and, having received the forgiveness of sins, we now truly realize that we have a God (that is, a God who cares for us), we

call upon him, give thanks to him, and fear and love him. Thus John teaches in

his first epistle [4:19]: “We love him because he first loved us,” namely, because 142

he gave his Son for us and forgave our sins. In this way he shows that faith comes first and love follows. Likewise, the faith about which we are speaking exists in repentance, that is, it is conceived in the terrors of the conscience that

U143

144

experiences the wrath of God against our sin and seeks forgiveness of sins and deliverance from sin. In such terrors and other afflictions, this faith ought to grow and be strengthened. Therefore, it cannot exist in those who live according to the flesh, who take pleasure in their lusts, and who succumb to them. Accordingly, Paul asserts [Rom. 8:1, 4], “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” Again [Rom. 8:12-13], “We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” Therefore the faith that receives the forgiveness of sins for the heart that 124. Cf. CA XX.

143

Article IV: Justification

is terrified and fleeing sin does not remain in those who succumb to their lusts, nor does it coexist with mortal sin. From

among

these results of faith the opponents

single out only one,

namely, love, and teach that love justifies.}?® From this it is clear that they teach only the law. They do not teach that we first receive the forgiveness of sins through faith. They do not teach about Christ as the mediator, namely, that on account of Christ we have a gracious God. They teach that it is on account of our love. And yet, they do not and cannot say what the nature of that love is. They claim to fulfill the law when this glory properly belongs to Christ. They set over against the judgment of God a trust in their own works when they say that they merit de condigno grace and eternal life.}?6 This is simply a wicked and futile trust. For in this life we cannot live up to the law, because our sinful nature does not stop bringing forth evil desires, even though the Spirit in us resists them.

But someone might ask: “Since we also grant that love is a work of the Holy Spirit, and since it is righteousness because it is the fulfillment of the law, why do we not teach that it justifies?” We must respond to this. In the first place, it is certain that we do not receive the forgiveness of sins either through our love or on account of our love, but on account of Christ, by faith alone. By focus-

ing on the promise and thus by realizing that faith alone conquers the terrors of sin and death, it is certainly firm that God pardons (because Christ did not die in vain, etc.). Whoever doubts the forgiveness of sins insults Christ by thinking that such sin is greater or stronger than the death and promise of Christ, even though Paul says [Rom. 5:20] that “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,” that is, mercy is more plenteous than sin. Whoever

145

146

147

148

149 150

thinks that receiving the forgiveness of sins is a consequence of acts of love

insults Christ and will discover in the judgment of God that such faith in one’s own righteousness is wicked and futile. Therefore, it must be that faith reconciles and makes a righteous person out of an unrighteous one.'?” And just as we do not receive the forgiveness of sins through other virtues of the law or on account of them, namely, on account of patience, chastity, obedience to magistrates, etc. (although these virtues ought to follow), so, too, we do not receive the forgiveness of sins on account of love for God, although it is necessary for love to follow faith. Besides, the figure of speech called synecdoche, by which we sometimes combine cause and effect in the same phrase, is well known.!?8 And in this

125. Cf. the Confutatio (pt. I, art. VI): “Often the opponents attribute justification to when the same belongs to grace and love.” 126. For these two types of merit see above, p. 123, nn. 61 and 62. Bonaventure and among others, believed that in a state of sin a person produced merits of congruity. Infused a disposition (habitus) of love in a state of grace, such a work was a merit of condignity. 127. Quarto: “justifies.” 128. In his copy of the quarto edition, Luther added marginal comments to par. 152-54, ing first that because of Jesus’ words in Luke 7:50 faith receives forgiveness and second that

faith, Biel, with arguother

151

152

144

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

sense Christ says in Luke 7[:47], “Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were

153

154

many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love.” For Christ interprets this very statement when he adds [v. 50], “Your faith has saved you.” So Christ did not intend to say that the woman had merited the forgiveness of sins by her work of love. For that reason he clearly states, “Your faith has saved you.” But faith is that which grasps God’s free mercy on account of God’s Word. Whoever denies that this is faith completely misunderstands the essence of faith. And the story itself shows what he calls “love.” The woman came with this conviction about Christ: that she should seek the forgiveness of sins from him. This is the highest way to worship Christ. Nothing greater could she ascribe to Christ. By seeking the forgiveness of sins from him, she truly acknowledged him as the Messiah. Now to think about Christ in this way, to worship and take hold of him in this way, is truly to believe. Moreover, Christ used the word “love” not with respect to the woman but against the Pharisee, because he was contrasting the entire worship of the Pharisee with the entire worship of the woman. He reprimands the Pharisee for not acknowledging that Christ was the Messiah, even though he showed Christ the outward courtesies due to a guest who is a great and holy man. He points to the poor woman and praises her worship, her anointing, and her tears, etc., all of which were signs of faith and a kind of confession, namely, that she sought the forgiveness of sins from Christ. It was not without reason that this truly powerful example moved Christ to reprimand the Pharisee, who was a wise and honorable man, but an

unbelieving man. He charges him with ungodliness and admonishes him with the example of the poor woman. He shows that it is a disgrace to the Pharisee that an unlearned woman believes in God while he, a very teacher of the law, does not believe, does not acknowledge the Messiah, and does not seek the for-

155

giveness of sins or salvation from him. Therefore he praises her entire act of worship in this way—as often happens in Scripture—so that we may understand many things under this one phrase. Later we shall take up at greater length similar passages, such as, “So give for alms those things that are within. . . . everything will be clean for you” [Luke 11:41]. He requires not only alms but also the righteousness of faith. In the same way he says here [Luke 7:47], “Her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; because!?® she has shown great love,” that is, because she truly worshiped me with faith and with the acts and signs of faith. He includes the entire act of worship but teaches that it is faith, strictly speaking, that receives the forwords of Jesus in v. 47 (“the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little”) demonstrate the priority of forgiveness. Jesus said these words to counter the Pharisees’ pride. The woman they thought a sinner was above them in faith and in love, outstripping them even in the righteousness of the law. Luther called this a rhetorical inversion. Third, the parable Jesus tells (vv. 41-43) also demonstrates

the priority of forgiveness over love. Not only did the woman believe in God, but she demonstrated that faith publicly. Jesus declares her righteous before God by her (hidden) faith and before the Pharisees publicly by her works according to their own law. 129. NRSV: “hence.” Melanchthon cited the Vulgate.

Article IV: Justification

145

givéness of sins even though love, confession, and other good fruits ought to follow. Therefore by this he does not imply that these fruits are the payment or the sacrifice that earns the forgiveness of sins, that reconciles us to God. We are debating about an important matter, namely, about the honor of Christ and the source from which the faithful might seek a sure and certain consolation—whether we should place our confidence in Christ or in our own works. But if we put it in our works, Christ will be robbed of his honor as our mediator and propitiator. And, faced with God’s judgment, we will discover that such confidence was futile, and consciences will then plunge into despair. For if the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation take place not freely on account of Christ but on account of our love, then no one will have the forgiveness of sins until he or she has kept the entire law, because the law does not justify as long as it can accuse us. Thus it is clear that, since justification is reconciliation on account of Christ, we are justified by faith, because it is most certain that the forgiveness of sins is received by faith alone. Now then, let us respond to the question set forth above on why love does not justify.'3° The opponents are right in thinking that love is the fulfillment of the law,13! and that obedience to the law would be righteousness if we kept the law. However, up to this point we have shown that the promises have been given precisely because we are unable to keep the law. Thus for this reason Paul denies that we are justified by the law. The opponents err because in this entire controversy they pay attention to nothing but the law. For human reason is unable to reach any other conclusion than that righteousness must be sought from the law, because obedience to the law is righteousness. But the gospel calls us back from the law to the promises, and it teaches that we are not regarded as righteous on account of obedience to the law for we do not live up to the law. But we are regarded as righteous for the very reason that reconciliation is given us on account of Christ, and we receive this reconciliation only by faith. Before we keep the law, therefore, we must receive by faith the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation. Good God, how do those who deny that we receive the forgiveness of sins by faith alone on account of Christ dare to speak Christ’s name with their lips? How do they dare to look upon the books of the gospel with their eyes? Second, the very fulfillment of the law, which follows our renewal, is scanty and impure. For although the renewal has begun, nevertheless the remnants of sin still cling to this nature and always accuse us unless by faith in Christ we take hold of the forgiveness of sins, and we know that we have access to God not on account of our fulfillment of the law but on account of Christ. Therefore the fulfillment of the law is not accepted on its own account but on account of faith.!3? 130. Quarto: “Now then, let us respond to the objection that we mentioned earlier.” 131. The following italicized passage is an expansion of par. 159—60 in the quarto edition. 132. Par. 162-74 of the quarto edition are omitted in the second, octavo edition. The material in par. 162-64, 167—69, and 172-74 is included in the octavo edition after par. 179 below.

156

157

158

159

146 175

176

179

Apology of the Augsburg Confession Therefore, Paul says [Rom. 3:31] that the law is established through faith.

This should not only be understood to mean that by faith the regenerate receive the Holy Spirit and that they have impulses which agree with God’s law, but it is by far more important to add this as well: that we should realize that we are a long way from the perfect keeping of the law. Therefore we dare not hold that we are regarded as righteous before God on account of our observance of the law. Instead, 33 it must be realized that we are regarded as righteous or accepted on account of Christ, not on account of the law or our works, and that this incipient observing of the law pleases God because we are in Christ. Likewise, that on account of faith in Christ what is lacking in fulfilling the law is not reckoned to us.1 Paul teaches this in Galatians 3[:13] when he says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,” that is, the law condemns all people, but by undergoing the punishment of sin while remaining sinless and by becoming a sacrifice for us, Christ has taken into himself the right of the law to accuse and condemn those who believe in him, because he himself is the atoning sacrifice for them, on account of which they are now reckoned righteous. In the same vein, he writes to the Colossians [Col. 2:10], “and you

have come to fullness in him.” It is as if he were saying, “Even though you are still far from the perfection of the law, nevertheless the remnants of your sin do not condemn you, because on account of Christ you have a certain and firm reconciliation when you believe, even though sin still clings to your flesh.” For far above our purity, indeed far above the law, ought to be placed the death and satisfaction of Christ, which have been given to us that we may realize that we have a gracious God on account of his satisfaction and not on account of our fulfillment of the law. Trust is ungodly when placed in our fulfilling the law. However, that trust, which is placed in the satisfaction of Christ, is necessary. Third,'35 only that which brings peace to consciences justifies before God. For we are not righteous and made alive as long as the conscience flees the judgment of God and is angry with God. Furthermore, faith alone brings peace to consciences, according to the passage [Rom. 5:1], “Since we are justified by faith we have peace.” Likewise [Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17], “The one who is righteous through faith will live,”'%6 that is, by faith a person conquers the terrors of death, by faith a person is uplifted and receives joy and life. And faith brings this peace not because it is a worthwhile work in and of itself, but only because it receives the promise that is offered and does not look upon its own worthiness. Therefore faith alone justifies, and good works please God on account of faith. What could the 133. This italicized section parallels par. 177 in the quarto edition. 134. For par. 178 in the quarto edition, see the next italicized paragraph (“For far above our purity . . . satisfaction of Christ”). 135. The text beginning at the word “third” and running through the sentence, “Therefore faith alone justifies, and good works please God on account of faith,” later in this paragraph replaces par. 180-82 of the quarto edition. 136. According to the alternative reading in the NRSV.

Article IV: Justification

147

opponents possibly bring forward against this argument? What could they possibly come up with against this clear truth? For the minor premise'? is most certain, that is, that our works are unable to bring peace to the conscience when God judges and convicts us and shows us our impurity. Thus Scripture often impresses this thought upon us: in Psalm [143:2 /, “Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you.” Here he simply takes away the glory of righteousness from everyone, even the saints and servants of God, if God did not forgive but instead judged and convicted their hearts. Now when the psalmist boasts of his own righteousness elsewhere, he speaks about his own cause against the persecutors of the Word of God and not about his personal purity. And so he asks that God’s cause and God’s glory be defended, as in Psalm 7/[:8], “Tudge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness.” Elsewhere [Ps. 43:1]: “Vindicate me, O God, and defend my cause.” Again,

Psalm 130[:3] teaches that no one is able to withstand the judgment of God if he

should mark our sins: “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand?” And Job 9[:28]: “I became afraid of all my works.”'*® Again [9:30-31], “If

I wash myself with soap and cleanse my hands with lye, yet you will plunge me into filth.” And Proverbs 20[:9]: “Who can say, I have made my heart clean?” And 1 John 1[:8]: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” And in the Lord’s Prayer the saints ask for the forgiveness of sins; therefore the saints also have sins. In Numbers [14:18]: . . . by no means clearing the guilty . ” And Zechariah [2:13] says, “Be silent, all people, before the Lord.” And Isaiah [40:6-7]: “All people are grass, their constancy [glory] is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, when the breath of the Lord blows upon it,” that is, the flesh and the righteousness of the flesh cannot endure the judgment of God. And Jonah says in chapter 2 [v. 8]: “Those who worship vain idols forsake their true loyalty,” that is, every confidence is futile except a confidence in mercy. Mercy preserves us; our own merits and our own efforts do not preserve us. These declarations and others like them in the Scriptures testify that our works are impure and in need of mercy. Therefore, so works do not bring peace to consciences, but mercy grasped through faith does. Fourth,13° Christ does not stop being our mediator after we are reborn. They err who imagine that he has merited only a first infusion of grace and that afterward we please God and merit eternal life by our fulfillment of the law.1** Christ remains the mediator, and we must always affirm that because of him we have a gracious God, even though we are unworthy. This is just as Paul says [Rom. 5:2, 137. In logic, the “minor premise” is the second in a syllogism. Here the major premise states that only that which gives the conscience peace justifies; the minor premise states that only forgiveness through faith alone gives peace; the conclusion is that faith alone justifies. 138. Following the Vulgate. NRSV: “suffering.” 139. This paragraph is equivalent to par. 162-63 in the quarto edition. 140. According to Thomas Aquinas, while human beings cannot merit first, or justifying, grace, they do merit the increase of grace as the justified. This is a merit of congruity with respect to our humanity and a merit of condignity with respect to the Holy Spirit’s work.

148

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Vulgate], “ . . through whom we have obtained access to God through faith.” As we have said, our observance of the law is impure because our nature is horribly corrupted. Therefore the psalm says [32:1], “Blessed are those whose transgression is forgiven.” Therefore we need the forgiveness of sins even when we have good works. Moreover, this forgiveness is obtained always by faith. In this way Christ remains the high priest and mediator. Therefore the fulfillment of the law pleases God not on account of itself, but because by faith we grasp Christ and believe that we have a gracious God, not on account of the law but on account of Christ. Fifth,'! if we had to believe that after our renewal we must become acceptable not by faith on account of Christ but on account of our keeping of the law, our conscience would never find rest. Instead, it would be driven to despair. For the law always accuses since we never satisfy the law. The entire church confesses this. For Paul says [Rom. 7:19], “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want

is what I do.” Likewise [7:25], “With my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but

with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.” For who loves or fears God enough? Who endures patiently enough the afflictions imposed by God? Who does not often doubt whether human affairs are ruled by the counsel of God? Who does not often doubt whether one is heard by God? Who is not often angry that the wicked enjoy a better lot than the pious and that the godly are oppressed by the wicked? Who is not often enraged by the judgment of God when he seems to abandon us? How many live up to their calling? How many love their neighbor as themselves? Who is not incited by concupiscence? About these sins the psalm says [Ps. 32:6], “Therefore let all who are the saints'*? offer prayer to you.” Here he says that the saints pray for the forgiveness of sins. Those who do not think that the wicked desires of the flesh are sins are more than blind.'*3 Paul [Gal. 5:17] says about these things, “For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit” and vice versa. The flesh distrusts God, trusts the things around it, seeks human help in calamities, and, contrary to the will of God, flees from afflictions that, according to God’s command, it ought to bear, and doubts the mercy of God. The Holy Spirit contends with such desires in our hearts in order to restrain and mortify them and in order to implant new spiritual impulses. Augustine'®* says, “All the commandments of God are fulfilled, when whatever is not done is forgiven.”'*> Therefore, he requires faith even when doing good works, that is, that we believe that we are pleasing to God on account of Christ and that the works themselves which please God are not worthy in and of themselves.

And in Against the Pelagians, Jerome says, “Therefore we are righteous at the very

point when we confess that we are sinners. And our righteousness consists not in 141. 142. 143. 144.

For this paragraph in the quarto edition, see par. 164, 167-69. Following the Vulgate. NRSV: “all who are faithful” For the debate over concupiscence, see Ap II, 38-45. This paragraph equals par. 172-74 in the quarto edition.

145. Augustine, Retractions 1, 19, 3 (MPL

32:615;

CSEL

36:90

[designated I, 18, 4]; The

Retractions, trans. Mary Bogan, The Fathers of the Church 60 [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1968], 80-81).

Article IV: Justification

149

our own merit, but in God’s mercy.”'*¢ Therefore it is necessary when we begin to fulfill the law for that faith to be present which affirms that we have a gracious God on account of Christ. For mercy cannot be grasped except by faith. Therefore it is nothing but a doctrine of utter despair to teach that we are accepted by faith not on account of Christ, but on account of our own fulfillment of the law. From all these things it is sufficiently clear that faith alone justifies. That is, first, that it obtains the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation on account of Christ, and that faith alone regenerates (for by faith alone the Holy Spirit is received). Second, when we begin to fulfill the law it is not pleasing before God in and of itself. Moreover, since justification must still be sought elsewhere (namely, in the promise of Christ), and since only faith brings peace to the conscience, it follows that faith alone justifies. For we must always believe that we are accepted not on account of the law, but on account of Christ. For we are not justified by the law but by the promise. Moreover, the honor of Christ should not be transferred to the law. Just because in the beginning we are regarded as righteous on account of Christ when we believe in him, we must not then think that afterward he is cast aside as our mediator and that we are righteous by our own fulfillment of the law, even though it is necessary for those renewed to do good. The virtues of the law, insofar as they are in accordance with the law, are righteous acts, and to that extent this obedience of the law justifies with the righteousness of the law. But this imperfect righteousness of the law is not accepted except on account of faith, nor is it able to bring peace to consciences. Only faith brings that about—faith which is confident that on account of Christ the high priest we have a gracious God. In this promise godly and terrified consciences ought to seek reconciliation and justification; with this promise they ought to revive and sustain themselves, just as these words [Rom. 1:17] teach: “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” For they mean that faith justifies, and it justifies in this way: that it simultaneously makes alive, that is, it cheers and consoles consciences and produces eternal life and joy in the heart.

Response to the Arguments of the Opponents Having acknowledged the fundamentals in this issue (namely, the distinction between the law and the promises or gospel), it will be easy to remove the objections raised by the opponents. For they quote passages about the law and works but omit passages about the promises. To all their statements about the law we can give one reply: the law cannot be kept without Christ. And if any civil works are done without Christ, they do not conciliate God. Therefore when works are commended, we must add that faith is required—that they are commended on account of faith, because they are the fruits and testimonies of faith. What could be simpler to explain than our doctrine? For one has to distinguish the promises from the law in order to recognize the benefits of Christ.1*? 146. Jerome, Dialog against the Pelagians 1, 13 (MPL 23:527; NPNF, ser. 2, 6:454). 147. An addition in the second, octavo edition.

183

184

150 185

186

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Ambiguous and dangerous issues give rise to many and varied solutions. For what the ancient poet says is true: “An unjust cause, being in itself sick, requires skillfully applied remedies.”!#8 But in just and clear-cut issues, one or two explanations drawn from the sources will correct everything that seems offensive. Such is also the case in our discussion. For the rule as I have just stated it interprets every passage that they quote about the law and works. We acknowledge that in some places Scripture presents the law and in other places it presents the gospel, the free promise of the forgiveness of sins on account of Christ. However, our opponents

187

188

simply abolish the promise!%’

when they deny that faith justifies and when they teach that we receive the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation on account of our love and works. If indeed the forgiveness of sins depended upon the condition of our works, it would be completely uncertain. For we never do enough works. Therefore the promise would be abolished. Therefore we call godly minds back to a consideration of the promises, and we teach them about the free forgiveness of sins and reconciliation that come through faith in Christ. Later we add also the teaching of the law, not because we merit the forgiveness of sins by the law or because we are regarded as righteous on account of the law and not on account of Christ, but because God requires good works. For the law and the promises need to be “rightly distinguished” [2 Tim. 2:15] with care.!>® We must see what Scripture attributes to the law and what it attributes to the promises. For it praises and teaches good works in such a way as not to abolish the free promise and not to eliminate Christ. For'5! good works are to be done because God requires them. Therefore they are the results of regeneration, just as Paul teaches in Ephesians 2[:10]. “For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.”15? Thus good works ought to follow faith as thanksgiving toward God. Likewise, good works ought to follow faith so that faith is exercised in them, grows, and is shown to others, in order that others may be invited to godliness by our confession. Thus Paul says [Rom. 4:11] that Abraham received circumcision, not because he was regarded as righteous on the basis of this work, but in order to have a sign written on his body, by which he might be reminded and constantly be brought to a greater faith. Likewise, he could confess his faith before others by it and could invite others to believe by his testimony. Thus by faith Abel offered a more pleasing sacrifice [Heb. 11:4]. For the sacrifice pleased God not ex opere operato,'>* but because by faith Abel acknowl148. Euripides, Phoenissae, vv. 474, 475, cited in the Greek. Melanchthon often lectured on

this play. 149. Quarto: “free promise.” 150. Replaces in the quarto edition: “And we must ‘rightly distinguish’ these as Paul affirms [2 Tim. 2:15])” In both texts he uses the Greek word orthotomein.

151. This short paragraph replaces par. 189-200 in the quarto edition. 152. Cf. par. 201-2 in the quarto edition. 153. By mere performance of the rite. See above, p. 131, n. 85.

Article IV: Justification

151

edged that he was reconciled to God on account of mercy. Indeed, he carried out that work in order to exercise his faith and by his example and confession to invite others to believe. Although good works ought to follow faith in this way, people who cannot believe or establish in their hearts that they are freely forgiven on account of Christ use works for a very different purpose.!* When they see the works of

203

the saints, they think in a human fashion that the saints have merited the for-

giveness of sins'®> by those works and that they are regarded as righteous before God on account of those works. Accordingly, they imitated those works and think that through similar works they also merit the forgiveness of sins. They try to appease the wrath of God and trust that they are regarded as righteous on account of such works.}>6

We condemn these wicked notions about works for several reasons. First,

such notions obscure the glory of Christ when people present these works to God as a payment and atoning sacrifice. They attribute this honor, which belongs only to Christ, to our works. Second, they still fail to find peace of conscience in these works. Instead, in genuine terror they pile up good works upon good works and end up in despair. For, because they never find any work pure enough, the law always accuses them and brings wrath with it. Third, such people never attain the knowledge of God, since their consciences, while fleeing the wrath of God, are unable to find peace or ever to be convinced that God hears them. But when faith, which believes that we are freely regarded as righteous, is added, it dares to call upon God and it senses that God hears. Thus it attains true knowledge of God.'>’ This ungodly opinion about works always clings to the world. The Gentiles had sacrifices, which they took over from the patriarchs. They imitated their works but did not retain their faith. Instead, they thought that those works were an atoning sacrifice and payment that on account of which God was reconciled to them. The people of Israel also imitated these sacrifices with the notion that on account of those works God was appeased ex opere operato,'>® as it is customary to say. Here we see how vehemently the prophets rebuke the people. Psalm 50[:8], “Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you.” And Jeremiah [7:22], “I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices” Such passages do not condemn the sacrifices that God had certainly commanded as outward training in this sphere of life, but they do con154. The quarto edition adds: “and that they have a gracious God freely on account of Christ.” 155. The quarto edition adds: “and grace.” 156. The quarto edition adds after “forgiveness of sins”: “and grace, and that through these works they will appease the wrath of God and achieve their goal of being declared righteous on account of these works.” 157. The quarto edition: “since in their anger they flee God, who judges and afflicts them, and never believe that God hears them. But faith reveals God’s presence when it establishes that God freely forgives and hears us.” 158. From the mere performance of the rite. See p. 131, n. 85.

204

206

207

152 208

|

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

demn their ungodly belief because they kept rejecting faith and maintaining that they appeased the wrath of God through these works. And because no work can bring the conscience peace, people keep thinking up new works above and beyond those commanded by God. But the examples of the saints greatly move people to imitate them in the hope that they may obtain reconciliation just as the saints obtained it. The people of Israel had seen the prophets sac-

209

210

211

rifice on the high places.!> The people began to imitate this work with remarkable zeal in order to appease the wrath of God through it.!%? But the prophets did not sacrifice in high places to merit the forgiveness of sins through those works, but because they were teaching in these places and hence giving testimony to their faith. The people had heard that Abraham had sacrificed his son.'®! Therefore they also put their sons to death in order to appease the wrath of God by this most cruel and severe act.!62 But Abraham did not offer up his son with the idea that this work was the payment and atoning sacrifice on account of which he would be regarded as righteous. Thus in the church the Lord’s Supper was instituted that our faith might be strengthened by the remembrance of the promises of Christ—of which this sign reminds us—and that we might publicly confess our faith and proclaim the benefits of Christ, just as Paul states [1 Cor. 11:26], “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” But the opponents contend that the Mass is a work that justifies ex opere operato and removes the burden of guilt and punishment in those for whom it is offered.!6 Anthony, Bernard, Dominic, Francis,'®* and other holy Fathers chose a certain kind of life, either for the sake of study or for the sake of other useful exer-

cises. At the same time, they maintained that they were declared righteous and had a gracious God by faith on account of Christ and not on account of those

exercises. But ever since then, a multitude of people have imitated not the faith

of the Fathers, but their examples without their faith, in order that through

159. 1 Samuel 9:12, 13; 1 Kings 18:20ff. The quarto edition adds: “The examples of the saints greatly moved the minds of those who hoped that by similar works they could obtain grace just as the [saints] did.”

160. The quarto edition has instead: “in order that they could merit the forgiveness of sins, grace, and righteousness.” 161. Genesis 22. 162. Leviticus 20:21ff.; 2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35.

163. The quarto edition adds: “For so writes Gabriel [Biel].” See his Exposition of the Canon of the Mass 26:81. See above, p. 131, n. 85. ' 164. Anthony is regarded as the father of Christian monasticism. Born in Egypt, he organized hermit colonies in which monks lived separately but met for religious services. Bernard of Clairvaux was the most influential monk of his day. A member of the Cistercian Order, he gave new impetus to monasticism as the ideal of Christianity. The Spaniard Dominic founded the Dominican order in 1215. Engaged in mission, it dedicated itself to teaching, preaching, and scholarship for strengthening faith and combating heresy. Francis of Assisi resolved to imitate Christ’s voluntary poverty and preached repentance and mutual love.

Article IV: Justification

153

those works they might merit the forgiveness of sins,'6> and that on account of those works they might be declared righteous before God. The human mind errs in this way concerning works because it does not understand the righteousness of faith. The gospel, which teaches that human creatures are regarded as righteous not on account of the law but on account of Christ alone, rebukes this error. However, Christ is grasped by faith alone. Therefore we are declared righteous by faith alone on account of Christ. But the opponents object with the passage from 1 Corinthians [13:2], “If I have all faith . .. but do not have love, I am nothing.” Here they celebrate a great victory. Paul bears witness before the entire church, they say, that faith alone does not justify.166 But it is easy to reply after what we have shown above concerning our understanding of love and works. This passage of Paul requires love. We also require it. For we said earlier that the renewal and incipient keeping of the law ought to exist in us.!” Whoever throws away love will not retain faith, however strong it may be, for that person does not retain the Holy Spirit. However,'68 it does not follow that love justifies, that is, that on account of love we receive the forgiveness of sins, that love conquers the terrors of death and sin, that love ought to be set against the wrath and judgment of God, that love satisfies the law, and that once we are reborn, we are acceptable to God on account of the fulfillment of the law and not freely on account of Christ. Paul does not say the things that our opponents nevertheless imagine. Now if we overcome the wrath of God by our love, if we merit the forgiveness of sins before God by our love, if we are acceptable by our observance of the law, let the opponents destroy the promise of Christ. Let them abolish the gospel that teaches that we have access to God through Christ, the propitiator, and that we are accepted not on account of our fulfilling the law but on account of Christ. The opponents corrupt many passages, because they read into them their own opinions rather than deriving the meaning from the texts themselves. Now this text poses no problem if we remove the interpretation that our opponents add to it on their own because they do not understand what justification is or how it takes place. Upon being justified, the Corinthians had received many excellent gifts. In the beginning they were very zealous, as is usually the case. Then, as Paul indicates, dissensions began to arise among them and they

began to loathe sound teachers. Accordingly, Paul reprimands them and calls them back to works of love. 165. What follows in this paragraph is parallel to the first half of par. 212 in the quarto edition. The octavo edition omits par. 213~17 of the quarto edition. 166. See the Confutation’s evaluation (in pt. I, art. VI) of CA VI: “Here St. Paul certifies to the

princes and the entire church that faith alone does not justify. Accordingly, he teaches that love is the chief virtue.” 167. The quarto edition adds: “according to the passage [Jer. 31:33], ‘I will put my law within them.” 168. The octavo edition omits par. 220-22 (to the words in the Tappert translation: “no matter how great it may have been”) and rephrases the remainder of par. 222 and par. 223.

218

219

224

154

225 226

227

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

He'® is not discussing the forgiveness of sins here or the manner of justification, but rather he is speaking about its fruits. Moreover, he understands love to be that directed toward the neighbor. But it is foolish to dream that this love by which we act toward human beings justifies us before God. For in justification we have to do with God, his wrath must be conciliated, and consciences must find peace with God. None of these things takes place through that love. They happen only when mercy is grasped, and this occurs through faith. Now it is true, that when love is lost, the Holy Spirit is lost, and when the Holy Spirit is lost, faith is driven away. Accordingly he says [1 Cor. 13:2], “If . . . do not have love, I am nothing.” He does not add the affirmative proposition that love justifies. They argue that love is preferred to faith and hope!7? since Paul says [1 Cor. 13:13]: “The greatest of these is love.” It therefore follows that the greatest and most important virtue should justify. In this passage, however, Paul is speaking strictly about love for the neighbor, and he indicates that love is the greatest because it bears the most fruits. Faith and hope deal only with God whereas love has an infinite number of outward responsibilities toward others. Nevertheless, let us concede to the opponents for the moment that love for God and neighbor is the greatest virtue because it is the greatest commandment [Matt. 22:37]: “Love the Lord your God, etc.” How then will they draw the conclusion that love justifies? The greatest virtue, they say, justifies. However, just as even the first or greatest law does not justify in the least, neither does the greatest virtue of the law justify. For'7! there is no law that accuses us more, that does more to make the con-

229

science enraged against the judgment of God, than this summary of the whole law, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart.” For who among the saints other than Christ dares to boast of having satisfied this law? Therefore the virtue of the law does not justify. But that virtue justifies, which receives the reconciliation given on account of Christ. That virtue is faith. Moreover, it does not justify on account of its own worthiness, but only because it receives the mercy by which we are regarded as righteous on account of Christ. For we are righteous, that is, accepted by God, not on account of our perfection but through mercy on account of Christ, as long as we take hold of it and set it against the wrath of God. But the opponents attribute righteousness to love for this reason: they teach the law and think that righteousness is obedience to the law. For human reason only focuses on the law and does not understand any other righteousness except obedience to the law. And the scholastics, ingenious people, seeking a method,7> 169. In the octavo edition the remainder of this paragraph replaces and expands on the last half of par. 224 in the quarto (Tappert translation: “Even though . . . second table”). 170. The Confutation (pt. I, art. VI) argued that love was the greatest virtue according to Colossians 3:14. 171. The following paragraphs represent a reworking of par. 227 (from “but that virtue” in the Tappert translation) through par. 230 of the quarto edition. 172. A technical term used by Melanchthon and other contemporary teachers of dialectic and rhetoric as an order of investigating and explaining a text. At this time Melanchthon had begun lectures on Aristotle’s Ethics.

Article IV: Justification

155

imagine it is the law, just as the philosophers in ethics imagine it is moral precepts. But Paul protests loudly and teaches that righteousness is something different,

namely, obedience to the promise of reconciliation given on account of Christ, that

is, the reception of mercy given on account of Christ. For we are acceptable to God and our consciences find peace in this way: when we sense that God is gracious 0 us on account of Christ. Therefore godly minds must be called back from the law to the promise, as we have already said many times and as we will explain more fully a little later when we deal with the scholastic argument concerning the word “righteousness.” In the Confutation the opponents also cited against us this passage!” from

231

Colossians [3:14], “Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which is the bond of

perfection.”174 From this they reason that love justifies because it makes people perfect. Although we could respond to this statement about perfection in a number of different ways, we shall simply present Paul’s meaning. He is obviously talking about love for our neighbor. There is no reason to think that Paul has attributed either justification or perfection before God to the works of the second table of the law rather than to the first. Besides,\7> if love is the perfect fulfillment of the law and satisfies the law, then there is no need for Christ as the propitiator. However, Paul teaches that we are acceptable on account of Christ and not on account of the observance of the law, because our observance of the law is imperfect. Thus because he clearly denies perfection to us elsewhere, we must not think that here he is speaking about the personal perfection of individuals. Instead, he is speaking about community in the church. For he says that love is a bond or unbroken chain in order to show that he is talking about linking and binding together the many members of the church with one another. In all families and communities harmony needs to be nurtured by mutual responsibilities, and it is not possible to preserve tranquillity unless people overlook and forgive certain mistakes among themselves. In the same way, Paul urges that there be love in the church to preserve harmony,

232

to bear with (if need be) the crude behavior of the brothers [and sisters], and

to overlook certain minor offenses, lest the church disintegrate into various schisms and lest enmities, factions, and heresies arise from such schisms. For harmony will inevitably dissolve whenever bishops impose excessive

233

burdens upon the people or have no regard for their weakness. Dissensions

also arise when the people judge the conduct of their teachers too severely or

scorn them on account of some lesser faults, going on to seek other kinds of doctrine and other teachers. On the contrary, perfection (that is, the integrity

of the church) is preserved when the strong bear with the weak, when people

put the best construction on the faults of their teachers, and when the bishops

173. Melanchthon appears to be taking his opponents’ texts from the Confutation in sequence. 174. Citing the Vulgate. The NRSV reads: “which binds everything together in perfect harmony.” 175. “Besides . . . the law is imperfect” in the octavo edition is a reworking of par. 231.

234

156

235

236

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

make some allowances for the weakness of their people. The books of all the wise are all filled with these instructions about fairness and how in everyday life we should make many allowances for the sake of mutual peace. Paul often enjoins this both here and elsewhere. Therefore, it makes no sense for the opponents to deduce from the word “perfection” that love justifies, when Paul is speaking about the common integrity and tranquillity of the church. Ambrose interprets this passage in this way. It is just as a building is said to be perfect or whole when all the parts fit together properly with one another.!76 Moreover, it is disgraceful for the opponents to preach so much about love when they themselves never show it. What are they doing now? They are breaking up churches. They are writing laws in blood and are asking his most merciful prince, the emperor, to promulgate these laws. They are slaughtering priests and other good people if they even slightly intimate that they do not completely approve of some obvious abuse. These actions are not consistent with their praises of love; if the opponents lived up to them, both church and

237

238

B IR

239

state would have peace. These tumults would die down if the opponents did not so harshly demand compliance with those traditions that are useless for piety—most of which are not observed even by those who most vehemently defend them. But they readily forgive themselves, but others they do not, just like that passage in the poet, “‘I forgive myself, Maenius says.”!”” But this is completely different from those praises of love that they recite here from Paul; they have no more understanding than the walls of a house that bounce back an echo. From Peter they also quote this statement [1 Peter 4:8], “Love covers a multitude of sins.”178 It is evident that Peter is also speaking about love toward the neighbor because he connects this passage to the text that commands love for one another. Indeed, it could not have entered the mind of any apostle to say that our love overcomes sin and death; or that love is an atoning sacrifice on account of which God is reconciled apart from Christ the mediator; or that love is righteousness without Christ the mediator. For even if there were such a love, it would be a righteousness of the law rather than of the gospel, because the latter promises us reconciliation and righteousness when we believe that on account of Christ as the propitiator, the Father is gracious to us, and that the merits of Christ are bestowed upon us. Therefore a little earlier Peter urges [1

Peter 2:4, 5] us to come to Christ so that we might be built upon Christ. And

he adds [1 Peter 2:6], “Whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” Our

love does not free us from shame when God judges and accuses us. But faith in

176. This reference is not in Ambrose or in the works ascribed to him (Ambrosiaster) but may be a paraphrase of Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle to the Colossians VIIL2 (MPG 62:354; NPNEF, ser. 1, 13:295). 177. Porphyry on Horace, Satires 1, 3, 23. o~

178. Although not in the Confutation it may be found in opponents such as Nicholas Ferber

(Herborn).

Article IV: Justification

157

Christ does free us in the midst of these fears because we know that on account of Christ we are forgiven.

Furthermore, Peter’s statement about love is taken from Proverbs [10:12],

where the antithesis clearly shows how it ought to be interpreted, “Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.” This teaches precisely the same thing as Paul’s statement in Colossians [3:13], namely, that if any dissensions flare up, they should be extinguished and settled by fairness and kindness on our part. Dissensions, he says, grow by means of hatred, as we often see that the greatest tragedies arise from the most trifling offenses. Certain minor disagreements arose between Julius Caesar and Pompey, in which if one had yielded to the other just a little, civil war would not have broken out. But when each gave in to his own hatred, a major commotion arose from an insignificant issue. And many heresies have arisen in the church simply from the hatred of the teachers. Thus, this text does not speak about one’s own sins, but of others’ when it says, “love covers sins,” namely, the sins of others, more precisely offenses between people. That is to say, even though these offenses flare up, love conceals them, forgives, yields, and does not carry everything to the fullest extent of the law.

240 241

242

Peter, therefore, does not intend to say with this text that love merits the

forgiveness of sins in God’s eyes; or that it is an atoning sacrifice excluding Christ the mediator; or that we are accepted on account of love, not on account of Christ the mediator.!”? He means that in human relations love is not obstinate, harsh, or intractable; instead, it overlooks certain mistakes of its friends and puts the best construction on even the more offensive conduct of others, just as the common proverb admonishes, “Know, but do not hate, the conduct of a friend.”!8 It is not without reason that the apostles speak so often about this responsibility of love, which the philosophers call “fairness.’181 For this virtue is necessary for preserving public harmony, which cannot last long unless pastors and churches overlook and pardon many things among themselves. From James [2:24] they quote, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”’8 No other single passage is supposed to contradict our position more, but the response is easy and clear. James’s words do not pose a problem if the opponents would not read into it their own opinions about the merits of works. But wherever works are mentioned, the opponents attach their own

ungodly opinions: that we merit the forgiveness

of sins

through good works; that good works are the atoning sacrifice and payment on account of which God is reconciled to us; that good works conquer the terrors 179. The quarto edition adds: “or that it regenerates and justifies.” 180. Porphyry on Horace, Satires I, 3, 32.

181. Greek: epieikeia. See CA XXVI, 14, for an explanation of this term used by Aristotle and some Stoic philosophers. 182. From the Confutation (pt. L, art. VI).

243

244

158

245

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

of sin and death; that good works are acceptable in God’s sight on account of their own intrinsic goodness; and that they neither need mercy nor Christ as the propitiator. None of these things ever entered into James’s mind, and yet the opponents now defend all these things under the pretext that this is James’s meaning. In the first place, we must note that this passage works more against the opponents than against us. For they teach that a person is justified by love and works, but they say nothing about the faith by which we take hold of Christ, the propitiator. Indeed, they reject this faith. Not only do they reject it in statements and writings, but they also attempt to wipe it out in the church by the sword and torture. How much better is the teaching of James, who does not omit faith or substitute love for faith. Instead, he retains faith so that Christ is not excluded as the propitiator. In the same way, Paul too includes faith and love when he deals with the sum of the Christian life in 1 Timothy 1[:5], “But

the aim of such instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith.” 246

247

248

" 249

250

In the second place, the subject matter itself shows that the works spoken

of here are those that follow faith and show that faith is not dead but living and active in the heart. James, therefore, did not think that we merit the forgiveness of sins and grace through good works. After all, he is talking about the works of those who have been justified, who have already been reconciled and accepted, and who have obtained the forgiveness of sins. Therefore the opponents err when they argue from this passage that James teaches that we merit the forgiveness of sins and grace through good works and that we have access to God through our works apart from Christ the propitiator. In the third place, James said a little earlier that regeneration takes place through the gospel. For he says [James 1:18], “In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures.” When he says that we are reborn by the gospel, he teaches that we are reborn and justified by faith. For the promise concerning Christ is grasped only by faith when we set the promise against the terrors of sin and death. James does not, therefore, hold that we are reborn through our works. From these things it is clear that James does not contradict us when he dis-

tinguishes a dead faith from a living faith in order to condemn idle and complacent minds who imagine that they have faith when they do not. He says that faith which does not bring forth good works is dead, but he says that faith which brings forth good works is alive. Furthermore, we have frequently shown what we mean by faith. We are not talking about an idle knowledge, such as is also to be found in the devils, but about a faith that resists the terrors of conscience and which uplifts and consoles terrified hearts. Such faith is not an easy matter as the opponents imagine; nor is it a human power, but it is a divine power by which we are made alive and by which we defeat death and the devil. So Paul says in Colossians [2:12] that faith is active through the power of God and conquers death, “You were also raised with him through

159

Article IV: Justification

faith in the power of God.” Since this faith is a new new impulses and new works. Accordingly, James justified by a faith that is without works. But when by faith and works, he certainly does not say that

life, it necessarily produces rightly denies that we are he says that we are justified we are reborn through our

251

works. Nor does he say that in part Christ is the propitiator and in part our

works are a propitiation. Nor does he describe here the manner of justification. He describes only the characteristics of the righteous after they have already been justified and regenerated. And “to be justified” here does not mean for a righteous person to be made out of an ungodly one, but to be pronounced righteous in a forensic sense as also in this text [Rom. 2:13]:

. . the doers of the law who will be justified.”

Therefore just as these words (“the doers of the law will be justified”) are not against us, so we maintain the same thing with regard to James’s words that “a person is not justified by faith alone, but also by works,” because people who have faith and good works are certainly pronounced righteous. For good works in the saints, as we have said, belong'®3 to the righteousness of the law. They are accepted on account of faith, not because they satisfy the law. Therefore people are justified by faith and works, not on account of the works but on account of the faith, although it is necessary for good works to follow faith. For James is speaking about those works that follow faith, just as he testifies when he says [James 2:22], “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works.” The statement, “It is . . . the doers of the law, who will be justified” [Romans 3:2], must be taken in this way: those who believe and possess good fruits are pronounced righteous. For the law is kept when we believe, and it pleases [God] on account of faith and not because the works satisfy the law. Thus we see that there is nothing wrong in these statements. However, the opponents

distort them and add their own impious opinions. But these statements do not say that works merit the forgiveness of sins, that people are accepted or regarded as righteous on account of works and not on account of Christ, that works bring the heart peace and overcome the wrath of God, or that works do not need mercy. James says none of these things that the opponents nevertheless invent from his words. They'8* also cite against us some other passages about works. Daniel 4[:27], “Atone . . . your iniquities with mercy.” Isaiah 58/:7, 9], “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry? . . . Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer.” Luke 6[:37], “Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Matthew 5[:7], “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.” In the first place, we can respond to these statements and others like them about works with what was said earlier, namely, that the law is not truly kept without faith, nor does the keeping of the law please God 183. The following italicized segment replaces par. 252 (“are righteous and please God .. ” in the Tappert translation) through 253 (“ .. Christ, the propitiator” in the Tappert translation) in the quarto edition. 184. From this point to the end of Ap IV, Melanchthon reedited and shortened much of the quarto edition. The following two paragraphs are a reworking of par. 254-57 of the quarto text.

252

160

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

except on account of faith in Christ, according to these passages, “Apart from me you can do nothing” [John 15:5]; “And without faith it is impossible to please God” [Heb. 11:6]; and, “Through [Christ] we have access by faith” [Rom. 5:2].1%

Thus, as often as they require and approve works, it is necessary to add the gospel concerning Christ. Second, these statements that I mentioned a little earlier are in general sermons on repentance, for they consist of two parts. They begin with a preaching of the law, which convicts sin and commands good works. Then they add a promise. For it is most certain that in the preaching of repentance, the proclamation of the law, which only terrorizes and condemns consciences, is not enough. It is also necessary to add the gospel, namely, that sins are freely remitted on account of Christ and that we receive the forgiveness of sins by faith. These are so clear and certain, that if the opponents disagree and exclude Christ and faith from the preaching of repentance, they ought with good reason be rejected as blasphemers against Christ.186 Therefore!'8” the sermon of Daniel should not be twisted exclusively to the giving of alms, for even in these faith must be required. Daniel’s sermon is different from the speech of Aristotle. When Aristotle wrote to his king, he also exhorted him to well-doing and urged him to use his power for the public welfare and benefit of all nations and not for his own pride. For thus he writes to Alexander, “Therefore try to establish rule for the purpose of doing good, not for the purpose of hubris.”18% This is a most respectable speech, and nothing better could be said about the public office of a great prince. But Daniel is teaching his king not simply about his office or calling, but about repentance, about faithful living before God, about the forgiveness of sins, and about those great matters that are outside the scope of philosophy. Therefore not only are alms required here, but also faith. Thus the text shows that the king is being directed not only to give alms generously, but much more to faith. For we have the excellent confession of the king about the God of Israel [Dan. 3:29]: “For there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way.” Therefore Daniel’s sermon contains two parts. The first part is the preaching of repentance, which denounces sins and teaches about the new life. “Atone for your sins with righteousness, and your iniquities with mercy to the oppressed” [Dan. 4:27]. For Daniel speaks this way in his own words, in which it is clear enough that he is teaching not only about alms but about the whole of righteousness, that is, about the knowledge of God and faith. For he says [Dan. 4:27], “Atone for your sins with righteousness.” But righteousness toward God is faith, by which we

tion.

185. According to the Vulgate and the NRSV alternate reading. 186. The quarto edition’s exposition of Isaiah 58:7 (par. 258—60) is omitted in the octavo edi-

187. The following four paragraphs represent a reworking of Melanchthon’s exposition of Daniel 4:27 in the quarto edition (par. 261-68). 188. Melanchthon cites in Greek an ancient (though now thought to be spurious) letter purportedly from Aristotle to his onetime pupil, Alexander the Great. See Rudolph Hercher, ed., Epistolographi Graeci, 2d ed. (Paris: Didot, 1873), 172.

161

Article IV: Justification

believe that God forgives us. Then Daniel gives instruction about showing mercy to the poor, in order that the king may not rule proudly or cruelly, but show regard for the welfare of his subjects. The second part of the sermon promises the forgiveness of sins. “Behold! There will be a healing of your faults” [Dan. 4:27].18 To these words Jerome has added an extraneous particle expressing doubt.'%° Moreover, in his commentaries he argues ever more impudently that the forgive-

ness of sins is uncertain. But let us remember that the gospel promises the forgiveness of sins with certainty. Anyone who believes that the forgiveness of sins is uncertain must be intent on abolishing the gospel. Let us therefore dismiss Jerome in the translation of this passage. However, since the promise is clearly presented, faith is certainly required, because the promise cannot be received in any other way than by faith. Although even in that passage Jerome indicates that the forgiveness of sins can be obtained, when he says “redeem sins.” Thus, this promise of the forgiveness of sins truly is the voice of the prophets and evangelists, which Daniel wanted to be received by faith with certainty. For Daniel knew that the forgiveness of sins was promised on account of the future seed (namely,

Christ), not only to the Israelites, but also to all the Gentiles.

Otherwise he could not have promised the forgiveness of sins to the king. For a human being, particularly in the terrors of sin, cannot be sure of the will of God (namely, that he ceases to be angry) without a sure Word of God. Thus when the promise is presented, it is quite apparent that faith is required, because a promise cannot be received in any other way than by faith. If this faith depended on the condition of works, the forgiveness of sins would be uncertain. Accordingly, a kind of faith is required that relies on the mercy and Word of God and not on our works. The statement, “Atone for your sins with righteousness and with mercy to the oppressed,” is the same as if he had said, “Redeem sins through repentance,” because guilt is removed through repentance. Nor should it be concluded from this that God pardons on account of the works that follow. Instead, he pardons those who grasp the promise on account of the promise. We have clearly shown that faith is required in the sermon of Daniel. Therefore those who argue from

this passage that the forgiveness of sins takes place on

account of our works and not by faith on account of Christ violate this passage. A philosophical approach to the sermon of Daniel asks only after an admonition about governing rightly. A Pharisaical approach imagines that the forgiveness of sins takes place on account of that work. But so it is that works naturally catch a person’s

eye,

because

human

Therefore it foolishly dreams opinion naturally clings to the we are taught by God. But we the gospel and the promise of

reason

does

not

understand

or consider faith.

that those works merit the forgiveness of sins. This human mind and cannot be shaken off except when must call ourselves back from this carnal opinion to mercy in which the forgiveness of sins on account of

189. After the Vulgate. NRSV reads, “so that your prosperity may be prolonged.” 190. The reference is to the Vulgate (Jerome’s translation), which reads, “Perhaps God will

remit your sins.”

162

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Christ is freely offered. Thus in every passage about repentance faith must be required. For it shows the highest contempt for Christ to seek the forgiveness of sins apart from him. Some interpret Daniel as speaking about the remission of punishment when he says, “Atone . . . for your iniquities with mercy to the oppressed.”'*! Even then Daniel would not contradict us. Still, there is no doubt that he is speaking about the remission of guilt. For the remission of punishment is sought in vain unless the heart first grasps the remission of guilt by faith. For if they concede that the forgiveness of sins takes place freely through faith, we will then readily grant that punishments by which we are chastised are lightened by good works and the entirety of repentance, according to these passages [1 Cor. 11:31], “But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged” by the Lord, and Jeremiah 15[:19], “If you turn back, I will take you back.” Zechariah 1[:3], “Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you,” and Psalm 50[:15], “Call on me in the day of trouble.”19? S0193 it is necessary to judge about this passage [Matt. 6:14]: “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” For it is hardly like a sermon on repentance. The first part requires good works. The second part adds a promise. However, we must not conclude that our forgiving others merits the forgiveness of sins ex opere operato!* for us. For Christ is not saying this.\95 But just as Christ connects the promise of the forgiveness of sins to other sacraments, so he also connects it to good works. And just as in the Lord’s Supper we do not obtain the forgiveness of sins ex opere operato apart from faith, the same is true in this work. Indeed, our forgiving is not a good work, except when it is done by those already reconciled. Accordingly, our forgiving, which indeed pleases God, follows divine forgiveness. However, Christ normally connects law and gospel in this way so that he might convey both the teaching of faith and that of good works; so that he might warn that it is a hypocritical and fake repentance unless good fruits follow; so that we might also have many external signs of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins, which remind and console us; and that we might be able to exercise faith in a variety of ways. Therefore it is necessary to understand such texts in this way, lest we abolish the gospel concerning Christ; lest, once we reject Christ, we interpose our works as an atoning sacrifice and payment to God;

and lest the forgiveness of sins be made uncertain, if it is taught that it depends upon the condition of our works.

191. Scholastic theology distinguished guilt and punishment of sin, holding that in baptism both were eliminated but that in the sacrament of penance guilt was remitted and punishment reduced (from eternal to temporal penalties). 192. The octavo edition eliminates par. 26972 (* . . accepts the forgiveness of sins” in the Tappert translation). 193. The following parallels material in par. 272 of the quarto edition. 194. ex opere operato: by the mere performance of the rite. 195. The octavo edition omits par. 273-76 in the quarto edition. The remainder of this paragraph is a reworking of par. 275-76 from the quarto edition.

Article IV: Justification

163

Tobit [4:10],1% “Almsgiving delivers from [sin and] death,” is also cited. We will not say that this is hyperbole, although that is how it ought to be understood so that it does not detract from the praise of Christ, whose real office is to free from sin and death. Instead, we must return to the rule that the law is useless apart from Christ. Therefore the almsgiving that pleases God is that which follows rather than precedes reconciliation. Thus these alms do not free from sin and death ex opere operato,'?” but just as we said a little earlier concerning penitence (namely, that we ought to include faith with its fruits), so also almsgiving must be understood: that faith with its fruits pleases God. For Tobit preaches not only about almsgiving but also about faith. “At all times bless the Lord God, and ask him that your ways may be made straight” [4:19]. But this properly belongs to that faith about which we are speaking, which believes that God is gracious on account of his mercy, and asks him to preserve and govern us. In addition to this we grant that almsgiving merits many blessings from God, but it does not free us from present sin. For it does not overcome the wrath and judgment of God, nor does it bring peace to consciences. Instead, it frees from future sin, that is, it merits a defense for

us in the perils of sin and death. This is a simple statement, consistent with the rest of Scripture. In this way commendations of works and the law must be understood, so as not to detract from the glory of Christ and the gospel.1%® They'®® boast of Christ’s statement in Luke [11:41], “So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you.” The opponents are clearly deaf. Time and time again we have said that the law is useless apart from Christ, on account of whom good works please God. Yet everywhere they exclude Christ and teach that justification is merited through the works of the law. When this entire passage is examined, it will show that faith also is

282

required. For Christ rebukes the Pharisees for thinking that they are cleansed

in God’s sight, that is, that they are justified, by frequent washings. Along these lines some pope—I am not sure which one—said that sprinkling of water mixed with salt “sanctifies and cleanses the people,” and the gloss says that it cleanses from venial sins.2% Such were also the opinions of the Pharisees whom Christ reprimanded. And in place of this fictitious cleansing Christ puts forward a twofold cleanness, the one internal and the other external. He commands that they be cleansed inwardly and then adds concerning the outward cleanness: “Give alms from what you have left over, and thus all things will be clean to you.” The opponents misinterpret the universal particle “all things.” For Christ adds this conclusion to both clauses: Then all things will be clean to you, namely, if you are clean inwardly and if outwardly you give alms. For he indicates 196. 197. 198. 199.

The following paragraph replaces par. 277-78 in the quarto edition. ex opere operato: by the mere performance of the rite. Par. 279-80 of the quarto edition are omitted in the octavo edition. The following is a reworking of par. 281 in the quarto edition.

200. Pseudo-Alexander

chap. 20.

I, cited in Gratian, Decretum

III, Concerning Consecration, dist. 3,

283

164

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

that external cleanness is to be sought in works commanded by God and not in human traditions like the ceremonial washings of their day or the daily sprinkling with water, the garb of monks, the distinctions of foods, and similar pompous acts in our own day. But the opponents corrupt Christ’s statement

by sophistically applying the universal particle to only one clause, “All things will be clean,” to those who have given alms. It is as if someone would reason: Andrew is present; therefore all the apostles are present. Therefore in the antecedent clause, both members ought to be joined: believe, and give alms; in this way all things will be pure.?%! For Scripture says elsewhere [Acts 15:9], . . . cleansing their hearts by faith . . .” For if hearts have been cleansed and then outwardly they give alms (that is, all kinds of works of love), they will thereby also be entirely clean, that is, not only inwardly but also outwardly. The entire sermon of Christ ought to be kept together. It has many parts, some of which teach about faith, others of which teach about works. A fair-minded reader would not single out the commands about works while omitting the passages about faith. There are even some who interpret, “Give alms, and all things are clean,” as irony.?"? For Christ appears to censure by means of irony the hollow conviction of the Pharisees, who, although they had minds burdened by the worst covetousness, at the same time trusted that by giving alms they would be real demigods. This interpretation is not absurd, and has nothing in it that conflicts with other passages of Scripture.2%? We2%* would have added other passages, too, if we did not think that, given what we have already reviewed and explained here, the same things could easily be concluded. However, let us add the following scholastic argument: it is necessary for righteousness to reside in the will; therefore, since faith resides in the intellect, it does not justify.295 We recount this argument so that the entire matter might be made more clear, namely, in what way faith justifies and what Paul means by justification. However, due to certain carping critics we will respond technically first. It is evident that in ethics obedience to a superior, approved by that superior, is called righteousness. Now faith is obedience to the gospel, therefore faith is rightly called righteousness. For obedience to the gospel is reckoned as righteousness to the extent that obedience to the law pleases God only for this reason: because we believe that God is gracious toward us freely on account of Christ. For we do not satisfy the law. However, although this faith resides in the will (since it is the desire for and the reception of the promise), nevertheless this obedience to the gospel is reckoned as righteousness not on account of our purity, but because it receives the offered mercy and believes that we are regarded as righteous through mercy on account of Christ and not on account of our fulfillment of the law or on account 201. The remainder of this paragraph represents a reworking of par. 284 in the quarto edition. 202. In particular, Erasmus of Rotterdam in both his annotations on the New Testament and his paraphrase of Luke. 203. The octavo edition omits par. 285-303 of the quarto edition. 204. This paragraph reformulates the first part of par. 304 of the quarto edition. 205. See Thomas Aquinas, STh 11, 1, q. 56, a. 3¢c. “For the intellect assents to those things, which

are of the faith, by the command of the will. For no one believes without willing.”

Article IV: Justification

165

of our purity. Thus minds must be called away from focusing on the law to focusing on the gospel and Christ, and it must be acknowledged that we are regarded as righteous when we sense that we are accepted on account of Christ and not on account of love or the fulfillment of the law.2°6 But faith differs from hope because faith receives in the present the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation, or God’s acceptance of us, on account of Christ. But hope is directed toward future good and future deliverance. Second,7 justification here means to be regarded as righteous. However, God does not regard a person as righteous in the way that a court or philosophy does

(that is, because of the righteousness of one’s own works, which is rightly placed in the will). Instead, he regards a person as righteous through mercy because of Christ, when anyone clings to him by faith. Therefore faith can be called righteousness because it is that which is reckoned as righteousness (as we say with Paul), regardless in which part of a person it may finally be located. For this does not prevent divine reckoning, even if we locate this faith in the will. For faith is the desire for and the reception of the promise of Christ. When one considers this scholastic argument, the entire subject can be set in a better perspective because it brings the matter back to the proper way of proceeding.?® From2% gll of these things we can figure out what ought be thought about condign merit,21% on the basis of which the opponents imagine that people can be righteous before God on account of love and fulfillment of the law.?!! The righteousness of faith is not mentioned, and in place of Christ as the mediator there is posited the notion that we are accepted on account of our fulfillment of the law. This in no way ought to be tolerated. As we said above, although love necessarily follows regeneration, nevertheless the glory owed to Christ ought not be transferred to our fulfillment of the law. But we must realize that even after our renewal we are regarded as righteous on account of Christ, that Christ remains the mediator and propitiator, that on account of Christ we have access to God, that we do not live up to the law but need mercy, that at all times we are regarded as righteous through mercy. Thus the entire church confesses that we are righteous and saved through mercy. As we cited above from Jerome: “Our righteousness does not consist of our own merits, but of God’s mercy.”?'* Moreover, this mercy is received by faith. 206. Par. 309—12 of the quarto edition are omitted here, except for a small section on hope at the end of par. 312, which is rewritten in what follows. 207. This section is a rewriting of par. 305—6 in the quarto edition. 208. Methodus: a technical term for a way of teaching or reading documents germane to the point. Par. 313-15 of the quarto edition are omitted here. 209. A revision of par. 316-18 of the quarto edition. 210. See above, Ap IV, 19, n. 62.

211. Especially William of Occam and Gabriel Biel argued that in a state of grace works of intrinsic worth could be performed that earned a reward from God. 212. Cited in the octavo edition parallel to par. 173. Jerome, Dialog against the Pelagians I, 13 (MPL 23:527; NPNEF, ser.2, 6:454).

166

Apology bf the Augsburg Confession

Now?'3 you see what follows from the opinion of the opponents. If we must believe that Christ only merited a first grace, as they call it, and that afterward we are accepted and merit eternal life by our fulfillment of the law, when will consciences find peace??'* When will they be sure that they have a gracious God? For the law always accuses us, as Paul says [Rom. 4:15], “The law brings wrath.” Thus it would happen that if consciences felt the judgment of the law, they would rush into despair. Paul says [Rom. 14:23], “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” But they will never do anything by faith, if they think in the end that God is gracious to them only when they have fulfilled the law. For they will always doubt whether the law has been sufficiently satisfied—indeed, they will understand that it has not been satisfied. Accordingly, they will never be sure that they have a gracious God or that they are heard by God. Therefore, they will never love and never truly worship God. But what else are such feelings in the heart if not hell itself, since they are full of despair and hatred for God, and yet in this hatred invoke and worship God, just as Saul worshiped him [1 Samuel 15]. Here we appeal to all godly minds and those experienced in spiritual matters. They will be able to testify that these evils follow from that godless conviction of the opponents, which holds that we are regarded as righteous before God by our own fulfillment of the law and which prescribes trust not in the promise of mercy given on account of Christ but in our fulfillment of the law. Therefore it is necessary to establish that, after regeneration, we are without a doubt righteous, that is, accepted by God, and have peace before God through mercy on account of Christ. Moreover, the incipient fulfillment of the law in us is not worthy of eternal life, but just as the forgiveness of sins and justification are reckoned through mercy on account of Christ and not on account of the law, so also the eternal life associated with justification is offered not on account of the law or the perfection of our works but through mercy on account of Christ. As Christ says [John 6:40], “This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life”; and elsewhere [John 3:36], “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life.” Moreover, we would ask our adversaries, what counsel would they give the dying? Would they urge them to believe that they are regarded as righteous and to expect eternal life on account of their own works or indeed through mercy on account of Christ? Certainly neither Paul nor Laurence would say that they ought to be regarded as righteous on account of their own purity, or that eternal life is owed to them on account of their own works or the fulfillment of the law, but both believed that they were regarded as righteous and received eternal life on account of Christ through mercy. Nor can godly minds be fortified against despair unless they think that through mercy on account of Christ and not on account of the law they with certainty have both righteousness and 213. This paragraph begins by restating the question posed in par. 319 of the quarto edition. What follows in the next three paragraphs is new. 214. “First grace” is associated in scholastic theology with the first infusion of grace that moves the sinner from a state of sin to a state of grace. It could not be gained through condign merit.

Article IV: Justification

’

167

eternal life. This conviction consoles, uplifts, and saves godly minds. Therefore when our adversaries speak about condign merit, they cast aside the teaching about faith and the mediator Christ and drive consciences to despair. However, someone might say, if we must be saved through mercy, what is the difference between those who are saved and those who are not? Surely both good and evil persons should not expect mercy equally? On the basis of this argument the scholastics seem to have been moved to require condign merit. For it is necessary to distinguish between those who are saved and those who are damned. In the first place, we say that eternal life is offered with justification, or that the justified are children of God and co-heirs with Christ, according to that passage, “Those whom he justified he also glorified” [Rom. 8:30]. Therefore none but the justified are saved. But just as justification would be uncertain if it depended upon the condition of our works or the law and were not freely received on account of Christ through mercy, so also hope would truly be uncertain if it depended upon our works, because the law always accuses consciences. Nor can consciences find peace, unless they grasp mercy by faith. Nor can the hope of eternal life exist unless the conscience obtains peace. For a doubting conscience flees the judgment of God and despairs. Moreover, the hope of eternal life must be certain. Thus, in order that it might be certain, it must be understood that eternal life is given through mercy on account of Christ and not on account of our fulfillment of the law. In human courts and judgments, the law and what is owed it are certain while mercy is uncertain. But before God it is a different matter. Here mercy has the clear mandate of God. For the gospel itself is the mandate that commands us to believe that God wants to forgive and to save on account of Christ, according to the passage, “God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned” [John 3:17-18]. Therefore as often as mercy is mentioned, it must be understood that faith is required. And this faith distinguishes those who will be saved from those who will be damned, the worthy from the unworthy. For eternal life is promised to the justified. However, faith justifies whenever and at whatever time human beings apprehend it. Throughout life we ought to strive to obtain and strengthen this faith. For as we said above, faith exists in repentance and not in those who walk according to the flesh. Moreover, it ought to grow in the midst of perils and trials throughout all of life. Those who have obtained this faith are reborn with the result that they do good works and keep the law. Therefore just as we require repentance throughout all of life, so also we require good works, although our works are not such that they deserve eternal life. Just as Christ said in this statement in Luke 17[:10], “When you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves.” 21>

215. This statement is cited in par. 334 of the quarto edition. The remainder of this paragraph in the octavo edition is new.

168

335

336

337

338

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Bernard also says correctly: “It is necessary first to believe that you cannot have forgiveness of sins except through the kindness of God; then, that you can have no good work whatever unless he also grant this; finally, that you cannot merit eternal life by any works, except this also is given freely.” And a little later, “Let no one deceive himself, because if he thinks well of himself, he will without doubt find out that, even with ten thousand, he cannot oppose one that comes against him with twenty thousand . . . [Luke 14:31].”216 Therefore, that consciences might retain certain consolation and hope, we call people back to the promise of Christ and teach that it is necessary to believe that God remits sins, justifies, and gives eternal life on account of Christ and not on account of the law, according to that passage [1 John 5:12], “Whoever has the Son has life.” However,2\7 it is worthwhile to hear how the adversaries avoid the statement of Christ, “When you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves’ ” [Luke 17:10]. In the Confutation they corrupt this.2!® First, they make a retortion?!® out of it. They argue that if we are unworthy even though we have done everything, then much more must we say, “If you have believed all things, say, ‘We are unworthy servants. ” Then they add that while works are worthless to God, they are not worthless to us. See how the childish effort delights our sophistic adversaries! Although this foolishness does not deserve a refutation, we will nevertheless respond briefly to it. The retortion is defective, because the opponents are deceived by the term “faith” Because if it signified a knowledge of history, or if we said that faith saves on account of its own worthiness, the analogy might be valid: “That much more are we unworthy servants if we believe.” But we are speaking about a trust in the promise and mercy of God. And this trust confesses that we are unworthy servants. Indeed, that our works are unworthy, that we are unworthy servants, is the very voice of faith. By virtue of this one factor (we are talking about faith), we seek mercy because we know ourselves to be unworthy servants. For faith saves, because it takes hold of mercy or the promise of grace, even though our works are unworthy. In this sense, then, the retortion (“When you have believed all things, say, ‘We are unworthy servants’”) does not hurt us. It is right to say that only if we understand that worthiness is denied to works.

216. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon on the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, c. 1.2. 217. Here the octavo edition, with few omissions and additions (in italics), reflects par. 335-43

of the quarto edition.

218. From the Confutation’s comments (pt. I, art. VI) on CA VI. “For if the doers [of works]

ought to be called worthless, how much more does this apply to those who only believe. . . . Therefore this word of Christ does not extol faith without works; instead it teaches that our works

contribute to God nothing of worth, that no one can be puffed up by our works, and that our works, compared to the divine reward, are nothing at all.” Luke 17:10 is the next passage cited after Colossians 3:14. Cf. above, Ap IV, 231, and CA VI, 2. 219. Melanchthon uses the Greek term antistrophe, which, according to his own works on rhetoric and dialectics, represents an inversion of an argument, turning some case or evidence against an argument into something that favors it.

Article IV: Justification

169

However, if it is understood that even faith is worthless, the analogy is not valid, namely, when you have done everything, do not rely on works; so also when you have believed, do not rely on the promise of God. These statements do not cohere, because they are not analogous. For there are different causes and different objects of the trust in the former proposition compared to the Jatter. Trust in the former is a trust in our works. Trust in the latter is a trust in

339

the divine promise. Christ condemns trust in our works; he does not condemn

trust in his promise. He does not want us to despair of God’s grace and mercy. He denounces our works as unworthy, but he does not denounce the promise that freely offers mercy. On this point Ambrose clearly says, “Grace must be acknowledged; but nature is not to be ignored.”??? The promise of grace, not our nature, must be trusted. As usual, the opponents wickedly distort statements given in support of faith to contradict the teaching of faith. But this trick abrogates the entire gospel. “When you have believed all things, say that faith is worthless.” Does not the gospel promise the forgiveness of sins and salvation even to those who have no good works at all, if only they are converted and do not despair but obtain the forgiveness of sins by faith in Christ? The opponents do not urge persons whose consciences find no works that they can set against the judgment of God to despair, do they? They will not say to these people that faith is worthless, will they? May the sophists perish with such tricks as these that overthrow the entire gospel, abrogate the free forgiveness of sins, and tear away from consciences firm consolation! It is obviously a childish trick when they interpret “unworthy servants” to mean that works are worthless to God but worth something to us. Christ is speaking about that worthiness which obligates God to bestow grace upon us, although this is not the place to debate what is worthy or worthless. For “unworthy servants” means “servants who lack something,” because no one fears, loves, or trusts God as much as one ought. No one lives up to the law. But let us have done with these petty quibblings of our opponents. Intelligent people can easily figure out what people would think about these quibbles when they are brought to light. They have managed to find a loophole in words that are completely plain and clear. Yet everyone can see that in this passage, trust in our works is condemned.??! But?22 here the opponents reply that eternal life is owed for good works in a condign way because eternal life is called a reward. We will reply briefly and clearly. Paul [Rom. 6:23] calls eternal life “a gift,” because when we are regarded as righteous on account of Christ, we are simultaneously made children of God

220. Ambrose, Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke VIIIL, 32 (MPL 15:1865). 221. Par. 344-55 of the quarto edition are omitted here. 222. With several omissions the following paragraph in the octavo edition follows the text of par. 356-58 in the quarto edition.

340 341

342

343

356

170

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

and co-heirs with Christ.223 However, elsewhere [Luke 6:23] it is written, “Your

357

358

reward is great in heaven.” If these passages appear to the opponents to be contradictory, let them explain them. But they are not fair judges, for they omit the word “gift” and they omit the wellspring of the entire matter on how people are justified, namely, that Christ is the mediator in perpetuity. Meanwhile, they single out the word “reward” and explain it in a way that does violence not only to the Scriptures but also to the very usage of language. From this they reason that since “reward” is mentioned, therefore our works must be considered as the payment in return for which eternal life is owed. This logic is completely new. We hear the word “reward.” Therefore our works satisfy the law, therefore we are acceptable to God on account of our works and need neither mercy, nor Christ as the propitiator, nor faith that grasps mercy.2 And in the manner of Chrysippus??® they pile up the arguments: Good works are the payment for which eternal life is owed; good works satisfy the law of God. Beyond this they are able to do works of supererogation.?® Therefore people are not only able to satisfy the law of God, they can even do more. Moreover, because monks do more, they have merits left over. Now, because generosity means that people lavish on others what they have too much of themselves, monks can transfer their merits to others. They even invent a sacrament for this transfer, as when the hood is placed upon the dead to testify that the merits of another have been applied to them. By such an amassing of arguments the opponents obscure the benefit of Christ and the righteousness of faith. We are not engaging in a mere war over words.?*” We are arguing about an important matter. From where should godly minds receive a sure hope of salvation? Are good works able to bring peace to consciences? Should they hold that eternal life takes place when good works are set over against the judgment of God? Or, on the contrary, should they hold that on account of Christ through mercy they are regarded as righteous and consequently obtain eternal life? These things arise in a controversy such that, unless a conscience sorts this out, it cannot have firm and certain consolation. However, we have shown with sufficient clarity that good works do not satisfy the law of God; that they require mercy; that God has accepted us on account of Christ by faith; that good works do not bring peace to the conscience. From all 223. The quarto edition reads: . . . because the righteousness bestowed upon us on account of Christ simultaneously makes us . .. 224. Par. 359 of the quarto edition is omitted; par. 36061 are rewritten in the following paragraph. 225. Chrysippus was a brilliant logician of the third century before Christ who drew dubious distinctions from indiscriminate citations. 226. Works above and beyond those necessary for salvation, such as vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. 227. With the exception of this sentence, the following three paragraphs replace the material in par. 362—66 of the quarto edition; par. 367—69 are omitted.

Article IV: Justification

171

these things it follows that we should hold that on account of Christ through mercy, and not on account of the law, the justified obtain eternal life. What then about rewards? First, if we were to say that eternal life is called a reward, because it is owed to the justified on account of the promise, we would not be speaking unreasonably. For there is a correlation among the gifts with reference to one another, just as Augustine also says: “God crowns his own gifts in us.”8 However, Scripture calls eternal life a reward, not because it is owed on account of works, but because it compensates for afflictions and works, even though it happens for a completely different reason. Just as an inheritance does not come to a son of a family because he performs the duties of a son, nevertheless, it is a reward and compensation for the duties he performs. Therefore, it is enough that the word “reward” is connected to eternal life because eternal life compensates for good works and afflictions. Moreover, we concede that works are truly meritorious, but not for the forgiveness of sins or justification. For they are not pleasing to [God] except in those who are justified on account of faith. Nor are they worthy of eternal life. For just like justification, so also being made alive takes place by faith on account of Christ. Works are meritorious for other bodily and spiritual rewards, which are bestowed both in this life and in the life to come. For God defers most rewards until he glorifies saints after this life, because he wishes them in this life to be strengthened through mortifying the old creature. The gospel freely gives the promise that a person is justified and made alive on account of Christ. However, in the law rewards are not free; they are offered for works and owed to works. Since therefore works constitute a kind of fulfillment of the law, they are rightly said to be meritorious, and it is rightly said that a reward is owed them. And these rewards produce degrees of return, according to that passage in Paul [1 Cor. 3:8], “Each will receive wages according to the labor of each.” These degrees are rewards for works and afflictions. The?? opponents contend that eternal life is owed for works by their very nature, because Paul says [Rom. 2:6], “For he will repay according to each one’s deeds” John 5[:29], < . . those who have done good, to the resurrection of

life . . ” Matthew 25[:35], “I was hungry and you gave me food.” In all of these passages, in which works are praised, it is necessary to return to the rule given above, namely, that works are not pleasing to God without Christ because Christ as the mediator must not be excluded. Thus, when the text says that eternal life is granted to works, it means granted to those who are justified, because good works do not please God, except in those who are justified, that is, in those who hold that they are accepted by God on account of Christ. Moreover, the justified necessarily produce good works or good fruits, as in the text: “I was hungry and you gave me food.” Here, when it is said that eternal life is given to these works, it is understood as being given to righteousness. Therefore faith is included when 228. Augustine, On Grace and Free Will VI, 15 (MPL 44:890-91; NPNF, ser. 1, 5:450).

229. This paragraph replaces par. 370-74 in the quarto edition.

172

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

the text mentions its fruits. Furthermore, Scripture names the fruits in order to show that what is required is not hypocrisy but a righteousness that is efficacious and a kind of new life that produces good fruits. Nor230 do we desire to be overly subtle here. For there are very serious reasons for arguing over this. Indeed, if we grant to the opponents that works merit eternal life, the next thing you know they will fabricate absurdities: that works satisfy the law of God, that there is no need for God’s mercy, that we are righteous (that is, accepted by God) on account of our works and not on account of Christ, that people are able to do more than the law. In this way, the entire teaching concerning the righteousness of faith will be buried. However, it is necessary to retain in the church the pure teaching concerning the righteousness of faith. Therefore we are compelled to rebuke the Pharisaic opinions of the opponents, both in order to proclaim the glory of Christ and to present firm consolation to consciences. For, since in judgment the conscience senses that its works are unworthy, how will it receive the firm hope of salvation unless it knows that human creatures are regarded as righteous and saved through mercy on account of Christ and not on account of their own fulfillment of the law? When he was on the gridiron, did Laurence feel that by this work he was satisfying God, that he was without sin, that he did not need Christ as mediator or the mercy of God? Quite the contrary, he thought no differently than the prophet who says, “Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you” [Ps. 143:2]. Bernard confesses that his works are not worthy of eternal life when he says, “I have lived immoderately.”*' But he comforts himself and receives the hope of salvation from this, namely, that he believes that the forgiveness of sins and eternal life are given to him on account of Christ through mercy, just as the psalm [32:1] teaches: “Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” And Paul says [Rom. 4:6]: “David also speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works.” Paul says that those persons are blessed to whom righteousness is reckoned through faith in Christ, even if they have no good works. By such consolations, consciences are to be uplifted and strengthened, that on account of Christ through faith forgiveness of sins and eternal life are bestowed and we are regarded as righteous. But if faith is understood this way in passages concerning works, such passages do not obstruct our point of view. Indeed, it is necessary always to add faith so as not to exclude Christ as mediator. But good works ought to follow faith because faith without good works is hypocrisy. Even®32 in the schools they have certain maxims that agree with our position, such as, “Good works please God on account of grace.” Again, “It is necessary to 230. The following paragraph replaces par. 375-80 in the quarto.

231. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermones in cantica XX (MPL 183:867). See WA 32:534, 20-535, 6 (LW 21:283); WA 46:580, 24-581, 4 (LW 22:52); WA 40/1: 42, 11-12 (LW 26:5); and WA 20:746,

31 (LW 30:296) for Luther’s use of this quote. . 232. The following paragraph includes fragments from par. 381, 382, and 385 of the quarto edition, omitting completely par. 383-84.

Article IV: Justification

173

trust the grace of God.” But these phrases are hardly interpreted properly. For the ancients held that it is necessary to trust grace, that is, the mercy of God, who promises that on account of Christ we are accepted. However, the more recent scholars transfer trust to our work. They hold that it is necessary to trust grace, that is, the love by which we love God.?*® This interpretation is perverse. For we should not trust our love (since it is impure and feeble), but the promise of mercy. They also assert that good works have value by virtue of Christ’s suffering.?** That is correct. But they ought to mention faith in these statements. For the merit of Christ’s suffering is not communicated to us, unless we grasp it by faith and set it against the terrors of sin and death. For Paul said, “[Christ is the] sacrifice of atonement . . . effective through faith” [Rom. 3:25]. Again, in every prayer the church adds, “through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here, too, people must be instructed about faith. For the church indicates that our works and our prayers please God, if we believe that God is gracious to us and that he hears us on account of our high priest, Christ.?*> For?3 the present, let these things suffice on this topic. We know that the position we defend is in agreement with the gospel and brings the surest consolation to godly consciences. Therefore let the faithful not allow themselves to be led away from this position because of the sinful and wicked judgments of the opponents. Scripture foretells that it will come about that evil teachers will arise in the church who, by suppressing the righteousness of faith in Christ, will teach that the forgiveness of sins is merited through our worship and works. Moreover, Israel’s history is an image of the future state in the church. For we see the prophets everywhere reject this opinion of the people, who dreamed that they merited the forgiveness of sins through the sacrifices of the law and who, armed with this opinion, accumulated works and acts of worship. So, too, in the church many exist who harbor false opinions about works and devotions. However, Scripture has warned us so that we may not be disturbed by the great number of the ungodly. Moreover, it is easy to evaluate the spirit of the opponents. For we see in many articles that they have condemned the manifest truth. Do not let the fact that they claim the name “church” for themselves disturb anyone. For the church of Christ is present among those who rightly teach the gospel of Christ, not among those who defend wicked opinions contrary to the gospel, just as the Lord says [John 10:27], “My sheep hear my voice.”

233. For example, Gabriel Biel argued that the “grace that makes acceptable” (gratia gratum faciens) is a disposition (habitus) of charity whereby we now love God above all else and our neighbor as ourselves according to the intention of the lawgiver. 234. In his Commentary on the Sentences 111, d. 19, q. 1, a. 2, concl. 5, Biel notes that “the passion of Christ is the chief merit on account of which grace is conferred.” 235, Par. 386-93 of the quarto edition are omitted here. 236. In the following paragraph fragments from par. 393, 395, 396, and 400 of the quarto edition are included. Par. 394 and 397-99 are omitted entirely.

174

Apology.of the Augsburg Confession

[Articles VII and VIII:] The Church The authors of the Confutation have condemned the seventh article of our Confession, in which we said that the church is the assembly of saints.”®” And they have added a lengthy dissertation, that the wicked are not to be separated

from the church, since John the Baptist [Matt. 3:12] compared the church to a

threshing floor on which the wheat and the chaff are heaped together, and Christ [Matt. 13:47] compared it to a net in which there are both good and bad

fish, etc. The saying is certainly true that “there is no defense against the malicious attacks of deceivers” Nothing can be said so carefully that it can escape misrepresentation. For this very reason we added the eighth article, so that no one might think that we separate the wicked and the hypocrites from the outward fellowship of the church or deny efficacy to the sacraments when administered by hypocrites or the wicked. Therefore, we do not need to provide a long defense here against this slander. The eighth article exonerates us sufficiently. For we grant that in this life hypocrites and evil people are mingled with the church and are members of the church according to the external association of the church’s signs—that is, the Word, confession of faith, and sacraments— especially if they have not been excommunicated. Neither do the sacraments lose their efficacy when they are administered by the wicked. Indeed, we may legitimately make use of the sacraments that are administered by evil people. For Paul also predicts [2 Thess. 2:4] that the Antichrist “takes his seat in the

temple of God,” that is, he will rule and hold office in the church. However, the church is not only an association of external ties and rites like other civic organizations, but it is principally an association of faith and the Holy Spirit in the hearts of persons. It nevertheless has its external marks so that it can be recognized, namely, the pure teaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments in harmony with the gospel of Christ. Moreover, this church alone is called the body of Christ, which Christ renews, sanctifies, and governs by his Spirit as Paul testifies in Ephesians 1[:22-23], when he says, “And [God] has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” Therefore

those in whom Christ is not active are not members of Christ. This much the opponents also admit, namely, that the wicked are dead members of the church. We therefore wonder why they have found fault with our description, which speaks about living members. We have not said anything new here. Paul defined the church in precisely the same way in Ephesians 5[:26] when he says “in order to make her holy by cleansing her” He also added the external marks, the Word and sacraments. For

237. Roman Confutation: “The seventh article of the Confession, in which it is affirmed that

the church is the assembly of saints, cannot be admitted without prejudice to faith if by this definition the wicked and sinners are separated from the church” (pt. I, art. VII).

Article VII and VIII: The Church

175

he says, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the Word, so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish” [Eph. 5:25-27]. We have repeated this statement almost verbatim in our Confession. The third article of the Creed also defines the church in this way when it enjoins us to believe that there is a “holy, catholic church.” Certainly the ungodly are not a holy church! Moreover, what follows, “the communion of saints,” appears to have been added in order to explain what “church” means, namely, the assembly of holy people [saints] who share in common the association of the same gospel or doctrine and the same Holy Spirit, who renews, sanctifies, and governs their hearts. | This article has been presented for a very necessary reason. We see the end-

less dangers that threaten the destruction of the church. There is an infinite number of ungodly persons within the church itself who oppress it. This article in the Creed presents these consolations to us: so that we may not despair, but may know that the church will nevertheless remain; so that we may know that however great the multitude of the ungodly is, nevertheless the church exists and Christ bestows those gifts that he promised to the church: forgiveness of sins, answered prayer, the gift of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, it says “church catholic” so that we not understand the church to be an external government of certain nations. It consists rather of people scattered throughout the entire world who agree on the gospel and have the same Christ, the same Holy Spirit, and the same sacraments, whether or not they have the same human traditions. And the gloss in the Decrees says that “the church, broadly speaking, includes both the godly and the wicked,” and that the wicked are part of the church in name only and not in fact, but that the godly are part of the church in fact as well as in name.?®8 In this vein there are many passages found among the Fathers. For Jerome says, “The sinner, therefore, who has been defiled by any spot cannot be called part of the church of Christ, nor can he be said to be subject to Christ.”2% Therefore, although hypocrites and wicked people are indeed associated with this true church according to the external rites, nevertheless when the church is defined, it must be defined as that which is the living body of Christ and as that which is the church in fact as well as in name. There are many reasons for this. For we must understand what principally makes us members of the church—and living members at that. If we define the church only in terms of an external government consisting of both the good and wicked, people will not understand that the kingdom of Christ is the righteousness of the heart and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Instead they will think that it is only the external observance of certain religious rites and rituals. Then, too, what will be the 238. Gratian, Decretum I1, chap. 33, q. 3, dist.1, De poenitentia, c. 70. 239. Jerome, On the Epistle to the Ephesians 5:24 (MPL 26:531).

10

11

12,

13

14

176

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

difference between the people of the Law?#? and the church, if the church is an external organization? Yet Paul distinguishes the church from the people of the

Law in this way: the church is a spiritual people, that is, not a people guished from the Gentiles by civil ceremonies, but a true people of God, through the Holy Spirit. Among the people of the Law, in addition promise about Christ, those born according to the flesh had promises

distinreborn to the regard-

ing physical well-being, political affairs, etc. On account of these promises even

15

16

the wicked among them were called the people of God because God had separated these physical descendants from other nations through certain external ordinances and promises. Nevertheless, these wicked people did not please God. Now the gospel brings not the shadow of eternal things but the eternal blessings themselves, the Holy Spirit and the righteousness by which we are righteous before God. Therefore the people according to the gospel are only those who receive this promise of the Spirit. Besides this, the church is the kingdom of Christ, the opposite of the kingdom of the devil. For it is certain that the ungodly are in the power of the devil and are members of the devil’s kingdom, as Paul teaches in Ephesians 2[:2], when he says that the devil is “now at work among those who are disobedient” And Christ says [John 8:44] to the Pharisees, who cer-

tainly participated in an external affiliation with the church, that is, with the saints among the people of the Law (for they held office, sacrificed, and

taught): “You are from your father the devil” Thus, the church, which is truly

the kingdom of Christ, is precisely speaking the congregation of the saints. For the ungodly are ruled by the devil and are captives of the devil; they are not ruled by the Spirit of Christ.

17

18

But why belabor the obvious? If the church, which is truly the kingdom of Christ, is distinguished from the kingdom of the devil, it necessarily follows that the ungodly, since they are in the kingdom of the devil, are not the church—although in this life, because the kingdom of Christ has not yet been revealed, they intermingle with the church and hold offices in the church. Just because the revelation has not yet taken place does not make the ungodly the church. For the kingdom of Christ is always that which he makes alive by his Spirit, whether it has been revealed or is hidden under the cross, just as Christ is the same, whether now glorified or previously afflicted. Christ’s parables agree with this. He clearly teaches in Matthew 13[:38] that “the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one.” “The field,” he says, “is the world,” not the church. So also John [Matt. 3:12] speaks

about the whole Jewish nation and says that it will come to pass that the true church will be separated from it. Thus, this passage is more against the opponents than for them because it shows that the true and spiritual people will be separated from the physical people.*! Christ also speaks about the outward 240. That is, the nation of Israel described in the Old Testament.

241. This text, along with Matthew 13:47 and 25:1, was cited by the Confutation.

Article VII and VIII: The Church

177

appearance of the church when he says, “The kingdom of heaven is like a net”

[Matt. 13:47], or like “ten bridesmaids” [Matt. 25:1]. Thus he teaches that the

church has been hidden under a crowd of wicked people in order that this stumbling block may not offend the faithful, and so that we might know that the Word and sacrament are efficacious even when they are administered by wicked people. Meanwhile, he teaches that although the ungodly possess certain outward signs in common, they are, nevertheless, not the true kingdom of Christ and members of Christ. For they are members of the devil’s kingdom. Nor indeed are we dreaming about some platonic republic, as some have slanderously alleged.?*? Instead, we teach that this church truly exists, consisting of true believing and righteous people scattered through the entire world. And we add its marks: the pure teaching of the gospel and the sacraments. This church is properly called “the pillar . . . of the truth” [1 Tim. 3:15] for it retains the pure gospel, and, as Paul says [1 Cor. 3:12], “the foundation,” that is, the true knowledge of Christ and faith. Even though there are among these people many weak ones who build upon this foundation structures of stubble that will perish (that is to say, certain useless opinions), nevertheless, because they do not overthrow the foundation, these things are to be both forgiven them and also corrected. The writings of the holy Fathers bear witness that at times even they built stubble upon the foundation but that this did not overturn their faith. But most of what our opponents defend does overthrow faith, as when they condemn the article on the forgiveness of sins in which we said that the forgiveness of sins is received by faith. Again, it is a manifest and pernicious

20

21

error when the opponents teach that people merit the forgiveness of sins by

love for God prior to grace.?*? For this, too, removes the “foundation,” that is, Christ. Again, what need will there be for faith if the sacraments justify ex opere operato*** without a good impulse in those using them? However, just as the church has the promise that it will always have the Holy Spirit, so it also has the warning that there will be ungodly teachers and wolves. But the church is strictly speaking that which has the Holy Spirit. Even if wolves and ungodly teachers run rampant in the church, they still are not the kingdom of Christ, strictly speaking. Lyra testifies to this when he says, “The church does not consist of people by reason of their power or position, whether ecclesiastical or secular, because many princes, supreme pontiffs, and others of lower rank have apostatized from the faith. On this account the

church consists of those persons in whom there is a true knowledge and confession of faith and truth.”?45 What have we said in our Confession that differs from what Lyra says here? 242. See Martin Luther’s response to this charge, first brought in 1521 by Thomas Murner (WA 7:683, 8—11; LW 39:218).

243. See, for example, Ap 1V, 147-51. 244. See above p. 131, n. 85: By the mere performance of the rite. 245. Nicholas of Lyra, Postil on Matthew 16:10.

22

246. 1 Timothy 3:15.

B L il e s S L Fi e T L e B

h e e L :

A .

L

it .

N ’

TR .

T R S. a0 i et At AR ek s

28

D

27

the power of the Roman pontiff for which no one has ever been brought to trial. We alone are accused because we proclaim the blessings of Christ, namely, that we receive the forgiveness of sins by faith in Christ and not by religious rites invented by the pope. Moreover, Christ, the prophets, and the apostles define the church far differently than the papal kingdom. Neither should that which belongs to the true church be referred to the popes, namely, that they are pillars of the truth,?# that they do not err. For how many of them care about the gospel or judge that it is worth reading? Many even publicly ridicule all religions, or if they approve anything, they approve only those things that agree with human reason. They regard the rest as fabulous tales, similar to the tragedies of the poets. Therefore in accordance with the Scriptures we maintain that the church is, properly speaking, the assembly of saints who truly believe the gospel of Christ and have the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, we admit that in this life many hypocrites and wicked people, who are mixed in with these, participate in the outward signs. They are members of the church according to their participation in the outward signs and even hold office in the church. Nor does this detract from the efficacy of the sacraments when they are distributed by the unworthy, because they represent the person of Christ on account of the call of the church and do not represent their own persons, as Christ himself testifies [Luke 10:16], “Whoever listens to you listens to me.” When they offer the Word of Christ or the sacraments, they offer them in the stead and place of Christ. The words of Christ teach us this so that we are not offended by the unworthiness of ministers.

R e,

26

If we had defined the church in this way, we would probably have fairer

judges. For there are in existence many extravagant and ungodly writings about

S

25

S

canonists but also of Daniel 11[:36-39].

e

24

Perhaps the opponents demand that the church be defined as the supreme external monarchy of the entire world, in which the Roman pontiff must hold unlimited power, which no one is allowed to question or censure. This means the power to establish articles of faith and to cast aside the Scriptures as he wishes, to institute forms of worship and sacrifices, and likewise to frame whatever laws he wishes or to excuse and exempt people from any laws (divine, canonical, or civil), as he wishes. According to the command of Christ, the emperor and all kings have received from the pope the power and the right to hold their kingdoms. For as the Father has subjected all things to Christ [1 Cor. 15:27], so it must now be understood that this right was transferred to the pope. Therefore the pope must necessarily be the lord of the entire world, of all worldly kingdoms, and of all private and public affairs; he must have complete power in both the temporal and spiritual realm; and he must possess both swords, the spiritual and temporal. Indeed, this is not a definition of the church of Christ but of the papal kingdom, according to the definition not only of the

e S it PR

23

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Rl

178

Article VII and VIII: The Church

179

But we have spoken with sufficient clarity about this matter in our Confession, where we rejected the Donatists?*’ and Wycliffites?*® who thought that those who received the sacraments from unworthy people in the church were sinning. These things seem for now to suffice for the defense of the description of the church that we have given. Nor do we see how it could be described differently, when the church, properly speaking, is called the body of Christ. For it is clear that the ungodly belong to the kingdom and body of the devil, who goads them on and holds the ungodly captive. These things are clearer than the noonday sun. However, if the opponents continue to misrepresent them, we will not hesitate to respond at greater length. The opponents also condemned that part of the seventh article where we

said, “For the true unity of the church it is sufficient to agree on the teaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. It is not necessary that everywhere human traditions or rites or ceremonies instituted by human beings be the same.” Here they draw a distinction between universal and particular rites and are willing to approve our article if we mean “particular rites,” but reject it if we mean “universal rites.”?4* We do not quite understand what

29

30

31

the opponents want. We are speaking about a true unity, that is, a spiritual

unity, without which there can be no faith in the heart nor righteousness in the heart before God. For this unity we say that it is not necessary to have similar human rites, whether universal or particular, because the righteousness of faith is not a righteousness tied to certain traditions, as the righteousness of the law was tied to Mosaic ceremonies. For this righteousness of the heart is a matter that makes

the heart alive. Human

traditions, whether

universal or

particular, contribute nothing to this giving of life. Nor are they caused by the Holy Spirit, as are chastity, patience, the fear of God, love of one’s neighbor, and works of love. We did not have trivial reasons for presenting this article. For it is evident that many foolish opinions about traditions have crept into the church. Some thought that human traditions were necessary acts of worship for meriting justification. Later they debated how it came to pass that God was worshiped with such variety, as though, indeed, these observances were true worship rather than outward rules of discipline completely unrelated to the righteousness of heart or the worship of God. These varied for good reasons according to the 247. Those North African schismatic Christians who, like their bishop, Donatus, rejected the

authority of a bishop consecrated by someone who had compromised the church’s faith under persecution. 248. Followers of John Wycliffe, often called Lollards, who claimed that the validity of a priest-

ly act depended on a priest’s moral character. They were mentioned by name not in the CA but in the Confutation. 249. Roman Confutation: “They [the Lutheran princes] are also commended for not regarding variety of rites as destroying unity of faith if they mean particular rites. . . . But if they extend this part of the Confession to universal church rites, this also must be utterly rejected .. . (pt. I, art. VII).

32

180

33

34

circumstances, sometimes in one way, and at other times in another. Likewise, some churches excommunicated others on account of such traditions as the observance of Easter, images, and similar things.?*® From this the inexperienced have concluded that faith or righteousness of the heart before God cannot exist without these observances. For about this point there are in existence many foolish writings by the summists and others.?>! But just as the different lengths of day and night do not undermine the unity of the church, so we maintain that different rites instituted by human

beings do not undermine the true unity of the church, although it pleases us when universal rites are kept for the sake of tranquillity. Thus, in our churches we willingly observe the order of the Mass, the Lord’s day, and other more important festival days. With a very grateful spirit we cherish the useful and ancient ordinances, especially when they contain a discipline by which it is profitable to educate and teach common folk and ignorant. But we are not now discussing the question whether or not it is beneficial to observe them for the sake of tranquillity or bodily usefulness. Another issue is involved. The question is whether or not the observances of human traditions are religious worship necessary for righteousness before God. This is the point at issue?> in this controversy. Once it has been decided, it will be possible to decide whether for the true unity of the church it is necessary to have similar human traditions everywhere. For if human

35

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

traditions are not acts of worship necessary for

righteousness before God, it follows that it is possible to be righteous and children of God even if a person does not observe the traditions that have been maintained elsewhere. Analogously, if the style of German clothing is not an act of devotion to God necessary for righteousness before God, it follows that it is possible to be righteous and children of God and the church of Christ even if they wear not German, but French clothing. Paul clearly teaches this in Colossians [2:16-17] when he says, “Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” Again [vv. 20-23], “If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’? All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings. These have indeed an appearance 250. In the paschal controversy at the end of the second century, Roman Christians excommunicated Christians in Asia Minor. In the iconoclastic controversy in the eighth century the Lateran Synod condemned the Synod of Constantinople. In 1054 the pope excommunicated the Eastern Orthodox. 251. Authors of the many casuistical handbooks on penance (e.g., Raimund of Pennaforte, Summa de casibus conscientiae), beginning in the thirteenth century. 252. Melanchthon uses the Greek term krinomeron, a technical designation for the central question of dispute in the “judicial” genre of speech in Ciceronian rhetoric. See his Elementorum rhetorices (CR 13:430).

Article VII and VIII: The Church

181

of wisdom in promoting self-imposed piety, humility, and severe treatment of the body, but they are of no value in checking self-indulgence.” Paul’s meaning is this. The righteousness of the heart is a spiritual thing that enlivens the heart. It is evident that human traditions do not enliven the heart and are neither results of the Holy Spirit’s working (as is love of neighbor, chastity, etc.) nor instruments through which God moves hearts to believe (as are the given Word and divinely instituted sacraments). Instead, they are usages in that sphere of matters which do not pertain at all to the heart but which “perish with use.” It must not be thought that they are necessary for righteousness before God. In the same sense he says in Romans 14[:17], “The kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” But there is no need to cite many witnesses since they are obvious every-

where in the Scriptures. In our Confession, we have brought together a great many of them in the later articles. Moreover, the point to be decided®** in this controversy must be raised a little later below, namely, whether human traditions are necessary acts of worship for righteousness before God. There we will discuss this matter more fully. The opponents say that universal traditions ought to be observed because they are thought to have been handed down from the apostles.?** Such religious people! They wish to retain rites taken from the apostles, but they do not wish to retain the teaching of the apostles. They ought to interpret these rites in just the same way as the apostles themselves interpreted them in their writings. For the apostles did not want us to think that through such rites we are justified or that such rites are necessary for righteousness before God. The apostles did not wish to impose such a burden on consciences nor they did wish to locate righteousness and sin in the observances of days, foods, and similar things. Indeed, Paul calls such opinions teachings of demons [1 Tim. 4:1]. Therefore the intention and counsel of the apostles ought to be sought from

36

37

38

39

40

their writings; it is not sufficient to cite their example. They observed certain

days not as if that observance were necessary for justification, but in order that the people might know at what time they should assemble. Whenever they assembled, they also observed some other rites and a sequence of lessons. Frequently, the people continued to observe certain Old Testament customs, which the apostles adapted in modified form to the gospel history, like Easter and Pentecost, so that by these examples as well as by instruction they might transmit to posterity the memory of those important events. But if these things were handed down as necessary for justification, why did the bishops later change many of these very things? Whatever was a matter of divine right was not allowed to be changed by human authority. 253. Greek: krinomenon. 254. Roman Confutation: “That universal rites should be observed by all the faithful was well taught to Januarius by Augustine, for it must be presumed that such rites were handed down from the apostles” (pt. I, art. VIII).

41

182 42

Apology éf the Augsburg Confession Before the Council of Nicea, some observed Easter at one time, others at

another time,25> but this difference did no harm to faith. Afterward, the arrangement was adopted by which our Easter falls at a different time from the Jewish Passover. However, the apostles had commanded that the churches observe the Passover with their fellow Christians who had been converted from

Judaism. Thus, after the Council of Nicea, certain nations clung tenaciously to

this custom of observing the Jewish time. But the words of this decree show that the apostles did not wish to impose an ordinance on the churches. For they urge that no one should be troubled even though fellow Christians do not observe Easter at the correctly calculated time. The text of the decree is preserved in Epiphanius: “Do not calculate, but celebrate it whenever your brethren of the circumcision do; celebrate it with them at the same time, and even though they have erred, do not let this trouble you.”2>¢ Epiphanius writes that these words are taken from an apostolic decree about Easter. From this the prudent reader can easily judge that the apostles wanted to remove from the people foolish opinions concerning the necessity of observing a set time, since they forbid them from being troubled even though a mistake is made in the calculations. 43

Further, there were some in the East named Audians after the originator of

the dogma,?” who on account of this decree of the apostles contended that the Passover must be celebrated with the Jews. In refuting them?® Epiphanius praises the decree and says that it contains nothing which deviates from the faith or rule of the church, and he blames the Audians for misunderstanding

the expression. He interprets it the same way that we do, because the apostles did not consider that it made any difference when Easter was celebrated. However, because certain prominent brothers were converts from Judaism but

44

45

46

kept their customs, the apostles wanted the rest to follow their example for the

sake of harmony. The apostles wisely admonished the reader neither to destroy the liberty of the gospel nor to impose a necessity upon consciences, for they add that one must not be troubled even if there has been an error in the calculations. Many examples of this kind can be collected from the histories in which it appears that differences in human observances did not undermine the unity of the faith. But what need is there for further discussion? If they think that similar observances in food, days, clothing, and similar things that do not have the mandate of God are necessary, the opponents do not at all understand what the righteousness of faith or the kingdom of Christ is. But look at how religious our opponents are! For the unity of the church they require uniformity in 255. The paschal controversy.

256. Epiphanius, Panarion haereses 70:10, cited in the original Greek. For the decision of Nicea,

see NPNF,

ser. 2, 14:54-56.

257. Monastic sect of the fourth century that réjected the decision of the Council of Nicea regarding Easter. 258. Epiphanius, Panarion haereses 70:10.

183

Article IX: Baptism

human ceremonies although they themselves have changed the ordinance of

Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper, which previously was certainly a universal ordinance. But if universal ordinances are necessary, why do they change the ordinance of Christ’s Supper, which is not human but divine? However, on this whole controversy we will have to say more later.?>’ They approved the entire eighth article.?® In it, we confess that hypocrites and evil people are mixed together in the church and that the sacraments are efficacious even though they may be dispensed by evil ministers, because the ministers act in the place of Christ and so do not represent their own person. This accords with that passage [Luke 10:16], “Whoever listens to you listens to me.” The ungodly teachers must be avoided because they no longer act in the person of Christ but are Antichrists. Christ says [Matt. 7:15], “Beware of false prophets,” and Paul says [Gal. 1:9], “If anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!” Moreover, Christ has also warned us in his parables on the church?®! that when offended by the personal conduct of either priests or people, we should not incite schisms as the Donatists wickedly did.?*?> However, we hold that the ones who are obviously seditious are those who have incited schisms by denying priests permission to hold possessions and property.®> For to hold property is a civil ordinance. And it is permissible for Christians to use civil ordinances, just as they use the air, light, food, and drink. For as this universe and the fixed movements of the stars are truly orders of God and are preserved by God, so legitimate governments are truly orders of God and are preserved and defended by God against the devil.

[IX: Baptism] They approve the ninth article,2%* in which we confess that baptism is necessary for salvation, that children are to be baptized, and that the baptism of chil-

dren is not ineffective but is necessary and efficacious for salvation. Since the

gospel is purely and carefully taught among us, we have received, by God’s favor, this additional

fruit from

it: that no Anabaptists

have

arisen

in our

churches, because the people have been fortified by God’s Word against the ungodly and seditious faction of these crooks. Among the many other errors of 259. See Ap XXII.

:

260. Roman Confutation: “The eighth article of the Confession, concerning wicked ministers of the church and hypocrites, . . . is accepted . . ” (pt. I, art. VIII). 261. Matthew 13:24-50.

262. Christians in North Africa who insisted that a bishop, consecrated by other bishops suspected of handing over sacred texts under persecution, was not a true bishop. They were opposed by Augustine. 263. Here Melanchthon challenges the practice of the Roman church to forbid its clergy from becoming property owners. 264. Roman Confutation: “The ninth article, concerning baptism, . . . is approved and accepted, and they [the Lutheran princes] are right in condemning the Anabaptists . . ” (pt. I, art. IX).

47

48

49 50

184

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

the Anabaptists we also condemn their assertion that the baptism of little chil-

dren is useless. For it is most certain that the promise of salvation also pertains to little children. But it does not pertain to those who are outside the church of Christ, where there is neither Word nor sacrament, because Christ regenerates

through Word and sacrament. Therefore it is necessary to baptize little children in order that the promise of salvation might be applied to them according to Christ’s mandate [Matt. 28:19], “Baptize all nations.” Just as salvation is offered

to all in that passage, so baptism is also offered to all—men, women, children, and infants. Therefore it clearly follows that infants are to be baptized because salvation is offered with baptism. Second, it is evident that God approves the baptism of little children. The Anabaptists who condemn the baptism of little children teach wickedly. That God approves the baptism of little children is shown by the fact that God gives the Holy Spirit to those so baptized. For if this baptism had been ineffectual, the Holy Spirit would have been given to no one, none would have been saved, and ultimately there would be no church. Even taken by itself, this point can sufficiently strengthen good and godly minds against the godless and fanatical opinions of the Anabaptists.26>

[X: The Holy Supper] They approve the tenth article,?%¢ in which we confess our judgment that in the Lord’s Supper, the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present and are truly distributed?¢” with those things that are seen, the bread and wine, to those who receive the sacrament. Our preachers constantly defend this position.68 Moreover, we have ascertained that not only the Roman church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but that the Greek church has always maintained the same position and still does so, as the canon of the Mass among the Greeks testifies.28® And there exist the testimonies of certain authors. For Cyril on John 15 265. This argument may be found in LC, “Holy Baptism,” 49-51.

266. Roman Confutation: “The tenth article gives no offense in its words . . ” (pt. I, art. X). 267. Here, as in later editions of the Augsburg Confession (the Variata), Melanchthon uses the word exhibere to mean “offered,” not simply “shown.” 268. Quarto: “After careful examination and consideration of this subject, we steadfastly defend this belief. For since Paul says [1 Cor. 10:16] that the bread is a ‘sharing in the body of Christ,” etc., it would follow that, if the true body of the Lord were not truly present, the bread

would not be a participation of the body but only of his spirit.” The omission in the octavo edition of this section and of the one that follows and their use in the Solid Declaration (VII, 55-58) may

have been the chief reason the Latin edition of 1584 printed the quarto edition. Jonas’s German

translation, used in the 1580 Book of Concord, followed the octavo edition throughout this arti-

cle, omitting only the appeal to the emperor in par. 4. 269. Quarto: “It is seen in their canon of the Mass, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ, referring to the epiklesis in early Eastern liturgies. And Vulgarius [the eleventh-century Bulgarian archbishop Theophylact, in his

Article XI: Confession

185

states that Christ is offered bodily to us in the Supper. For he says, “We do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But we do entirely deny that we have no kind of connection with him according to the flesh. We say that this is altogether foreign to the sacred Scriptures. For who has ever doubted that Christ is a vine in this way and we are truly the branches, deriving life from him for ourselves? Listen to Paul as he says [1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; and Gal. 3:28], ‘We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are nevertheless one in Him; for we all partake of the one bread’ Does he perhaps think that the power of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily?” And a little later, “From this we must

consider that Christ is in us not only according to the indwelling understood as love but also by a natural participation. . . "7 We have cited this entire testimony here not in order to begin an argument on this subject here (for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article) but in order that whoever reads this might perceive more clearly that we defend the position received in the entire church—that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present and are truly offered with those things that are seen, bread and wine. Moreover, we are talking about the presence of the living Christ, for we know that death no longer

4

has dominion over him [Rom. 6:9].

[XI: Confession] They approve the eleventh article regarding the need to retain absolution in the church. But with reference to confession, they add the correction that the regulation Ompnis utriusque*’! must be observed, namely, that confession should

be made annually, and that, even though every sin cannot be enumerated, nevertheless one should diligently try to recollect them and to enumerate those that can be recalled to memory.?’2 About this entire issue, we will speak a little Commentary on the Gospel of Mark 14:22], who appears to be a sensible writer to us, says distinctly that ‘the bread is not only a figure, but truly is changed into flesh.’ And there is a lengthy exposition in Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches .. 270. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Gospel according to John 10, 2 (MPG 74:341), commenting on John 15:1 against the Arians. 271. Decretum of Gregory IX, bk. V, 38, c. 12, made in connection with the Lateran IV Council of 1215.

272. Roman Confutation: “In the eleventh article their [the Lutheran princes’] acknowledgment that private absolution with confession should be retained in the church is accepted. . . . Nevertheless, two things must be required of them in this connection: First, that they demand an annual observance of confession by their subjects according to the canon Omnis utriusque (concerning penance and forgiveness) and the custom of the universal church. Second, that through their preachers they cause their subjects to be faithfully admonished before confession that, although they cannot state all their sins individually, nevertheless, a diligent examination of their conscience being made, they make an entire confession of their offenses—that is to say, of all which

1

186

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

later more fully when we will explain our entire position on repentance.?”> It is well known that we have so explained and extolled the benefit of absolution and the power of the keys that many troubled consciences have received consolation from our teaching. They have heard that it is a command of God— indeed, the very voice of the gospel—so that we may believe the absolution and regard as certain that the forgiveness of sins is given to us freely on account of Christ and that we should maintain that we are truly reconciled to God by this faith. This approach has encouraged many devout minds, and in the beginning it brought Luther the highest praise of all good people. For it discloses a certain and firm consolation for the conscience, whereas previously the entire power of absolution was smothered by teachings about works, since the scholastics and monks taught nothing about faith and the gracious forgiveness of sins. With respect to setting a specific time, it is certain that most people in our churches use the sacraments—absolution and the Lord’s Supper—many times during the course of a year. Moreover, those who instruct the people about the

worth and fruits of the sacraments do so in such a way as to invite the people to use the sacraments frequently. There are many things written by our theologians on this topic so that the opponents, if they are honest, will undoubtedly approve

and praise.?’* Also, excommunication

is pronounced

on the

openly wicked and on those who despise the sacraments. These things are thus carried out according to both the gospel?”> and the ancient canons. However, we do not prescribe a set time because not everyone is prepared in the same

way at the same time. In fact, if everyone rushed in at the same time, they could

not be heard or instructed in an orderly way. The ancient canons and the Fathers do not appoint a fixed time. The canon says only this, “If any enter the church and are found never to commune, let them be admonished. If they still do not commune, let them come to penance. If then they do commune, let them not continually keep from doing so. If they do not commune, let them stay away.”2’¢ Christ says [1 Cor. 11:29] that “all who eat and drink unworthi-

ly, eat and drink judgment against themselves.”?”” Our pastors, accordingly, do not force those who are not ready to use the sacraments. With regard to the enumeration of sins, our people are taught in such a way as not to ensnare their consciences. Even though it is beneficial to accustom the inexperienced to enumerate some things in order that they might be taught

come to mind in such an investigation. With reference to the rest which have been forgotten or escaped our mind, it is lawful to make a general confession .. ” (pt. I, art. XI). 273. Ap XII, 98-178. The Latin word poenitentia, translated here “repentance,” also means “penance” or “penitence.” 274. See, for example, LC, “Confession,” 1-35. . _

275. Matthew 18:17.

276. Gratian, Decretum 111, Concerning Consecration, dist. 2, chap. 20.

277. Actually, Paul. The citation follows the Vulgate. NRSV: “without discerning the body.”

Article XI: Confession

187

more easily, here we are discussing what is necessary by divine mandate. Therefore the opponents should not cite against us the regulation Omnis

utriusque; we are aware of it. Instead they ought to demonstrate that the enu-

meration of sins is necessary for the reception of forgiveness on the basis of divine mandate. The entire church throughout all of Europe knows what kind of snares this clause in the regulation requiring a confession of every sin has cast upon consciences. The text by itself has not done as much damage as what the summists?’8 added to it later, when they included the circumstances of sins. What labyrinths and tortures this created for the most circumspect minds! For these terrors had no effect on wild and profane people. As a result, what

tragedies were played out over the question of who was the proper priest between the secular and the regular clergy, who hardly acted as brothers when they were warring about jurisdiction over confessions!?’”” We therefore maintain that the enumeration of sins is not necessary by divine mandate. This also agrees with Panormitanus?®® and other learned scholars of canon law. We do not want to impose a necessity upon the consciences of our people through the regulation Omnis utriusque. We judge it as we do other human traditions: that it is not an act of worship necessary for justification. Moreover, this regulation prescribes the impossible, namely, that we are to confess every sin. For it is evident that we will neither remember nor understand most of our sins, according to the passage [Ps. 19:12], “But who can detect their errors?” Good pastors will know how profitable it is to examine the inexperienced. We do not, however, wish to sanction the torture of the summists, which, in

spite of everything, would not have been so intolerable if they had added a single word

concerning

faith, which

comforts

and

consoles

consciences.

Now

about this faith, which receives the forgiveness of sins, there is not a syllable in the great pile of regulations, glosses, summaries, and penitential letters.?®! They say nothing about Christ. They speak only about the lists of sins. And most of them are obsessed with sins against human traditions, which is the height of vanity! This teaching has driven many devout minds to hopeless despair, because they believed that an enumeration of sins was necessary by divine mandate, and yet they experienced this as impossible. However, the opponents’ teaching also included other major problems concerning repentance,?*? which we will now review.

278. 279. ordinary 280.

See above, Ap VII/VIII, 32. Competition for hearing confessions and rivalry for spiritual jurisdiction existed between priests and their counterparts among monks and friars. Nicholas de Tudeschi.

281. Ecclesiastical regulations, explanations of canon law, casuistical handbooks of penance,

and letters of indulgence. 282. poenitentia: or “penance.”

10

188

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

[XII:] Repentance?s3 In the twelfth article they approve the first part, where we explain that “those who have fallen after baptism can receive forgiveness of sins ‘whenever, and as often as, ‘they are converted. ”?#¢ They condemn the second part, in which we say that the parts of repentance are contrition and faith. In particular, they deny that faith is the second part of repentance.?> What are we to do here, O Charles, Most Invincible Emperor? This is the

very voice of the gospel itself, that we receive the forgiveness of sins by faith. The writers of the Confutation condemn this voice of the gospel. Therefore we

can in no way give our approval to the Confutation. We cannot condemn the

voice of the gospel, so very salutary and full of consolation. What does denying that we obtain the forgiveness of sins by faith achieve other than to show contempt for the blood and death of Christ? Therefore, we ask you, Charles, Most Invincible Emperor, to hear us out patiently and to consider carefully this most important matter, which involves the chief topic of the gospel: the true knowledge of Christ and the true worship of God. For all good people will see that especially on this subject, we have taught what is true, godly, salutary, and necessary for the entire church of Christ. They will see that the writings of our people have shed much light on the gospel, and have corrected many pernicious errors that, as a result of the opinions of the scholastics and canonists, had consigned the doctrine of repentance to oblivion. But before we present a defense of our position, we must say something by way of a preface. Good people of all classes, even the theologians, undoubtedly admit that before the writings of Luther appeared, the teaching of repentance was incredibly confusing. The commentaries on the Sentences in existence are full of endless questions, none of which the theologians could ever answer satisfactorily. The people could neither comprehend the essence of the matter nor determine which things were principally required in repentance and where peace for the conscience was to be found. Let any one of the opponents step forward and tell us when the forgiveness of sins takes place. Good God, how great is the darkness! They wonder whether the forgiveness of sins

283. The word poenitentia (German: Busse) may be translated “repentance,” (the sacrament of ) “penance,” depending on the context. 284. Here Melanchthon quotes CA XII. :

» They add further that satisfactions ought to be works of supererogation. These consist of the most stupid observances, like pilgrimages, rosaries, and similar observations, none of which have the command of God. Then, just as they buy off purgatory with satisfactions, so they also devised a way to buy off satisfactions, which turned out to be very profitable. For they sell indulgences, which they interpret as the remission of satisfactions. They collect this revenue not only from the living but even more from the dead. They buy off the satisfactions for the dead not only with indulgences but also with the sacrifice of the Mass. In short, the subject of satisfactions is endless. Beneath these scandals and demonic teachings—too numerous to mention—the teaching of the righteousness by faith in Christ and Christ’s benefits lies buried. All good people, therefore, will understand that for useful and godly reasons we must censure the teaching of the sophists and canonists about penance. The following teachings are clearly false and are foreign not only to the Holy Scriptures but also to the church Fathers: 1. That on the basis of the divine covenant we merit grace through good works that are performed apart from grace.?* 2. That we merit grace through attrition.?® 3. That detesting a guilty act suffices for blotting out sin. 4. That we obtain the forgiveness of sins on account of contrition and not by faith in Christ.2% | 5. That the power of the keys has validity for the forgiveness of sins before the church, not before God. 291. By the mere performance of the rite.

292. An ironic allusion, cited in Greek, to the dismissal of catechumens before the Lord’s Supper. 293. See Thomas Aquinas, STh I1, 1, q. 87, a. 5, and I1I, q. 86, a. 4.

294. The position of Gabriel Biel, representing some Franciscan and nominalist theologians, who argued that on the basis of God’s covenant, or pact, God rewards good works done in a state of sin with the infused habit of charity (the grace that makes acceptable). 295. Among others, Duns Scotus, Commentar}‘/bn' the Sentences 1V, d. 1, q. 2, “Attrition is the

disposition or congruous merit for blotting out mortal sin.” 296. For statements 3 and 4, see Ap XI], 6.

Article XII: Repentance

191

6. That the power of the keys does not forgive sins before God but was insti-

22

tuted for the purpose of commuting eternal punishments into temporal ones, for imposing certain satisfactions upon consciences, for instituting new acts of

worship, and for binding consciences to such worship.?7 7. That the enumeration of sins in confession, necessary by divine right.? 8. That canonical satisfactions are necessary to ments of purgatory, or that they are beneficial as a

satisfactions and acts of

as our opponents enjoin, is

23

deliver us from the punishcompensation for removing

24

the guilt, which is how the inexperienced understand it.?

9. That the reception of the sacrament of penitence brings grace operato without a good disposition [in the recipient], that is, without Christ.3% 10. That by the power of the keys, souls are freed from purgatory indulgences.*°! 11. That in “reserved cases,” not only canonical punishment but guilt [of the perpetrator] ought to be reserved in the case of one who converted.3%2

ex opere faith in

25

through

26

also the is truly

27

In order that we might lead pious consciences out of the labyrinths of the sophists, we have established two parts in repentance, namely, contrition and

28

faith. We will not object if someone wants to add a third part, namely, the fruits worthy of repentance [Matt. 3:8], that is, the good works that follow conversion. Neither are we ignorant of the fact that among the grammarians the word “repentance” [poenitentia] means to disapprove that which we approved before. This squares better with contrition than with faith. But for the purpose of teaching, we here understand repentance as the entire conversion, in which there are two sides, a putting to death and a raising to life. According to the customary usage, we call them contrition and faith.3® Concerning contrition, we dismiss those idle and endless discussions about whether we are sorry because we love God or because we fear punishment. We say that contrition is the genuine terror of the conscience that feels God’s wrath against sin and grieves that it has sinned. This 297. For 5 and 6, see Ap XII, 7. 298. See CA XI. Luther had rejected this in The Sacrament of Penance (1518) (WA 2:721, 24-722, 6; LW 35:30-21) and in his Defense and Explanation of All the Articles (1521) (WA 7:367, 29-368, 30; LW 32:42—44).

299. The confusion of canonical and divine punishment can be traced back to Abelard’s Ethics

19, 25.

300. See Ap 1V, 63. Ex opere operato means by the mere performance of the rite. 301. See Pope Leo X’s bull for the “Peter’s indulgence” from 31 March 1515. 302. The most atrocious crimes were “reserved” by the pope and his bishops for their own judgment.

303. This material is an addition to the second, octavo edition. Melanchthon deals with con-

trition in par. 29-34 and with faith in par. 35-43, before dealing with the Confutation’s objections. Melanchthon had refined his view of repentance in a dispute with John Agricola in 1527 over the Visitation Articles, published in 1528 (WA 26:195-240; LW 40:263-320).

29

192

|

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

contrition takes place when the Word of God denounces sin, because the sum of the preaching of the gospel is to condemn sin and to offer the forgiveness of sins, righteousness on account of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life, so

30

31

32

3334

35

36

that having been reborn we might do good. Christ includes this in a summary of the gospel when he says in the last chapter of Luke [24:47] “that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in [my] name to all nations.” Scripture also speaks about these terrors as in Psalm 38[:4, 8]: “For my iniquities have gone over my head; they weigh like a burden too heavy for me. . .. I am utterly spent and crushed; I groan because of the tumult of my heart.” And Psalm 6[:2-3], “Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am languishing; O Lord, heal me, for my bones are shaking with terror. My soul also is struck with terror, while you, O Lord—how long?” And Isaiah 38[:10, 13]: “I said: In the noontide of my days I must depart; I am consigned to the gates of Sheol for the rest of my years. . . . [ cry for help until morning; like a lion he breaks all my bones; from day to night you bring me to an end.” In these terrors the conscience experiences the wrath of God against sin, something that is unknown to those who walk around in carnal security. It sees the rottenness of sin and deeply grieves that it has sinned. In the meantime, it flees the horrible wrath of God because human nature cannot withstand it unless sustained by the Word of God. So Paul says [Gal. 2:19]: “For through the law I died to the law.” The law only accuses and terrifies consciences. In these terrors our opponents say nothing about faith. They only pronounce the word that denounces sins. But when this alone is taught, it is a teaching of the law and not of the gospel. They say that by sorrows and terrors people merit grace, as long as they love God. But how will anyone love God in the midst of such real terrors when they experience the horrible and indescribable wrath of God? What else do they teach than despair, when in the midst of such terrors they present only the law? We therefore add faith in Christ as the second part of repentance,*%* namely, that in the midst of these terrors, the gospel about Christ (which freely promises the forgiveness of sins through Christ) ought to be set forth to consciences. They should therefore believe that on account of Christ their sins are freely forgiven. This faith uplifts, sustains, and gives life to the contrite, according to the passage [Rom. 5:1]: “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God.” This faith receives the forgiveness of sins. This faith justifies before God, as the same passage testifies, “since we are justified by faith.” This faith shows the difference between the contrition of Judas and Saul on the

one hand, and Peter and David on the other.?%® The contrition of Judas or Saul was useless for the reason that it lacked the faith that grasps the forgiveness of sins granted on account of Christ. Accordingly, the contrition of David and 304. poenitentia. See Ap XII, 1, n. 283. 305. The discussion of servile and filial fear and of these biblical examples was a standard part of scholastic explanations of contrition and also formed part of the 1527 debate between Melanchthon and Agricola over the Visitation Articles.

Article XII: Repentance

193

Peter was beneficial because faith was added, which apprehends the forgiveness of sins given on account of Christ. Nor is love present before faith has effected reconciliation. For the law is not kept apart from Christ, according to the passage [Rom. 5:2]: Through Christ we have access to God.*% This faith grows gradually and throughout life struggles with sin in order to conquer sin and

death. Moreover, love follows faith, as we said above. And thus it is possible to

define clearly filial fear as an anxiety that has been joined with faith, that is, where faith consoles and sustains the anxious heart. In servile fear faith does not sustain the anxious heart. The power of the keys administers and offers the gospel through absolution, which is the true voice of the gospel. Thus, we also include absolution when we talk about faith, because “faith comes from what is heard,” as Paul says [Rom. 10:17]. For when the gospel is heard, when absolution is heard, the con-

science is uplifted and receives consolation. Because God truly makes alive through the Word, the keys truly forgive sins before God according to [Luke

37

38

39

40

10:16], “Whoever listens to you listens to me.” Therefore we must believe the

voice of the one absolving no less than we would believe a voice from heaven. Absolution can properly be called the sacrament of penance, as even the more learned scholastic theologians say.>?7 At the same time, this faith is nourished in many ways in the midst of temptations through the proclamation of the

41 42

gospel and the use of the sacraments. For these are signs of the New Testament,

that is, signs of the forgiveness of sins. They offer, therefore, the forgiveness of sins, as the words of the Lord’s Supper clearly state [cf. Matt. 26:26, 28], “This

is my body, which is given for you. . .. This cup . . . is the new covenant in my blood. .. ” Thus faith is formed and strengthened through absolution, through hearing the gospel, and through use of the sacraments, so that it might not succumb in its struggle against the terrors of sin and death. This understanding of repentance is plain and clear. It increases the value of the sacraments and the power of the keys, illumines the benefits of Christ, and teaches us to make use of Christ as our mediator and propitiator. But since the Confutation condemns us for assigning these two parts to repentance, we must show that Scripture makes them the chief parts in repentance or the conversion of the ungodly. For Christ says in Matthew 11[:28], “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.” There are two parts here: being weary and carrying heavy bur-

43

44

dens refer to contrition, anxieties, and the terrors of sin and death; to come to

Christ is to believe that on account of Christ sins are forgiven. When we believe, our hearts are made alive by the Holy Spirit through the Word of Christ. Therefore, these are the two chief parts: contrition and faith. In the first

306. NRSV: “through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God.” 307. On the word poenitentia, see Ap XII, 1, n. 283. Among the scholastic theologians was Duns Scotus, Commentary on the Sentences 1V, d. 16, q. 1, 7.

45

194

46

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

chapter of Mark [v. 15] Christ says, “Repent and believe the gospel.”?® Where in the first part he denounces sin, in the second part he consoles us and shows us the forgiveness of sins. For “to believe in the gospel” is not that general faith, which the demons also possess, but it is properly speaking to believe the forgiveness of sins given on account of Christ. For this is revealed in the gospel. Here you also see that these two parts are joined: contrition, when sins are condemned, and faith, when it is said, “believe the gospel.” We will not argue if someone says that Christ also included the fruits of repentance or the entire new life. It is enough for us that he names these two chief parts: contrition and faith.3%° Wherever Paul describes conversion or renewal,'? he almost always distinguishes these two parts, putting to death and making alive, as in Colossians 2[:11], “In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh3!! in the circumcision of Christ.” And later on [Col. 2:12], “You were also raised with him through faith in the

power of God, who raised him from the dead.” There are two parts here. The first is the putting off the body of sins, the second is being raised again through faith [Rom. 6:2, 4, 11]. Nor should these expressions, “putting to death,” “making alive,” “putting off the body of sin,” “being raised,” be understood platonically, as an imaginary change. Instead, putting to death involves genuine terrors like those of the dying, which nature could not endure unless it were raised up

47

by faith. Thus, what we usually call contrition Paul calls the putting off the body of sins, because in these troubles our natural lust is purged away. Moreover, making alive should not be understood as a platonic mirage, but as consolation that truly sustains a life that flees [sin] in contrition. Therefore these are the two parts, contrition and faith. For because the conscience cannot

find peace without faith, so faith alone makes alive according to the passage

[Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17], “The one who is righteous through faith will live3!?

48

And then in Colossians [2:14] Paul says, “ . . erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands.” Here again there are two parts: the record and the erasing of the record. But the record is the conscience convicting and condemning us. Therefore the law is the Word that convicts and condemns sins. This voice that says with David, “I have sinned against the Lord” [2 Sam. 12:13], is the record. Ungodly and smug people do not say this seriously, for 308. NRSV: “repent, and believe in the good news.” The phrase agite poenitentiam in the Latin version of Mark may be translated “do penance,” “be penitent,” or “repent.” 309. This exception takes into account the position of John Brenz, the south German reformer,

who understood repentance and justification to include subsequent good works. 310. Par. 46-48 reflect Melanchthon’s interpretation of Colossians from his commentary. The section is completely omitted from the German translation. 311. NRSV: “body of the flesh.” The Latin translation of Erasmus and the Greek text on which it was based (like the German

Vulgate did not.

312. NRSV, alternate translation.

translation)

also included the words “of the sins.” The

Article XII: Repentance

195

they neither see nor read the sentence of the law written in their hearts. This sentence is perceived only in the midst of genuine sorrows and terrors. Therefore the record condemning us is contrition itself. To erase the record is to remove this sentence of condemnation from the soul’!> and to substitute the sentence according to which we know that we have been freed from this condemnation. However, faith is the new sentence that overturns the prior one and brings peace and life to the heart. However, what need is there to cite so many testimonies when they are obvious throughout the Scriptures? Psalm 118[:18], “The Lord has punished me severely, but he did not give me over to death.” Psalm 119[:28], “My soul melts away for sorrow; strengthen me according to your Word.” Here the first part contains contrition, while the second clearly describes how we are revived in the midst of contrition, namely, by the Word of God that offers grace. This Word sustains and gives life to the heart. 1 Samuel 2[:6]: “The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.” In each of these, the first part refers to contrition; the second part refers to faith. Also Isaiah 28[:21], “For the Lord will rise up as on Mount Perazim, he will rage as in the valley of Gibeon; to do his deed—strange is his deed! and to work his work—alien is his work!”314 He calls it an alien work of God to terrify, because the proper work of God is to make alive and console. But he terrifies, he says, in order to make room for consolation and vivification, because hearts that do not feel the wrath of God loathe consolation in their smugness. In this way, Scripture makes a practice of joining these two things, terrors and consolation, in order to teach that these are the chief parts of repentance: contrition and faith that consoles and justifies. We do not see how the nature of repentance could be taught more clearly and simply. For these are the two chief works of God in human beings, to terrify and to justify the terrified or make them alive. The entire Scripture is divided into these two works. One part is the law, which reveals, denounces, and condemns sin. The second part is the gospel, that is, the promise of grace given in Christ. This promise is constantly repeated throughout the entire Scripture: first it was given to Adam, later to the patriarchs, then illuminated by the prophets, and finally proclaimed and offered by Christ among the Jews, and spread throughout the entire world by the apostles. For all the saints have been justified by faith in this promise and not on account of their own attrition or contrition. These following examples similarly demonstrate these two parts. Adam was

reprimanded after he sinned and became filled with terror. This was contrition. Afterward God promised grace and spoke of a future seed that would destroy 313. Quarto: “by which we declare 314. Latin: “The Lord is roused to that he might perform his own work.” prium, which may be rendered “alien” (to one’s nature).

that we are condemned.” anger in order that he might do his work. Alien is his work In what follows, Melanchthon contrasts alienum and proand “proper,” or “strange” (to one’s nature) and “peculiar”

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

196

56

57

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

the reign of the devil, death, and sin! Here he offers the forgiveness of sins. These are the chief parts. For, although punishment is added later, this punishment does not merit the forgiveness of sins. We will say more about this form of punishment a little later.>!® In the same way, David, reprimanded by Nathan and thus filled with terror, says [2 Sam. 12:13], “I have sinned against the Lord.” This is contrition. Then he hears the absolution [2 Sam. 12:13], “Now the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die.” This Word uplifts David and by faith sustains, justifies, and revives him. A punishment is also added here, but it does not merit the forgiveness of sins. Specific punishments are not always added; but in repentance these two things, contrition and faith, must always be present, as in Luke 7(:37f.]. The woman who was a sinner came to Christ in tears, which expressed her contrition. Then she heard the absolution [vv. 48, 50], “Your sins are for-

58

given. . .. Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” This is the other half of repentance, namely, faith that uplifts and consoles her. From all these examples godly readers can see that we assign to repentance those parts that belong to conversion or regeneration and the forgiveness of sins. Worthy fruits as well as punishments follow regeneration and the forgiveness of sins. We have outlined these two parts especially to emphasize the faith that we require in repentance. It is easier to understand how to define the faith that the gospel proclaims when it is contrasted with contrition and mortification. S0316 that the whole world might see how great the ignorance of true godliness is among our critics who wrote the Confutation, we will also add Bernard’s judgment. He joins the two parts of repentance, contrition and faith, in precisely the same manner that we do. In his third sermon on the annunciation, his words are as follows: “ ‘Let me hear of your steadfast love in the morning, for in you I put my trust’ (Ps. 143:8). Without doubt, hope alone gains a place of compassion with you. Neither do you pour the oil of mercy in anything other than the vessel of trust. But it is a faithless trust, containing only a curse, when we sin in hope. However, such should not be called trust, but an insensibility and a pernicious deception. For what is trust to one who does not pay attention to the danger? Or what remedy is there for fear where neither fear nor its actual basis is felt? Trust is consolation. However, those who rejoice when they have done wrong and exult in the worst things have no use for consolation. Therefore, let us ask, brothers, that we be told how great are our iniquities and sins, and let us desire that our crimes and offenses be shown to us. Let us search our ways and with earnest attention examine all our pursuits and dangers. Let everyone say in his anxiety: ‘I will go to the gates of hell so that now we may take courage in no other way than in God’s mercy alone. This is the true trust of a person who forsakes self and relies on the Lord. This I say is true trust, for which mercy is not denied according to the testimony of the prophet: “Truly the eye of the Lord is on those who fear him, on those 315. See Ap XII, 148.

316. The following was added in the second, octavo edition.

Article XII: Repentance

197

who hope in his steadfast love’ [Ps. 33:18]. In any case, neither does a little trust support us; indeed, in us there is cause for fear: but in him there is cause for trust.”317 We have been happy to quote his opinion so that readers may see how we understand faith here as referring to trust in mercy, which uplifts and consoles the terrified, which he rightly calls trust. This can be clearly seen when terrors and consolation oppose one another. In the same way, Bernard here wants the knowledge of sins or contrition or terrors to exist in people and wants to add trust, which uplifts a person in the midst of contrition. Because the opponents expressly condemn our statement that people receive the forgiveness of sins by faith, we shall add a few other proofs in order to show that the forgiveness of sins takes place not ex opere operato®'® on account of contrition but by that personal faith by which each individual believes that his or her sins are forgiven on account of Christ. For we are contending with the opponents about the chief article, the knowledge of which we regard as absolutely necessary for all Christians. But since we have clearly spoken at sufficient length on the subject of justification earlier, we will be briefer here. For these topics, the teaching on repentance and the teaching on justification, are very closely related. When the opponents talk about faith and teach that it precedes repentance, they do not understand faith as that which justifies, but as a general belief that God exists and threatens the ungodly with punishments, etc.’!® Beyond such faith, we require that each person believes that his or her sins are forgiven on account of Christ. We are contending for this personal faith and we set it against the opinion that urges us to rely not on the promise of Christ but on the opus

59

60

operatum [performed work] of contrition, confession, and satisfaction, etc. This

faith follows the terrors in order to conquer them and bring peace to the conscience. We insist that this faith justifies and regenerates inasmuch as it frees us from our terrors and produces peace, joy, and new life in our hearts. We contend that this faith is truly necessary for the forgiveness of sins. Accordingly we include it among the parts of repentance or conversion. The church of Christ does not believe otherwise—contrary to what our opponents claim. However, first we ask the opponents whether the reception of absolution is a part of repentance or not. If they try to make a subtle distinction that separates absolution from confession, we fail to see what good confession is without absolution. If, however, they do not separate the reception of absolution from confession, then they must maintain that faith is part of repentance, because absolution is received in no other way than by faith. That only faith receives absolution can be proved from Paul, who teaches in Romans 4[:16] that only faith is able to accept a promise. Now absolution is the promise of the forgiveness of sins. Therefore it necessarily requires faith. We do not see how 317. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary 3, 3. 318. See Ap 1V, 63: by the mere performance of the rite. 319. Confutation (pt. I, art. XII). “It is known to all that faith precedes penance.”

61

62

198

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

anyone could be said to receive absolution without assenting to it. And what else is the rejection of absolution than to accuse God of falsehood? If the heart

doubts, it maintains that God’s promises are uncertain and futile. So in 1 John 5[:10] it is written, “Those who do not believe in God have made him a liar by

not believing in the testimony that God has given concerning his Son.”

65

sins is either a part or the goal (the terminus ad quem as they call it) of repentance.320 Therefore, that which receives the forgiveness of sins should properly be included among the parts of repentance. For it is most certain, even if all the gates of hell oppose it [Matt. 16:28], that the forgiveness of sins can be received in no other way than by faith alone, which believes that sins have been forgiven on account of Christ, according to Romans 3[:25], “whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood.” Again, Romans 5[:2], “through whom we have obtained access by faith to this grace. .. .”*?! For a terrified conscience cannot set our works or our love against God’s wrath, but it finds peace only when it takes hold of Christ the mediator and believes the promises given on account of him. But those who imagine that our hearts find peace without faith in Christ do not understand what the forgiveness of sins is nor how it comes to us. Peter [1 Peter 2:6] quotes from Isaiah [49:23; 28:16], “Whoever believes

in him will not be put to shame.” Therefore, it must be that hypocrites, who are confident that they receive forgiveness of sins on account of their works and not on account of Christ, are put to shame. Moreover, Peter says in Acts

10[:43], “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” Now it cannot be said more clearly than what Peter says, “through his name,” and he adds, “everyone who believes in him.” Therefore the only way that we receive the forgiveness of sins is through the name of Christ, that is, because of Christ, and not because of any

66

of our merits or works. This happens when we believe that sins are remitted to us on account of Christ. Our opponents cry out that they are the church and that they are following the consensus of the church. On the contrary, here Peter also cites the consensus of the church in support of our position. “To him,” he says, “all the prophets bear testimony” that the forgiveness of sins is received through his name, etc. Surely the consensus of the prophets must be regarded as the consensus of the

universal church. We concede to neither the pope nor the church the power to 67

issue decrees against this consensus of the prophets. However, the bull of Leo openly condemns this article concerning the forgiveness of sins. Our opponents also condemn it in their Confutation.*”? From this it is apparent what kind of church we should regard these people to be, when they not only reject 320. 321. 322. rejection councils

See, for example, Thomas Aquinas, STh II, 1, q. 113, a. 6¢. “by faith”: following the alternate reading in the NRSV with the Vulgate. Leo X’s Exsurge Domine 15 and the Confutation (pt. I, art. XII), where it states that the of penitential satisfactions in CA XII is “against the gospel, the apostles, the Fathers, the and against the universal catholic church.”

e U

64

Second, we assume that our opponents will admit that the forgiveness of

A SRR

63

Article XII: Repentance

199

by decrees this statement that we receive the forgiveness of sins by faith not on account of our works but on account of Christ, but even give the command to wipe it out by force and the sword, and by every kind of cruelty to put to death good people who hold to it. They have some authors of great renown on their side, [Duns] Scotus, 68 Gabriel [Biel], and the like, as well as passages from the Fathers, which the decrees quote in a garbled form. Certainly, if we had to add up the number of authorities, they would win. For there is a great crowd of completely worthless commentators on the Sentences’?? who, as if by a conspiracy, defend those false notions about the merits of attrition or works and other things we discussed above. But should anyone be moved by this multitude, it must be kept in mind 69 that no great authority attaches to statements of later theologians who did not produce their own books but only compiled them from earlier ones and transferred these opinions from one book to another. In the process, they failed to exercise any judgment, but like petty public officials they tacitly approved the errors of those who preceded them without understanding them. Therefore, let 70 us not hesitate to set Peter’s word, which cites the consensus of the prophets,

against the ever so many legions of commentators on the Sentences. Moreover, the testimony of the Holy Spirit is added to this sermon of Peter, for the text [Acts 10:44] says, “While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the Word.” Therefore let pious consciences know that God commands them to believe that they are forgiven freely on account of Christ and not on account of our works. Let them sustain themselves with this command of God against despair and against the terrors of sin and death. Let them know that this position has been extant among the saints in the church since the beginning of the world. For Peter clearly cites the consensus of the prophets, and the writings of the apostles bear witness that they hold the same position. Nor do we lack testimonies from the Fathers. For Bernard says the same thing in words that are not at all obscure: “For it is necessary, in the first place, for everyone to believe that you cannot have forgiveness of sins except through the forbearance of God; but add further that you also believe that through him your sins are forgiven. This is the testimony that the Holy Spirit gives in your heart [cf. Rom. 8:16], saying, ‘your sins are forgiven to you. For in this way the apostle concludes that a person is justified freely through faith.”324 Bernard’s words wonderfully shed light on our position, because he not only requires that we believe in a general way that sins are remitted through mercy, but he urges that we add personal faith by which we believe that our own sins have been forgiven. Moreover, he teaches us how we may be certain about the forgiveness of sins, namely, when by faith our hearts are uplifted and find rest through the Holy Spirit. What more

323. Of Peter Lombard, the basic theological textbook in the late-medieval university. 324. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon on the Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary 1, 1. (MPL 183:383).

71

72

73

74

200

75

76

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

do our opponents need? Do they still dare to deny that we receive the forgiveness of sins by faith or that faith is a part of repentance? Third, the opponents say that sins are remitted in this way: an attrite or contrite person elicits an act of love for God and this act merits the reception of the forgiveness of sins.3?> This is nothing but the teaching of the law; the gospel has been eliminated, and the promise of Christ abolished. For they require only the law and our works because the law demands love. Besides, they teach us to believe that we receive the forgiveness of sins on account of contrition and love. What else is this but to place our confidence in our works and not in the Word and promise of Christ? But if the law suffices for obtaining the forgiveness of sins, then what need is there for the gospel? If we receive the forgiveness of sins because of our work, what need is there for Christ? We, on the contrary, call consciences away from the law to the gospel and away from confidence in our own works to confidence in the promise and Christ, because the gospel offers Christ to us and promises the forgiveness of sins freely on account of Christ. By means of this promise, the gospel urges us to trust that we are reconciled to the Father on account of Christ and not on account of our contrition or love. For there is no other mediator or propitiator than Christ. Nor can we keep the law until we have been first reconciled through Christ. Moreover, whatever we may do, we must still realize that we receive the forgiveness of sins not on account of those works but on account of Christ, the mediator and propitiator.

77

78

It is indeed an insult to Christ and an annulment of the gospel to hold that we receive the forgiveness of sins on account of the law or in any other way than by faith in Christ. Earlier we discussed this issue in the article on justification, where we explained why we confess that we are justified by faith and not by love.326 Thus, the teaching of the opponents, that people receive the forgiveness of sins on account of their own contrition and love and should trust this contrition and love, is nothing but a teaching of the law—and a misunderstood one at that—ijust as the Jews looked at the veiled face of Moses [2 Cor.

79

3:13]. Even supposing that love and works are present, neither is able to be an atoning sacrifice for sin. They cannot be set against the wrath and judgment of God according to the text [Ps. 143:2], “Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you.” Nor should Christ’s honor be transferred to our works. For these reasons, Paul contends that we are not justified by the law, and he sets against the law the promise of the forgiveness of sins granted because of Christ. He teaches that we receive the forgiveness of sins freely because of Christ, by faith. Paul calls us away from the law to this promise. He urges us to 325. For example, Gabriel Biel, Commentary on the Sentences IV, d. 16, q. 4, a. 3, dub. 3: “God is placated by nothing other than through an act elicitéd by love.” In medieval theology, attrition was sorrow for sin out of fear of punishment; contrition was sorrow for sin out of love of God.

326. Ap IV, 61-182.

Article XII: Repentance

201

look to this promise, which would certainly be useless if we were justified by the law before we are justified through the promise, or if we received the forgiveness of sins on account of our righteousness. However, it is clear that the promise was given to us and that Christ was offered to us precisely because we cannot keep the law. Therefore we must first be reconciled by the promise before we keep the law. But the promise is received only by faith. Therefore, it is necessary for the contrite to grasp the promise of the forgiveness of sins given on account of Christ by faith and to realize that on account of Christ they freely have a gracious Father. This is what Paul means in Rom. 4[:16], where he says, “For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace” And in Galatians 3[:22], “But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” That is, all are under sin and cannot be set free unless they grasp the promise of the forgiveness of sins by faith. Therefore we must first receive the forgiveness of sins by faith before we keep

80

81

82

the law, although, as we said above, love follows faith because the reborn

receive the Holy Spirit and therefore begin to keep the law. We would cite many more passages if they were not so obvious to every devout reader of Scripture. And we want to avoid being lengthy in order that our case might be more readily understood. Nor, indeed, is there any doubt that what we defend is Paul’s position, namely, that by faith we receive the forgiveness of sins on account of Christ and that by faith we ought to set Christ the mediator and not our works against the wrath of God. Nor should devout minds be troubled if our opponents twist Paul’s statements, for nothing can be said so simply as to avoid distortion by someone who wants to quibble. We know that what we have said is the true and genuine meaning of Paul. We know that our position offers pious consciences firm consolation without which no one can face the judgment of God. Therefore, we reject the opponents’ Pharisaic opinions that we do not receive the forgiveness of sins by faith but that it must be merited by our love and works, and that we ought to set our love and works against the wrath of God. This is a teaching of the law and not of the gospel. It imagines that people are first justified by the law before they have been reconciled to God through Christ, even though Christ says, “apart from me you can do nothing”; again, “I am the vine, you are the branches” [John 15:5]. But the opponents imagine that we are branches of Moses rather than Christ. For first they want to be justified by the law and to offer their love and works to God before they are reconciled to God through Christ and become branches of Christ. Paul, to the contrary, contends that the law cannot be kept apart from Christ. Therefore, before we keep the law, we must receive the promise that we are reconciled to God by faith on account of Christ. We think that these things are sufficiently clear to devout consciences. From this they will understand why we declared earlier that people are justified by faith and not by love, because we must not set against the wrath of God our love or works, or trust in our love

83

84

85

86

87

202

88

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

or works, but set Christ the mediator against such wrath. We must first take hold of the promise of the forgiveness of sins before we keep the law. Finally, when will the conscience find peace if we receive the forgiveness of sins because we love or keep the law? For the law will always accuse us since no one satisfies the law of God. Thus Paul says [Rom. 4:15], “The law brings

89

90

wrath” Chrysostom asks in connection with repentance, “How do we become sure that our sins are forgiven?”3?” The opponents ask the same thing in their Sentences. This cannot be answered, nor can our consciences find rest, unless they know it is God’s command and the gospel itself that they should be certain that their sins are forgiven freely on account of Christ and not doubt that they are personally forgiven. If anyone doubts, as John says [1 John 5:10], he makes the divine promise a lie. We teach that this certainty of faith is required in the gospel; the opponents leave consciences uncertain and wavering. Consciences, however, do nothing from faith when they continually doubt whether they have forgiveness. In this doubt how can they call upon God and how can they be certain that they are heard? So their entire life lacks God and lacks the true worship of God. That is what Paul says [Rom. 14:23]: “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” And because they are constantly filled with doubt, they never experience what faith is. Thus it happens that in the end they rush headlong into despair. This is the teaching of the opponents, a teaching of the law, an annulment of the gospel, and a teaching of despair. We gladly yield to the judgment by persons of good will concerning this topic of repentance. For it is so clear that they may decide whether our teaching or our opponents’ teaching is more pious and salutary. These dissensions in the church certainly give us no pleasure. Therefore if we did not have weighty and compelling reasons for disagreeing with the opponents, we would be completely willing to keep quiet. But since they condemn the open truth, it is not right for us to for-

91

92

sake the cause that is not our own but Christ’s and the church’s. We have explained why we set forth contrition and faith as the two parts of repentance. And we have been only too happy to do this because many statements about repentance have been disseminated that cite the Fathers in a garbled form and that the opponents have distorted for the purpose of obscuring faith. For example, “Repentance means to Jament past evils and not to commit again deeds that ought to be lamented.” Again, “Repentance is a kind of revenge by persons who are sorry, thus punishing themselves for what they are sorry to have done”®? These statements make no mention of faith, and even the scholastics add nothing about faith when they interpret them. Therefore, in order to make the teaching of faith stand out more clearly, we listed it as one of the parts of repentance. For the matter itself demonstrates the danger in 327. John Chrysostom, Ad Theodorem lapsum 1, 5ff. (MPG 47:282ff.).

328. Both patristic citations are from Gratian, Decretum, 11, c. 33, q. 3, De poenitentia, dist. 3,

chap. 1 (citing Ambrose, Sermon 25, 1 [MPL 17:677]), and chap. 4 (citing Pseudo-Augustine, De vera et falsa poenitentia 19, 35 [MPL 40:1129]), respectively.

Article XII: Repentance

203

these statements that require contrition or good works and make no mention of justifying faith. We may rightly demand better judgment from those who

have compiled these patchworks of the Sentences and Decretals. For since the Fathers speak in some places about one part and in other places about the

other part of repentance, it would have been helpful to select and bring together their opinions not only about one part but about both parts, that is, about contrition and faith. For Tertullian speaks excellently about faith, dwelling especially on the oath in the prophet [Ezek. 33:11], “As I live, says the Lord Gob, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live.” For since God swears that he does not desire the death of a sinner, God shows that he requires faith in that we believe him when he swears and are sure that he forgives us. The authority of the divine promises ought by themselves to be sufficient for us. But this promise has also been confirmed with an oath.

93

94

Therefore, if any are not certain that they are forgiven, they deny that God has

sworn to the truth. A more horrible blasphemy cannot be imagined. For this is what Tertullian says, “He invites us to salvation with an offer and even an oath. When God says, ‘As I live, he wants to be believed. Oh, blessed are we for whose sake God swears an oath! Oh, most miserable are we if we do not believe the Lord even when he swears an oath!”3% Thus, it is necessary to know that this faith ought to hold that God freely forgives us on account of Christ and on account of his promise, and not on account

95

of our works, contrition, confession, or satisfactions, or love. For if

faith relies on these works, it immediately becomes uncertain, because an anx-

ious conscience sees that these works are not good enough. Accordingly, Ambrose speaks brilliantly about repentance: “Therefore it is proper to believe both that we are to repent and that we are to be pardoned, but in such a way as to expect pardon from faith just as faith obtains it from the written agreement.”330 Again, “It is faith that covers up our sins.”>*! Thus there are in existence statements in the Fathers not only about contrition and works but also about faith. But since our opponents understand neither the nature of repentance nor the language of the Fathers, they select statements about the one part of repentance, namely, about works, and pass over statements elsewhere about faith, since they do not understand them.

96

97

Concerning Confession and Satisfaction33? People of good will can easily judge the great importance of preserving the true teaching about contrition and faith, the two parts of repentance. Thus, we have 329, Tertullian, On Repentance 4 (MPL 1:1234; ANF 3:660). 330. Ambrose, Concerning Repentance 11, 980 (MPL 16:538; NPNF, ser. 2, 10:355). 331. Ambrose, De Apologia Prophetae David 13, 3 (MPL 14:918), where the text reads: “Therefore faith diminishes sin.”

332. Here Melanchthon returns to his discussion of medieval penance, begun in par. 4-27.

98

204 99 100 101

102 103

106

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

concentrated on explaining these topics and have not yet said anything about confession and satisfaction. For we also retain confession especially on account of absolution, which is the Word of God that the power of the keys proclaims to individuals by divine authority.?>> Therefore it would be unconscionable to remove private absolution from the church. Moreover, those who despise private absolution know neither the forgiveness of sins nor the power of the keys. As for the enumeration of sins in confession, we have said earlier that we do not hold it to be necessary by divine authority. Now when some object that a judge ought to hear a case before pronouncing a sentence,’* that is irrelevant because absolutions is not judgment but the administration of another person’s gift. For Christ gave the command to remit sins; ministers administer this command. They do not have a command to investigate secrets. This can be understood from the fact that they remit sins without restriction, sins that not even we ourselves, to whom they are remitted, remember. Moreover, the entire matter would be uncertain if the forgiveness depended upon knowing these sins. Furthermore, what sort of jurisdiction the church has over offenses that are publicly known does not pertain to the present disputation. For inasmuch as these deeds are known, they are charged by name and afterward remitted by name, if the one who commits them wants to be received back by the church. Thus, it is ridiculous to apply to this point the saying of Solomon [Prov. 27:23], “Know well the condition of your flocks.” For Solomon is not talking about confession but is simply giving some domestic advice to the heads of households, telling them to pay diligent attention to their own property and to leave others people’s alone. He commands them to take care of their own property diligently in such a way that they do not become so preoccupied with the increase of their resources as to lose the fear of God or faith or to neglect God’s Word. But our opponents, by an incredible transformation, make passages of Scripture say whatever they want them to mean. And so “to know” means for them to hear confessions; “condition” does not refer to the outward conduct

but to the secrets of the conscience; and “flocks” means people. The interpretation is surely a neat one and is worthy of those who despise the study of the rules of speech. But if people want to take a precept for the head of a household and apply it to the pastor of a church by means of an analogy, they should surely interpret “condition” to mean outward conduct. This analogy would at least be more consistent. 107

But let us skip over these things. At various places the Psalms mention fession, as in [Ps. 32:5], “Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not my iniquity; I said, T will confess my transgressions to the Lord, and you gave the guilt of my sin.” Such confession of sin, which is made to God, is

conhide foritself

contrition. For when confession is made to God, it is of necessity made with 333. Ap XI, 6-8.

334, This was the argument of Nicholas Ferber (Herborn) in his Enchiridion, 23.

335. This italicized portion replaces par. 104-5 of the quarto edition.

Article XII: Repentance

205

the heart and not simply with the mouth, as is done by actors on the stage. Therefore such a confession is contrition. In it, we, aware of God’s wrath, confess that God is rightly angry and cannot be conciliated by our works and nevertheless we seek mercy on account of God’s promise. It is the same with this confession [Ps. 51:4], “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified in your sentence and blameless when you pass judgment.” That is, “I confess that I am a sinner and deserve eternal wrath. 1 cannot set my righteousness or my merits against your wrath. Accordingly, I declare that you are just in condemning and punishing us. I declare you to be in the right, although hypocrites judge you to be unjust in punishing them or in condemning those who deserved it. Indeed, we cannot set our merits against your judgment, but we shall be justified only when you justify us, when you regard us as righteous through your mercy.” Perhaps

108

109

someone will also cite James [5:16], “Confess your sins to one another.” But this

does not speak of the confession that is made to priests but about the recon-

ciliation of brothers [and sisters] to each other, for it commands that the confession be reciprocal.

Furthermore, by contending that the enumeration of sins in confession is necessary by divine right, our opponents will be condemning many of the most

110

generally accepted theologians. For although we approve of confession and

think that some examination is profitable so that people might be better instructed, nevertheless the matter must be regulated so that consciences are not ensnared, for they will never find rest as long as they think that they cannot obtain the forgiveness of sins without scrupulously enumerating all their sins. It is certainly completely false that a full confession is necessary for salvation as the opponents have maintained in their Confutation.?>® It is impossible! What snares this requirement for full confession has cast upon consciences! How will the conscience ever determine that its confession is complete? When the writers of the church mention confession, they are not talking about this enumeration of secret sins but about the rite of public penitence.??’ Because fallen or notorious sinners were not accepted without certain satisfactions, they made confession to the priests in order to have prescribed appropriate satisfactions for their offenses. This whole matter had nothing in common with the enumeration about which we are debating. Confession was made at that time not because forgiveness of sins could not take place before God without it, but because satisfactions could not be prescribed without knowing what kind of offense was committed. Different regulations applied to different offenses. 336. Roman Confutation (pt. [, art. XII): “[The princes and cities] must be admonished [by Your Imperial Majesty] that not only is full confession necessary for salvation, but also that it constitutes the fabric of Christian discipline and complete obedience in conformity to the orthodox church” 337. Outside of certain monastic practices and exceptional situations, the ancient church knew nothing of private confession but only public penitence.

111

112

206 113

114

115

116

117

118

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Our word “satisfaction” is a relic from this rite of public penitence. The holy Fathers did not want to receive fallen or notorious sinners unless they had given public evidence of their repentance insofar as was possible. There seem to have been many reasons for this. It served as an example for chastising the lapsed, as a gloss upon the decretals admonishes.?*® Moreover, it was indecent to admit notorious sinners immediately to Communion. These customs have long since become obsolete. It is not necessary to restore them because they are not necessary for the forgiveness of sins before God. The Fathers did not hold that people merit forgiveness of sins through such practices or works, although these spectacles tend to lead the inexperienced astray so that they think they merit the forgiveness of sins before God through such works. But whoever thinks this way thinks like a Jew or a pagan. For the pagans also had certain expiations for sins through which they were supposedly reconciled to God. However, even though the practice has become obsolete, the term “satisfaction” remains along with a remnant of the practice, namely, the prescribing of certain satisfactions in confession. They define these as “nonobligatory works.” We call them canonical satisfactions. As in the case of the enumeration of sins, we hold that these canonical satisfactions are not necessary by divine right for the forgiveness of sins, just as those ancient displays of satisfaction in public penitence were not necessary by divine right for the forgiveness of sins. For we must retain the position about faith: that by faith we receive the forgiveness of sins because of Christ and not because of our works—either those that precede, or those that follow. Chiefly for this reason we have discussed satisfactions: so that no one would adopt them and thereby obscure the righteousness of faith, and so that people may not think that they receive forgiveness of sins because of these works. Many statements by the scholastics lend support to this error, such as when they define satisfactions as things done in order to conciliate the divine displeasure.>* The opponents admit that satisfactions do not contribute to the remission of guilt, although they do imagine that satisfactions are beneficial for paying off purgatorial and other punishments. This is what they teach.’*® In the forgiveness of sin God remits the guilt, and yet, because it is appropriate for divine justice to punish sin, he commutes eternal punishment into temporal punishment. They add further that a part of this temporal punishment is forgiven by the power of the keys, but that the rest must be paid off through satisfactions. We cannot understand which punishments are partly forgiven by the power of the keys, unless they say that a part of the punishments of purgatory is forgiven, from which it would follow that satisfactions would only be punishments that deliver from purgatory. Moreover, they say that these satisfactions have 338. Gloss on Gratian, Decretum 11, chap. 24, q. 3, dist. 18. 339. For example, Gabriel Biel, Commentary on the Sentences IV, d. 16, q. 2, a. 1C: “Satisfaction is an external work of great effort or penalty, voluntarily assumed, as punishment for a sin committed and as a conciliation of divine displeasure.” 340. See Thomas Aquinas, STh I1, Suppl., q. 18, a. 2, ad 1.

Article XII: Repentance

207

value even when performed by those who have relapsed into mortal sin—as though the divine displeasure could be conciliated by those who live in mortal sin! This whole theory is a recent fiction fabricated without the authority of the Scriptures or the ancient writers of the church. Not even Peter Lombard speaks this way about satisfactions.*! The scholastics saw that there were satisfactions in the church, but they did not notice that these displays had been instituted as an example and as a way of testing those who desired to be received back into the church. In brief, they did not see that it was a discipline and entirely a mat-

119 120

ter of external order at that. Accordingly, they superstitiously imagined that

these were not to be used for discipline in the church but for placating God. And just as elsewhere, they often improperly confused spiritual matters with matters of external order, as has happened here with regard to satisfactions. But the gloss on the canons at several places testifies that these observances were instituted for the sake of church discipline.**? But let us see how they prove these inventions of theirs in the Confutation

121

122

that they dared to thrust upon His Imperial Majesty. They cite many passages

from Scripture in order to give the impression to the inexperienced that this idea has the authority of Scripture behind it, even though it was unknown even in the time of Lombard. They quote these passages, “Bear fruit worthy of repentance” [Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8]; again, “present your members as slaves to righteousness” [Rom. 6:19]; Christ’s preaching of repentance, “Repent!” [Matt. 4:17]; also Christ’s command to the apostles to preach repentance [Luke 24:47]; and Peter’s preaching of repentance in Acts 2[:38].>43 Then they cite several statements from the Fathers and the canons and conclude with these words: that the abolition of satisfactions in the church is contrary to the express commands of the gospel and to the decrees of the Councils and the Fathers, but that those who have been absolved by the priest ought to perform the prescribed penance, following the declaration of Paul [Titus 2:14], “He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.” May God destroy those ungodly sophists who so wickedly distort the Word of God to suit their own vain dreams! What good person would not be moved by such dishonesty? Christ says, “repent,” and the apostles preach repentance. Therefore our satisfactions®** compensate for eternal punishments; therefore the keys have the command to remit part of the punishments of purgatory; therefore satisfactions pay off the punishments of purgatory. Who taught these jackasses such logic? This is not logic or even sophistry; it is sheer deception. Accordingly, they cite the words “repent . . ” in such a way that when the inexperienced hear such a statement cited against us, they conclude that we take 341. Peter Lombard, Sentences IV, d. 14-19.

342. Gloss on Gratian, Decretum 11, c. 23, q. 4, chap. 18, 19. 343. In all these instances, the word translated “repentance” is poenitentia, which also may mean “penance” or “penitence.” 344. Quarto: “the punishments of purgatory.”

123

208

124

125

126

127

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

away all repentance. With such tricks they try to alienate people’s minds and kindle hatred, so that the inexperienced cry out against us that such pestilent heretics who reject repentance should be taken away from their midst. We hope that these slanders will make little headway among people of good will. Moreover, God will not long endure such impudence and malice. And the Roman pope does not enhance his reputation by appointing such defenders and entrusting a matter of the greatest importance to such sophists. Since we have included in our Confession nearly the sum total of all Christian teaching, judges should have been appointed to deal with such important, numerous, and varied matters whose learning and faith would be approved by good people.¥ And it was up to you, Campeggio,**¢ in keeping with your wisdom, to take the proper care regarding such important matters, so that they would not write anything that might diminish the prestige of the Roman See either at this time or in the future. If the Roman See thinks that it is right for all the nations to acknowledge it as the teacher of the faith, it ought to take care that people of learning and integrity investigate matters of religion. For how will the world evaluate the Confutation of our adversaries—if and when it is ever published??4” What will posterity think about these slanderous judgments? You see, Campeggio, these are the last times, during which Christ predicted there would be the many perils for religion. You, therefore, who should sit in a watchtower s0 to speak and give guidance on religious matters, ought in such times to exercise special wisdom and diligence. There are many signs that, unless you will pay attention to them, portend a change in the conditions in Rome. You are mistaken if you suppose that churches are to be maintained only by force of arms. People are insisting on religious instruction. How many do you suppose there are—not only in Germany but also in England, Spain, France, Italy, and even in the city of Rome—who have begun here and there to doubt because they see the controversies that have arisen on the matters of greatest importance? How many are silently indignant because you refuse to examine these questions and adjudge them fairly, because you do not explain matters to wavering consciences, because you command

128

only that we should be con-

quered and wiped out by armed might? However, there are many good people who would more easily suffer death and all sorts of torments, than bear this doubt.3*® You do not sufficiently consider how important a matter religion is, if you think that whenever people of good will come to doubt some dogma, it is merely frivolous anxiety. In fact, this doubt can produce nothing but the most bitter hatred against those who 345. Quarto: “would have inspired greater confidence than that of the sophists who have written this Confutation.” 346. Papal legate at the Diet of Augsburg, who in a letter to the emperor from May 1530 had urged the eradication of the Lutherans by force. 347. The Confutation was not published officially until 1573. 348. Quarto: “for whom such doubt is worse than death.”

Article XII: Repentance

209

ought to heal consciences but who refuse to offer the slightest explanation. We are not saying here that you ought to fear the judgment of God; for the members of the hierarchy suppose that they can easily take care of this since they hold the keys and so, of course, can open heaven for themselves whenever they want. We are talking about the judgments of people and the silent desires of all nations, which at this time certainly require that these matters be examined and settled in such a manner as to heal good minds and free them from doubt. For on the basis of your own wisdom, you can easily recognize what may happen if this hatred against your side should ever erupt. However, if you all were to heal doubting consciences, you could conquer all nations for yourselves through this kindness, which all rational people regard as a high and most important matter. We have said these things not because we have doubts about confession. We know it is true, godly, and beneficial to devout consciences. But it is likely that there are many people in many places who are in doubt about these weighty matters and yet do not hear teachers who are capable of healing their consciences.

But let us return to the main point of debate. The Scripture passages cited by our opponents say absolutely nothing about canonical satisfactions or about the opinions of the scholastics, since these are obviously recent inventions. Therefore it is pure deceit when they distort the Scriptures to fit their own opinions. We say that throughout life good fruits (good works) ought to

129

130

131

follow repentance (that is, conversion or regeneration). For there can be no

true conversion or true contrition where the mortification of the flesh and good fruits do not follow. True terrors and sorrows of the soul do not allow the body to indulge in sensual pleasures, and true faith is not ungrateful to God and does not despise the commandments of God. Thus inner repentance means nothing unless it also outwardly results in strict correction of the flesh. This we say is what John [the Baptist] means when he says [Matt. 3:8], “Bear

fruit worthy of repentance”; again when Paul says [Rom. 6:19], “Present your members as slaves to righteousness,” just as elsewhere he says [Rom. 12:1], “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy .. ” And when Christ says [Matt. 4:17], “Repent,” he is certainly speaking about total repentance, about the entire new life and its fruits, not about those hypocritical satisfactions that the

132

scholastics imagine avail as a compensation for the punishments of purgatory

or for other punishments when performed by those who are in mortal sin. Many other arguments could be marshaled to show that these passages of Scripture do not pertain in any way to the scholastic satisfactions. They imagine that satisfactions are “nonobligatory works,” but these passages of Scripture require obligatory works. For this word of Churist is the word of a command: “Repent.” Second, the opponents write that if those who go to confession refuse to undertake satisfactions, they do not sin but will have to pay these penalties in purgatory. Now these passages, “Repent,” “Bear fruit worthy of repentance,” and “Present your members as slaves to righteousness,” are unquestionably commands for this present life. Therefore they cannot be

133

134

210 135

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

twisted so as to apply to satisfactions we may refuse to do, for we may not refuse the precepts of God. Third, indulgences forgive only [canonical] satisfactions, as is taught in the chapter “On Penances and Remission,” beginning

with the words, “Since from this . . ”34° But indulgences do not free us from the

136

137

138

139

commandments “repent” and “bear fruit worthy of repentance.” Thus it is clear that these passages of Scripture have been wickedly distorted in order to apply them to canonical satisfactions. Look at the consequences! If the penalties of purgatory are satisfactions, or rather “sufficient sufferings,”**® or if satisfactions are a redemption from the punishments of purgatory, why do these passages not also command that souls should be punished in purgatory? Since this necessarily follows from the opponents’ position, these passages will have to be interpreted in a new way: “bear fruit worthy of repentance” and “repent,” that is, “suffer the penalties of purgatory in the afterlife.” But it is disgusting to waste any more words in refuting these absurdities of the opponents. Clearly Scripture is speaking about obligatory works and about the entire new life, not about these observations of “nonobligatory works” that the opponents talk about. And yet, by these inventions they defend monastic orders, the sale of Masses, and endless other observances which make satisfaction for punishment if not for guilt. Since the Scripture passages that they cite do not say that “nonobligatory works” compensate for eternal punishments, it is rash for our opponents to affirm that canonical satisfactions compensate for these penalties. Besides, since it is most certain that the forgiveness of sins is without cost or is given freely on account of Christ, it follows that satisfactions are not required. Moreover, the gospel contains the command to remit sins freely, not to impose punishments and new laws, nor to impose part of the punishments and remit the rest.>>! Where are such things written in the Scriptures? Christ speaks about the forgiveness of sins when he says [Matt. 18:18], “whatever you loose . . ” This forgiveness of sins removes eternal death and brings eternal life. Nor do these words, “whatever you bind,” speak about imposing penalties but about retaining the sins of those who are not converted. Lombard’s statement about remitting a part of the punishments referred to canonical penalties, part of which pastors remitted.352 To be sure, we hold that repentance ought to produce good fruits on account of the glory and commandment of God and that good fruits, such as true fasting, true prayer, true almsgiving, and the like, have God’s command. However, nowhere in Holy Scripture do we find that only the punishment of purgatory or canonical satisfactions (that is, certain “nonobligatory works”) can remit eternal punishments or that the power of the keys carries with it the 349. Gregory IX, Decretals IX, lib. V, tit. 38, De poenitentiis et remissionibus, c. 14. 350. Melanchthon invents a word, satispassiones.. 351. Quarto: “Nor do the keys include a command to commute some penalties or to remit part of the punishments.” 352. Peter Lombard, Sentences IV, d. 18, c. 7.

Article XII: Repentance

211

command to commute penalties or to remit them in part. These things would have to be proven by the opponents. Moreover, the death of Christ is a satisfaction not only for guilt but also for eternal death, according to [Hosea 13:14], “I will be your death, oh death3>? Therefore how monstrous it is to say that Christ’s satisfaction redeems our guilt but that our own punishments redeem us from eternal death! Then the statement, “I will be your death,” would have to be understood referring not to Christ but to our works—and then not even to the works commanded by God but to some vain observances cooked up by human beings. And these are supposed to abolish death, even when they are carried out in [a state of] mortal

sin! It is incredible. With heavy hearts we have recounted the opponents’

140

141

absurdities, which cannot but cause anyone who considers them to become

enraged against these demonic teachings that the devil has spread in the church in order to suppress the knowledge of the law and gospel, of repentance and being made alive, and of the benefits of Christ. For they say this about the law: “In condescension to our weaknesses, God has fixed a certain standard for people that they are required to observe, namely, the Ten Commandments. Over and above this, that is, by works of supererogation, people can make satisfaction for the sins they commit.”3* Here they imagine that human beings can keep the law of God in such a way as to do even more than the law requires. However, Scripture everywhere cries out that we are far from the perfection required by the law. These people imagine that the law of God is content with external and civil righteousness; they do not see that it requires us truly to love God “with all your heart .. ” [Deut. 6:5], and that it condemns every aspect of concupiscence in [human] nature. Thus, no one does as much as the law requires. It is therefore ridiculous to imagine that we can do even more. For although we are able to do external works that are not commanded by the law of God, nevertheless it is vain and ungodly to trust that these works satisfy God’s law. Moreover, true prayer, true almsgiving, and true fasting possess God’s command, and where they have such a command they cannot be omitted without sin. But those works, insofar as they are not commanded by God’s law, but derive from a humanly made prescription, are works that belong to human traditions about which Christ says [Matt. 15:9], “In vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.” Works such as certain fasts were established not to restrain the flesh but, as Scotus says, to honor God and to com-

pensate for eternal death.?>> The same is true when a fixed number of prayers or certain acts of charity are rendered in such a way that they become a form 353. According to the Vulgate. The NRSV reads: “Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your destruction? Compassion is hidden from my eyes.” 354, The distinction between commands and counsels is common throughout the scholastics. See, for example, Bonaventure, Breviloquium V, 9.

355. Duns Scotus, Commentary on the Sentences IV, d. 15, q. 1, a. 3.

142

143

212

144

145

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

of worship that ex opere operato®>¢ gives honor to God and compensates for eternal death. For they attribute satisfaction to these ex opere operato, because they teach that they even have value for those living in mortal sin. Now some works stray even further from God’s commands, like pilgrimages, of which there is a great variety. For one person makes the journey in full armor and another with bare feet. Christ calls these useless acts of worship, and so they do not serve to conciliate God’s displeasure, as the opponents claim. Nonetheless, they adorn these works with distinguished names. They call them works of supererogation and give them the honor of being the price paid in lieu of eternal death. Thus, these works receive preference over the commandments of God. In this way the law of God is obscured in two ways: first because they suppose that they satisfy the law of God through external and civil works; and second, because they add human traditions, the performance of which receives preference to works of the divine law.

146

147

148

Furthermore, they obscure repentance and grace. Eternal death is not paid off by this compensation of works, because such compensation is idle and in the present life does not even come close to tasting death. Something else must be set against death when it afflicts us. For just as the wrath of God is conquered by faith in Christ, so also death is conquered by faith in Christ. Thus Paul says [1 Cor. 15:57], “But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” He does not say, “ . . who gives us the victory if we set our satisfactions against death.” The opponents deal with idle speculations concerning the remission of guilt and do not see how in the remission of guilt the heart is freed from the wrath of God and from eternal death through faith in Christ. Since, therefore, the death of Christ is the satisfaction for eternal death, and since the opponents themselves admit that works of satisfaction are not obligatory works but are works of human tradition, which Christ says [Matt. 15:9] are useless acts of worship, we can safely say that by divine right canonical satisfactions are not necessary for remitting guilt, eternal punishments, or the punishments of purgatory. But the opponents object that vengeance or punishment is necessary for repentance, because Augustine says that “penitence is a vengeance punishing . . ”37 Just as elsewhere, when the opponents interpret the works commanded [by God] as satisfactions and sacrifices of atonement, so also here. Because a punishment is mentioned, they pervert it to mean satisfaction. Augustine did not hold that sorrow in repentance is a payment for which the forgiveness of sins is owed. He knew that sins are remitted freely for Christ’s sake. He knew that the death of Christ is the sacrifice for our sins. Therefore, we should always understand whatever is cited about vengeance and punishments in such a way as not to overturn 356. By the mere performance of the rite.

-

357. Pseudo-Augustine, On True and False Repentance 19, 35 (MPL 40:1129). “Penitence is

therefore a vengeance, punishing oneself out of sorrow for what has been committed.” What follows is the second, octavo edition’s reworking of par. 148 in the quarto.

Article XII: Repentance

213

the free forgiveness of sins nor to obscure the merit of Christ and draw people away from trust in Christ to trust in works. Moreover, we grant that in repentance there is a punishment, but not as a payment. Rather there is in a formal sense a punishment in repentance because regeneration itself occurs through a continuous mortification of our old nature. There are terrors and there are other impulses

that are aroused against sin, but forgiveness is not owed them. Indeed, if faith were not added, these sorrows would bring eternal death.>*® The saying from Scotus (namely, that penitence is so called because it carries with it punishment)*>® may well be good, provided that punishment is not understood as a payment for which forgiveness is due. Moreover, Augustine is not speaking of punishments remitted by the keys. Hence it is not right to distort this expression to mean satisfactions. He is speaking about true punishments, that is, about terrors and the mind’s true sorrows that exist in repentance. Nevertheless, we do not exclude the outward distress of the flesh. For of its own accord this follows true sorrows in the heart.3%0 And the opponents are greatly mistaken if they think that canonical satisfactions, rather than the true terrors in the heart, are genuine punishments. It is quite foolish to distort the term “punishments” so that it refers to these hollow satisfactions and not to the horrible terrors of the conscience

149

about which David says [Ps. 18:4; 2 Sam. 22:5], “For the waves of death encom-

passed me, the torrents of perdition assailed me. ...” Who would not rather put on armor and breastplate and go looking for the church of St. James or the basilica of St. Peter, etc.,%¢! rather than endure the unspeakable power that such grief exerts in true repentance even in the lives of ordinary people? But they say that it accords with God’s justice to punish sin. First,* by arguing that it is appropriate for sin to be punished, they show sufficiently that they despise Christ’s benefit. God has arranged the death of his Son, not our punishments or our satisfactions, as the payment for our sins. What madness then it is to prefer our satisfactions to the satisfaction of Christ! Furthermore, when God punishes with the greatest severity, we must not think that the forgiveness of sins is owed to us because of such punishment for two reasons: first, in order to do no injury to the benefit of Christ, and second because the conscience cannot find peace if the forgiveness of sins is not freely granted. Finally, when God punishes with the greatest severity, these punishments have nothing to do with the keys. They have 358. Quarto: “We concede that vengeance or punishment is necessary for penitence, but not as a merit or payment as the opponents imagine satisfactions to be. In a formal sense, vengeance is part of penitence, because repentance itself takes place by constantly mortifying the old life.” 359. In Latin, the word poena (punishment) is contained within the word poenitentia (repentance, penitence). See Duns Scotus, Commentary on the Sentences IV, d. 14, q. 1, a. 3, concl. 2. 360. Quarto: “But what kind of punishment or vengeance is Augustine talking about? Certainly about true punishments and vengeance, namely, about contrition and true terrors. Nor do we exclude here the outward mortifications of the body that follow true sorrow of the soul.” 361. Santiago de Compostela, the alleged location in Spain for the martyrdom of St. James, was a favorite destination of pilgrims in the Middle Ages, as was St. Peter’s in Rome. 362. This italicized section was inserted into the quarto edition.

150

214

151

|

|

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

no command about imposing or remitting such punishments, which are works of God. Otherwise, we grant that God punishes sins. First, it happens in contrition when in the midst of those terrors he reveals his wrath. David attests to this when he prays [Ps. 6:1], “Lord, do not rebuke me in your anger.” And Jeremiah says [Jer. 10:24], “Correct me, O Lord, but in just measure; not in your anger, or you will bring me to nothing.” This certainly speaks about the most bitter punishments. Our opponents admit that contrition can be so great that it does not require satisfaction. Truly, therefore, contrition is a more genuine punishment than are canonical satisfactions. Second, the saints are subject to death and to all our common afflictions, as Peter says in 1 Peter 4[:17], “For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; if it begins with us, what will be the end for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” As a rule, these troubles are punishments for sin. Nevertheless, in the godly they serve another purpose. For*®> they are inflicted to put present sin to death, because in the saints they extinguish and mortify concupiscence. For death remains in the saints in order to abolish this impure nature. Accordingly Paul says [Rom. 8:10], “The body is dead because of sin,” that is, is put to death because sin still remains present in the flesh. The cross, therefore, is not a punishment but an exercise and preparation for renewal. For when present sin is put to death and when in the midst of temptations we learn to seek the aid of God and experience God’s presence, we acknowledge more and more the lack of trust in our own hearts and we encourage ourselves by faith. In this way, newness of spirit grows, as Paul says, “Even though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day” (2 Cor. 4:16). Isaiah likewise says [26:16], “O Lord, in distress they sought you . . . when your chastening was on them.” Besides, death is truly punishment when the terrified heart feels the wrath of God, according to the passage [1 Cor. 15:56]: “The sting of death is sin.” However, after faith overcomes the terrors of sin in the saints, death without this sense of wrath is not, properly speaking, punishment. Moreover, the keys neither impose nor remit these punishments. Therefore satisfactions do not pertain to these punishments. For the keys do not remit either death or a part of our common afflictions. Now if by satisfactions they compensate for these punishments, why do they command us to make satisfaction in purgatory?

They offer an objection based on the examples of Adam and of David, who was punished for adultery.’®* From these instances they make up a universal rule that specific temporal punishments correspond to particular sins in imposing the power of the keys. We said before that the saints suffer punishments, which are the work of God. They suffer contrition or terrors, as well as other common troubles. So, too, some of them suffer specific penalties that have been imposed by God for the sake of example. These punishments have 363. This italicized section revises par. 151-54 of the quarto edition. 364. Proposed by Nicholas Ferber (Herborn) in his Enchiridion, 24.

Article XII: Repentance

215

nothing to do with the keys because the keys can neither impose nor remove them; God imposes and removes them without the ministry of the keys. A universal rule does not follow from this: a particular punishment was imposed upon David, therefore above and beyond our common afflictions there is a special penalty in purgatory, where a particular punishment fits a particular sin. Where does Scripture teach that we can be set free from eternal death only through the payment of certain punishments over and above our common troubles? On the contrary, it constantly teaches that the forgiveness of sins takes place freely on account of Christ, who is the victor over sin and death. Therefore, we must not mix a merit of satisfactions with this. Even though we still have troubles, Scripture interprets them as the mortifications of present sin, not as a payments for or a ransom from eternal death. Scripture explains that Job was not afflicted on account of his past misdeeds. So afflictions are not always punishments or signs of wrath. Indeed, anxjous consciences must be taught that afflictions have other more important purposes, lest they think that they are being rejected by God since in the midst of such afflictions they see nothing but God’s punishment and anger. They must consider these other more important purposes, namely, that God performs his “alien work” in order to do his proper work, as Isaiah teaches in a long sermon in chapter 28[:21].3¢> When the disciples in the case of the blind man asked who had sinned [John 9:2f.], Christ replied that the cause of his blindness was not sin but “so that God’s works might be revealed in him.” In

157

158

159

Jeremiah [49:12] it is said, “If those who do not deserve to drink the cup still have to drink it . . ” For such reasons the prophets, John the Baptist, and other

saints were killed. Therefore afflictions are not always punishments for particular past deeds. They are works of God intended for our benefit, that the power of God might be made more manifest in our weakness. Thus Paul says [2 Cor. 12:5, 9], “The power of God is made perfect in my weakness.”>66 Thus, in accord with God’s will, our bodies ought to be sacrifices to show our obedience, not to pay for eternal death—for which God has another payment, namely, the death of his Son. In this sense even Gregory interprets David’s punishment, when he says, “If on account of that sin God had threatened that [David] would be humiliated by his son in this way, why did he carry out his threat against him after the sin was forgiven? The answer is that the sin was forgiven so the person might not be prevented from receiving eternal life. However, this example of a threat followed in order that the godliness of the person might be exercised and tested even in that humiliation. So also on account of sin God imposed bodily death on human beings, and even after the

forgiveness of sin he did not eliminate it for the sake of exercising righteous-

365. This interpretation of Isaiah, already expressed in Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation of

1518 (WA 1:357, 6-8; LW 31:44), is also found in Nicholas of Lyra and the Ordinary Gloss (citing

Gregory I). 366. Cf. NRSV alternate reading,.

160

161

216

162

163

164

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

ness, namely, in order that the righteousness of those who are sanctified might be exercised and tested.”3¢ ' In fact, the common troubles of life are not removed through the works of canonical satisfactions, that is, through those works of human tradition, which they themselves say have value ex opere operato, so that even those in mortal sin can nevertheless pay the penalty. Moreover, when an objection is raised using the passage from Paul [1 Cor. 11:31], “But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged,” the word “judge” ought to be understood referring to the entire scope of repentance and the expected fruits, not to nonobligatory works. Our opponents pay the penalty for despising grammar when they understand “judge” to be the same as “to make a pilgrimage in full armor to the church of St. James,%8 or to perform similar such works. “To judge” means the entire scope of repentance; it means to condemn sins. This condemnation truly takes place in contrition and in a changed life. The entire scope of repentance—contrition, faith, good fruits—brings about a lessening of public and private punishments and calamities, as Isaiah teaches in the first chapter [1:16-19], “Cease

168

framed canons was, as we said earlier, a matter of church discipline established

for the sake of setting an example. They did not hold that such discipline was necessary for the remission of either guilt or punishment. When they referred to purgatory in this connection, they did not understand it as payment of satisfaction for eternal punishment but as the purification of imperfect souls. Thus Augustine says that “venial offenses are consumed,”® that is, that distrust toward God and other similar attitudes are put to death. Now and then writers would take the term “satisfaction” from the public rite itself and use it to indicate true mortification. Thus Augustine says, “True satisfaction means excising the causes of sin, that is, putting to death and restraining the flesh, not

367. Actually Augustine, On the Merits and Remission of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 11,

34, 56 (MPL 44:183f.; NPNF, ser. 1, 5:66-67).

“

368. See above, n. 361. 369. Augustine, On the City of God XXI, 26, 4 (MPL 41:745; NPNF, ser. 1, 2:475).

Lirart®s’ ptmn

167

s,

166

FRYEENR AP

165

to do evil, learn to do good; . . . [T]hough your sins are like scarlet, they shall be like snow; . . . If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land” A statement that is so important and salutary regarding the entire scope of repentance and obligatory works commanded by God must not be transferred to satisfactions and the works of human traditions. Moreover, it is worth teaching that our common maladies are lightened through our repentance and through the true fruits of repentance, through good works done from faith and not, as they imagine, by works done in mortal sin. The example of the Ninevites [Jonah 3:10] is a case in point. By their repentance—we mean the entire scope of repentance—they were reconciled to God and prevented the destruction of the city. Now the fact that the Fathers mentioned satisfaction or that the councils

Article XII: Repentance

217

in order to pay for eternal punishments, but to keep the flesh from alluring us to sin.”370 Thus concerning restitution Gregory says that repentance is false if it does not satisfy those whose property is taken.?’! For the person who keeps on stealing does not truly regret that he has stolen or robbed. He is still a thief and a robber as long as he unjustly possesses someone else’s property. This civil restitution is necessary because it is written [Eph. 4:28], “Thieves must give up stealing” Likewise, Chrysostom says, “In the heart contrition, in the mouth confession, in works complete humility”3”? This proves nothing against us. Good works ought to follow repentance, and repentance should be not a fraud but a change of one’s entire life for the better. The Fathers likewise wrote that it is sufficient if this public or formal penitence, as described by the canons dealing with satisfactions, occurs once in a person’s life.’”> From this it is clear that they did not maintain that these canons were necessary for the forgiveness of sins. For they frequently want penitence to be shown in other ways besides the formal one required in the canons dealing with satisfactions. The architects of the Confutation write that no one should tolerate the abolition of satisfactions—since that contradicts the express teaching of the gospel.>”¢ Therefore, we have shown up to this point that these canonical sat-

169

170

171

172

isfactions (that is, these nonobligatory works), which must be done in order to

compensate for the punishment, do not have the command of the gospel. The subject matter itself shows this. If works of satisfaction are nonobligatory works, why do they mention the “express teaching of the gospel”? For if the gospel commanded that we should pay off punishments through such works, then they would certainly be obligatory works. But they speak in this way in order to put something over on the inexperienced. They quote passages that talk about obligatory works, although they prescribe nonobligatory works in their satisfactions. Indeed, they themselves concede in their schools that a person may refuse to perform satisfactions without sinning. Therefore they are lying when they write here that we are compelled by the express teaching of the gospel to perform these canonical satisfactions. Moreover, we have already frequently testified that repentance ought to produce good fruits. The [Ten] Commandments teach what these good fruits

are: prayer, thanksgiving, the confession of the gospel, the teaching of the gospel, obedience to parents and the authorities, faithfulness to one’s calling, 370. Pseudo-Augustine [Gennadius of Marseille], On Church Doctrine 24 (MPL 43:1218), cited in Gratian, Decretum 11, c. 33, q. 3, De poenitentia, dist. 3, chap. 3.

371. Cited in Gratian, Decretum 11, c. 33, q. 3, De poenitentia, dist. 6, chap. 6.

372. Cited in Gratian, Decretum 11, c. 33, q. 3, De poenitentia, dist. 1, chap. 4, and dist. 3, chap. 8.

373. Probably a misunderstanding of the comments by Tertullian, On Repentance 7 (MPL

1:1240; ANF 3:663), or Ambrose, Penitence I1, c. 10, 95 (MPL 16:541; NPNF, ser. 2, 10:357). 374. The Confutation (pt. I, art. XII): “Satisfactions should not be abolished in the church con-

trary to the express teaching of the gospel and the decrees of councils and Fathers.”

173

174

218

175

176

177

peaceable conduct instead of murder and seeking revenge, the greatest possible generosity to the needy, restraint, coercion and chastisement of the flesh instead of adultery and fornication, truthfulness—not to buy off eternal punishment but to keep from surrendering to the devil or offending the Holy Spirit. These fruits have God’s command and ought to be done on account of the glory and mandate of God, and they also have their reward. But Scripture does not teach that eternal punishments are remitted only on account of payment rendered by following certain traditions or by undergoing the punishments of purgatory. Formerly, indulgences involved the remission of public penitence so as not to burden people excessively. Now if human authority can

remove satisfactions and penalties, this compensation cannot be necessary by divine authority; for human authority does not abrogate a divine law. Moreover, since the custom has now become obsolete without objection from the bishops, there is no need for such remissions. And yet the name “indulgences” remained. And just as the term “satisfactions” no longer refers to civil discipline but refers to the payment for penalties, so also “indulgence” has been misinterpreted as a liberation of souls from purgatory. However, the keys only have the power to bind and loose on the earth according to [Matt. 18:18], “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” As we said earlier, the keys do not have the power to impose penalties or to institute rites of worship but only have the command to remit the sins of those who are converted and to convict and excommunicate those who refuse to be converted. For just as “to loose” means to forgive sins, so also “to bind” means not to forgive sins. For Christ is talking of a spiritual kingdom. And God’s mandate is that ministers of the gospel absolve those who are converted, according to [2 Cor. 10:8], “ . . our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up.” Now the reservation of cases is a secular matter, for it is the reservation of canonical punishments, not the reservation of guilt before God in the case of those who are truly converted. Therefore the opponents judge rightly when they confess that in the hour of death the reservation of cases should not prevent

absolution.

178

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

|

We have set forth a summary of our teaching on repentance, which we are certain is godly and salutary for devout minds. If good people will compare our teaching with the very confused discussions of our opponents, they will see that our opponents have neglected to teach the faith that justifies and consoles godly hearts. They will also see that our opponents have invented many things about the merit of attrition, the endless enumeration of offenses, and satisfactions, “as they say, ‘things that touch neither heaven nor earth’ 37> and that not even the opponents themselves can satisfactorily explain.

375. A Greek aphorism used by Lucian, Alexander the False Prophet 54, and cited by Erasmus, Adages 1, 5, 44, as meaning totally absurd things.

Article XIII: The Number and Use of the Sacraments

219

[XIII:] The Number and Use of the Sacraments In the thirteenth article the opponents approve the statement that the sacra-

ments are not simply marks of profession among people, as some think,*’¢ but rather they are signs and testimonies of God’s will toward us, through which God moves hearts to believe. But here they insist that we also enumerate seven sacraments.>”” Now, we believe that we have the responsibility not to neglect any of the rites and ceremonies instituted in Scripture, however many there may be. But we do not think that it makes much difference if, for the purpose of teaching, different people have different enumerations, as long as they properly preserve the matters handed down in Scripture. After all, even the ancients did not always number them in the same way.*’® If we define the sacraments as rites, which have the command

of God and

to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to determine what the sacraments are, properly speaking.?’? For humanly instituted rites are not sacraments, properly speaking, because human beings do not have the authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without the command of God are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps serve to teach or admonish the common folk. Therefore, the sacraments are actually baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and absolution (the sacrament of repentance).’® For these rites have the command of God and the promise of grace, which is the essence of the New Testament. For surely our hearts ought to be certain that when we are baptized, when we eat the body of the Lord, and when we are absolved, God truly forgives us on account of Christ. And God moves our hearts through the word and the rite at the same time so that they believe and receive faith just as Paul says [Rom. 10:17], “So faith comes from what is heard.” For just as the Word enters through the ear in order to strike the heart, so also the rite enters through the eye in order to move the heart. The word and the rite

376. Ulrich Zwingli and his adherents.

377. Roman Confutation (pt. I, art. XII): “Nevertheless we will have to request of them [the

Lutheran princes] that what they assert in general about ‘sacraments’ they also confess specifically about the seven sacraments of the church and see to their observance by their subjects.” 378. Peter Lombard in the twelfth century first proposed seven sacraments. 379. Hugh of St. Victor (followed by Peter Lombard) defined a sacrament as “a visible form of

invisible grace conferred in it . . . for it is not only the sign of a sacred thing but is also efficacious.” Thomas Aquinas (STh III, q. 60, a. 2) agreed. He added that sacraments consist of both word of God and physical element (following Augustine’s comments in his Tractates on John 80, 3) and that they must be divinely instituted, a point also made by Bonaventure (Brevil. 6, 1). Luther, in the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (WA 6:572; LW 36:124, also citing Augustine), defined sacra-

ments as “promises which have signs attached to them.” Philip Melanchthon in Loci 1521 (Eng. trans., 135) reiterated this definition and mentioned Christ’s institution (“sacramental signs are only those which have been divinely handed down as signs of the grace of God”). Luther and Melanchthon began emphasizing the command of God strongly here in the Apology and in the LC (“Baptism,” 14-19, and the “Lord’s Supper,” 10-19). 380. Or: “penance.”

220

10

11

12

T

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

have the same effect. Augustine put it well when he said that the sacrament is a “visible word,”3#! because the rite is received by the eyes and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore both have the same effect. ' Confirmation and extreme unction are rites inherited from the Fathers, which even the church does not require as necessary to salvation, since they lack the command of God.?#? Hence it is useful to distinguish these rites from the previous ones, which have the expressed command of God and a clear promise of grace. The opponents do not consider the priesthood as a ministry of the Word and of the sacraments administered to others. Instead, they consider it as a sacrificial office, as if there ought to be in the New Testament a priesthood similar to the Levitical priesthood, which offers sacrifices for the people and merits the forgiveness of sins for other people. We teach that the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross was sufficient for the sins of the entire world and that there is no need for additional sacrifices, as though Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient for our sins. Therefore, human beings are justified not on account of any other sacrifice except the one sacrifice of Christ when they believe that they have been redeemed by that sacrifice. Thus priests are not called to offer sacrifices for the people as in Old Testament law so that through them they might merit the forgiveness of sins for the people; instead they are called to preach the gospel and to administer the sacraments to the people. We do not have another priesthood like the Levitical priesthood—as the Epistle to the Hebrews [chaps. 7-9] more than sufficiently teaches. But if ordination is understood with reference to the ministry of the Word, we have no objection to calling ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of the Word has the command of God and has magnificent promises like Romans 1[:16]: the gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith.” Likewise, Isaiah 55[:11], .. so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose. .. ” If ordination is understood in this way, we will not object to calling the laying on of hands a sacrament. For the church has the mandate to appoint ministers, which ought to please us greatly because we know that God approves this ministry and is present in it. Indeed, it is worthwhile to extol the ministry of the Word with every possible kind of praise against fanatics who imagine that the Holy Spirit is not given through the Word but is given on account of certain preparations of their own, for example, if they sit idle and silent in dark

381. Augustine, Tractates on John LXXX, 3 (on John 15:3; MPL 35:1840, NPNE

ser. 1, 7:344).

382. The teaching of canon law but with the qualification expressed by Thomas Aquinas (STh 11, q. 72, a. 1, ad 3): “Confirmation is necessary for salvation, although one can be saved without it as long as it is not held in contempt.”

Article XIII: The Number and Use of the Sacraments

221

places while waiting for illumination—as the “Enthusiasts” formerly taught®®? and the Anabaptists now teach.3%4 Marriage was not first instituted in the New Testament but in the very beginning, at the creation of the human race. It has the command of God as well as certain promises that pertain not properly speaking to the New Testament but rather to the bodily life. Therefore, whoever wishes to call it a sacrament should still distinguish it from the preceding ones, which are distinctive signs of the New Testament and testimonies of grace and the forgiveness of sins. But if marriage acquires the name “sacrament” for the reason that it has the command of God, other walks of life or offices, which also have God’s command, may also be called sacraments, as, for example, the government.?8> Finally, if everything that has the command of God and some promise added to it ought to be counted a sacrament, why not include prayer, which can most truly be called a sacrament? For it has the command of God, and it has many promises. Were it included among the sacraments, as though in a more exalted position, it would encourage people to pray. Alms as well as afflictions could also be listed here, which are themselves signs to which God has added promises. But let us skip over all of this. No intelligent person will argue much about the number or the terminology, as long as those things are retained that have the mandate and promises of God. It is much more needful to understand how the sacraments are to be used. Here we condemn the entire crowd of scholastic doctors who teach that the sacraments confer grace ex opere operato without a good disposition in those receiving them, as long as the recipients do not place an obstacle in the way.>% It is simply a Judaistic opinion to think that we are justified through ceremonies without a proper disposition in the heart, that is, apart from faith. And yet this ungodly and pernicious opinion is taught with great authority throughout the entire realm of the pope. Paul contradicts this and denies [Rom. 4:9ff.] that Abraham was justified by circumcision. Circumcision was a sign given for the purpose of exercising faith. Thus we teach that in the use of the sacraments faith needs to be present—faith that believes these promises and receives what is promised as offered there in the sacrament. The reason for this is plain and well established. A promise is useless unless it is received by faith. But the sacraments are the signs of the promises. Therefore, in their use faith needs to be present, so that anyone making use of the Lord’s Supper uses it in this way. Because this is a sacrament of the New 383. Melanchthon uses the Greek term that means “being possessed by a god” and refers to certain practices of Greek monks, such as the Hesychasts of Mount Athos. 384. Such persons as Sebastian Franck or Caspar Schwenkfeld. See Luther’s Against the Heavenly Prophets of 1525

(WA

18:135, 24-139, 26; LW 40:146—49)

for an attack on Andrew

Karlstadt. 385. See LC, “Baptism,” 20.

386. Ex opere operato means “by the mere performance of the rite.” See above, Ap IV, 63, and the 1531 addition to CA XI1I, 3.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

222

21

22

23

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Testament, as Christ clearly says [cf. 1 Cor. 11:25], communicants therefore ought to be confident that they are being offered what is promised in the New Testament, namely, the free forgiveness of sins. Moreover, they should receive it by faith, comfort their troubled conscience, and believe that these testimonies are not false but are as certain as though God by a new miracle from heaven would promise that it was his will to forgive. But what would be the benefit of such miracles and promises to those who do not believe? We are talking about that particular faith that believes the promise being offered, not just a faith that in a general way believes that God exists but one that believes the forgiveness of sins is being offered. This use of the sacrament comforts devout and anxious minds. Words cannot describe how many abuses that fanatical opinion about the opus operatum of the sacraments and the disregard for the proper disposition of the one using them have produced. Out of it has come the endless desecration of the Masses, about which we will say more later. Not a single word can be produced from the ancient writers to support the scholastics on this matter. Indeed, Augustine says the opposite, that faith in the sacrament, not the sacrament, justifies.’®” And Paul’s statement is familiar [Rom. 10:10], “For one believes with the heart and so is justified.”

[XIV: Church Order] Article fourteen, in which we say that no one should be allowed to administer the Word and the sacraments unless they are duly called, they accept with the proviso that we use canonical ordination.®®® Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in the assembly that it is our greatest desire to retain the order of the church and the various ranks in the church—even though they were established by human authority.>¥® We know that church discipline in the manner described by the ancient canons was instituted by the Fathers for a good and useful purpose. However, the bishops compel our priests either to reject and to condemn the kind of doctrine that we have confessed, or by new and unheard cruelty they kill the unfortunate and innocent people. This prevents our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason for the abolition of canonical order in some places despite

our earnest desire to retain it. Let the bishops ask themselves how they will give an answer to God for breaking up the church. We have clear consciences on this matter since we know that our confession is true, godly, and catholic. For this reason, we dare not approve the cruelty of 387. Augustine, Tractates in John 80, 3 (on John 15:3; MPL 35:1840, NPNF, ser. 2, 7:344-45),

388. Confutation (pt. I, art. XIV): “It ought to be understood that a person is ‘duly called’ who is called in accordance with the form of law and ecclesiastical sanctions and decrees observed everywhere throughout the world up until now” 389. In negotiations with the papal legate Lorenzo Campeggio at Augsburg, Melanchthon made this clear.

Article XV: Human Traditions in the Church

223

those who persecute this doctrine. We know that the church exists among those who rightly teach the Word of God and rightly administer the sacraments; it does not exist among those who not only try to destroy the Word of God with their edicts, but who also butcher those who teach what is right and true. Even the canons are gentler with those who violate them. Moreover, we want to point out again that we would willingly retain ecclesiastical and canonical order as long as the bishops desisted from their cruelty against our churches. This willingness will be our defense, both before God and among all nations,

present and future, against the charge that we have undermined the authority of the bishops. Thus people may read and hear that, despite our protest against the unjust cruelty of the bishops, we could obtain no justice.

[XV:] Human Traditions in the Church In article fifteen they accept the first part, where we say that those ecclesiastical rites ought to be observed which can be observed without sin and which contribute to tranquillity and good order in the church.?*® They condemn the second part entirely, where we say that humanly instituted traditions for the purpose of conciliating God or for meriting grace and making satisfaction for sins are contrary to the gospel.®! Although we have spoken at sufficient length about traditions in Article XXVI of the Confession itself, several things need to be reiterated briefly here. : Although we expected our opponents to defend human traditions for other reasons, we never dreamed that they would actually condemn the proposition that we do not merit the forgiveness of sins or grace by observing human traditions. Since they condemned this article, we have an open-and-shut case. For the opponents openly Judaize and openly supplant the gospel with the teachings of demons. When someone teaches that religious rites are useful for meriting the forgiveness of sins and grace, Scripture [1 Tim. 4:1-3] calls such traditions the “teachings of demons.” For this obscures the gospel, the benefits of Christ, and the righteousness of faith. The gospel teaches that we freely receive the forgiveness of sins and are reconciled to God by faith on account of Christ. Our opponents, to the contrary, appoint another mediator, namely, these traditions through which they wish to receive the forgiveness of sins and to conciliate the wrath of God. But Christ clearly says [Matt. 15:9], “In vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.” Previously, we discussed at length that human beings are justified by faith when they believe that they are reconciled to God not on account of their works but freely on account of Christ. This is certainly the teaching of the 390. The Confutation accepted this with the stipulation that universal rites needed to be observed and restored to their original form. 391. The Confutation (pt. I, art. XV): “The appendix to this article must be completely removed because it is false that human regulations, instituted to conciliate God or merit forgive-

ness of sin, are opposed to the gospel.”

224

10

11

12

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

gospel, because Paul clearly says in Ephesians 2[:8f.], “By grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works” Now they say that people merit the forgiveness of sins through these human observances. What else is this than to appoint another mediator, another justifier, in the place of Christ? Paul says to the Galatians [5:4], “You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ.” That is, if you imagine that you merit being declared righteous before God by keeping the law, Christ will not benefit you. After all, why do those who imagine that they are righteous by their keeping of the law need Christ? God has set forth Christ because he wants to be gracious to us on account of this mediator and not on account of our righteousness. However, these people maintain that God is conciliated and gracious on account of traditions and not on account of Christ. Therefore they deprive Christ of his honor as mediator. Regarding this issue, there is no difference between our traditions and Mosaic ceremonies. Paul, indeed, condemns the Mosaic ceremonies just as he condemns traditions for the reason that they were considered to be works that merit righteousness before God. In this way they obscured the work of Christ and the righteousness of faith. By removing the law and traditions he contends that not on account of those works but freely on account of Christ the forgiveness of sins has been promised in such a way that we receive it by faith. For the promise is only received by faith. Since therefore we receive the forgiveness of sins by faith, and since by faith we have a gracious God on account of Christ, it is an ungodly error to maintain that we merit the forgiveness of sins through these observances. Someone might say here that we do not merit the forgiveness of sins, but that those already justified merit grace through these traditions. Here again Paul replies [Gal. 2:17], Christ would be a “servant of sin” if after justification we must henceforth maintain that we are not accounted righteous for Christ’s sake but must first merit [grace] by other observances. Likewise [Gal. 3:15], “Once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it

). 13

14

15

or annuls it” Therefore to God’s “will,” which promises that on account of Christ he desires to be gracious to us, we dare not add the condition that we must first earn our acceptance and righteousness through these observances. However, why do we need a long discussion? The holy Fathers did not institute a single tradition for the purpose of meriting the forgiveness of sins or righteousness; they instituted them for the sake of good order in the church and for the sake of tranquillity. Now if someone wants to institute certain works for the purpose of meriting the forgiveness of sins or righteousness, how will that person know that these works please God without the testimony of God’s Word? How will they make others certain about God’s will without God’s command and Word? Does not God throughout the prophets prohibit people from instituting peculiar rites of worship without his command? In Ezekiel 20[:18-19), it is written, “Do not follow the statutes of your parents, nor observe their ordinances, nor defile yourselves with their idols. I the Lord am your God; follow my statutes, and be careful to observe my ordinances.” If peo-

Article XV: Human Traditions in the Church

225

ple are allowed to establish acts of worship and to merit grace through such acts of worship, then the religious rites of all nations will have to be approved—even the acts of worship instituted by Jeroboam [1 Kings 12:26f.] and by others apart from the law. For what is the difference? If we are allowed to establish religious rites that are useful for meriting grace or righteousness, why were the Gentiles and Israelites not allowed to do the same? In fact, the religious rites of the Gentiles and Israelites were condemned because they believed that they merited the forgiveness of sins and righteousness through them, and because they were ignorant of the righteousness of faith. Finally, what assurance do we have that religious rites established by human beings without the command of God justify inasmuch as we can affirm nothing about the will of God without the Word of God? What if God does not approve these acts of worship? How, then, can the opponents maintain that they justify since it cannot be maintained apart from the Word and testimony of God. Paul says [Rom. 14:23], “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” But since these religious acts have no testimony from the Word of God, the conscience cannot help but doubt whether they please God. What need is there for further discussion in such a clear matter? If our opponents defend these human acts of worship as meriting justification, grace, and the forgiveness of sins, they are simply establishing the kingdom of the Antichrist. For the kingdom of the Antichrist is a new kind of worship of God, devised by human authority in opposition to Christ, just as the kingdom of Mohammed has religious rites and works, through which it seeks to be justified before God. It does not hold that people are freely justified by faith on account of Christ. So also the papacy will be a part of the kingdom of the Antichrist if it defends human rites as justifying. For they deprive Christ of his honor when they teach that we are not freely justified on account of Christ through faith but through such rites, and especially when they teach that such rites are not only useful for justification but even necessary. In the article on the church above they also condemned us because we said that it is not necessary for the true unity of the church that rites instituted by human beings be everywhere alike.3*2 Daniel 11[:38] indicates that new religious rites will be the very form and constitution of the kingdom of the Antichrist. For there he says, “He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these; a god whom his ancestors did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts.”3%3 Here he is describing the invention of new religious rites, for he says that a god such as the Fathers did not know will be worshiped. For although the holy Fathers themselves had rites and traditions, they still did not maintain that these things were useful or necessary for justification. 392. See above, Ap VII and VIII, 30. 393. In the Vulgate, the Hebrew word translated “of fortresses” was simply transliterated as Maosim and thus connected by reformers to the Mass, as, for example, in Melanchthon’s own comments on Daniel.

16

17

18

19

20

226

21

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

They did not obscure the glory and work of Christ. Instead, they taught that we are justified by faith on account of Christ and not on account of these human acts of worship. Moreover, they observed these human rites on account of their usefulness for the body, so that people may know at what time they should assemble, so that they may have an example of how all things in the churches might be done decently and in order, and finally, so that the common people may receive some instruction. (For different seasons and various rites are valuable in admonishing the common people.) For these reasons the Fathers retained the rites as’** Epiphanius clearly testifies in his dispute against the Encratites, who were similar to our monks.>> For these were associations that imposed certain traditions on themselves, abstained from wine even during the Lord’s Supper, and ate no meat or even fish. In this they outstripped even the Dominicans by far. They opposed marriage though not companionship with women. For Epiphanius throws in their face that they had droves of women who were following the same kind of life—as in our day almost everywhere monks have monasteries for women in the vicinity. Moreover, they imagined that these observances were the proper worship of God and the righteousness on account of which they were accepted by God and which appeased God’s wrath. Epiphanius disapproved of this opinion and showed that the purposes of traditions were different. He said that one could approve of the traditions practiced for restraining the flesh, for disciplining the unlettered, or for political order.’®® We also figure that traditions can be rightly preserved for the following reasons. The people may more soberly concern themselves with sacred matters, as Jehoshaphat [2 Chron. 20:30] and the king of Nineveh [Jonah 3:7] proclaimed fasts. The order and governance of the church may instruct the ignorant about what may be conducted at which time. Hence, there are the festivals of Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and the like. This is what Epiphanius says, that for political causes traditions have been instituted, namely, for the sake of order and so that order may instruct people about the history and benefits of Christ. For it is much more effective to instruct the common people using concrete things as depicted in rites and customs than using writings. Traditions have the purpose of demonstrating and illustrating things for the people. However, out of some Pharisaical persuasion our adversaries attach to these purposes something different, namely, that such observances merit the forgiveness of sins; that such worship rites are necessary for salvation; that on account of such things human beings are reckoned righteous before God. Clearly, this is “to honor with gold and silver, with precious stones”: to hold that God is conciliated by a variety of clothing, ornaments, and similar things without number in human traditions or that the worship of God consists of things like the distinction between times, foods, vessels, or clothing. 394. Here Melanchthon inserts in the second, octavo edition a discussion parallel to that in Ap XXIII, 45, in the quarto. — 395. Epiphanius, Heresies 46, 2, 2, and 47, 1-2 (MPG 41:839, 851-54). Compare this to Ap XXIII, 45, in the quarto edition. 396. Cited first in Greek and translated. See Epiphanius, Heresies 47, 1, 6 (MPG 41:852).

Article XV: Human Traditions in the Church

227

Paul writes to the Colossians [2:23] that traditions have an “appearance of

wisdom,” and indeed they do. For this good order is most appropriate in the church and for this reason is necessary. But because human reason does not understand the righteousness of faith, it naturally imagines that such works justify human beings and reconcile God, etc. This is what the common people among the Israelites thought, and on the basis of this opinion such ceremonies increased just as among us they have expanded in the monasteries. This is also

how human restrain the they are acts able for the

reason evaluates flesh, but reason of worship that elimination and

bodily discipline and fasting. Their purpose is to attaches another purpose to them, namely, that justify. Thus, as Thomas writes, “Fasting is valuprevention of guilt”?7 These are the words of

22

23

24

Thomas. Thus the appearance of wisdom and righteousness in such works

deceives people. Then there are the examples of the saints. When people try to imitate them, for the most part they imitate the outward practices, but not their faith. Once this appearance of wisdom and righteousness has deceived people, then all sorts of troubles follow. The gospel concerning the righteousness of

25

faith in Christ is obscured, and vain confidence in such works replaces it. Then,

the commandments of God are obscured; for when these works arrogate to themselves the title of a perfect and spiritual life, they become far preferable to the works that God commands, like those that deal with the works of one’s vocation, the administration of the state, the management

of a household,

married life, and the raising of children. When compared to such ceremonies, these things are judged to be profane, with the result that many carry them out with certain doubts of conscience. For it is a matter of record that many have given up their administrative positions in the government and abandoned their marriages in order to embrace these “better and holier” observances. Nor is this all. When minds are obsessed with the idea that such observances are necessary for justification, consciences are terribly troubled, because they cannot fulfill all the observances in every detail. For who could even list them all? There are huge tomes, indeed entire libraries, that do not contain a single syllable about Christ, about faith in Christ, or about the good works of one’s own vocation. Instead, they only gather together traditions and such

26

them easier. Look at how that most excellent man, Gerson, is tortured while he searches for the degrees and limitations of these precepts. Nevertheless he cannot fix mitigating circumstances®® to any definite degree. Meanwhile, he deeply deplores the dangers for godly consciences that this harsh interpretation of the traditions produces.’”

28

27

interpretations as at times render them quite rigorous and at other times make

397. Thomas Aquinas, STh 11, 2, q. 147, a. 3.

398. Greek: epieikeia. 399. John Gerson, The Spiritual Life, lect. 2, I11, 16.

228

29 30

31

32

33

34

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Therefore, against this “appearance of wisdom” and righteousness in human rites which deceives people, let us fortify ourselves with the Word of God and know first of all that these neither merit the forgiveness of sins nor

justification before God, nor are they necessary for justification. We already

cited a number of testimonies above. There are plenty more in Paul. In Colossians 2[:16-17] he clearly says, “Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” Here he includes simultaneously both the Mosaic law and human traditions. So the opponents cannot avoid these testimonies, as was their custom, on the grounds that Paul is speaking only about the Law of Moses. He clearly testifies that he is speaking about human traditions. Our opponents do not know what they are talking about. If the gospel denies that the ceremonies of Moses (which were divinely instituted) justify, how much less do human traditions justify! Nor do bishops have the power to institute religious activities that justify or are necessary for justification. Indeed, the apostles say in Acts 15[:10], “Why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke . . . ?” Here Peter declares that to burden the church with this is a great sin. In Galatians 5[:1] Paul forbids them to submit again “to a yoke of slavery” Therefore the apostles wanted to maintain this liberty in the church so that no religious activity of the law or tradition is judged as necessary—even though in the Old Testament ceremonies were necessary for a time. Otherwise, if people think that these religious rites merit justification or are necessary for justification, the righteousness of faith becomes obscured. Many look for ways to mitigate the traditions in order to ease consciences, and yet they do not find any sure standards through which they can free consciences from these chains. But just as Alexander once and for all untied the Gordian knot by cutting it with his sword (since he could not disentangle it), so also the apostles have once and for all freed consciences from traditions, especially from those that were hand-

36

37

ed down for the purpose of meriting justification. The apostles compel us to oppose this doctrine by teaching and example. They compel us to teach that traditions do not justify, that they are not necessary for justification, and that no one ought to create or accept traditions with the notion that they merit justification. Now, whoever does observe them, let them do so not as a religious rite but as social mores, just as when, with no religious rites, soldiers are clothed in one way and scholars in another. The apostles violated traditions, and Christ excused them. This example had to be set for the Pharisees to show that these acts of worship were ineffectual.*%® Although our people omit some traditions of little value, they have sufficient excuse now because these are being required as though they merited justification. For such an opinion about traditions is ungodly. 400, See Matthew 12:1-8.

Article XV: Human Traditions in the Church

229

Furthermore, we gladly keep the ancient traditions set up in the church because they are useful and promote tranquillity, and we interpret them in the best possible way, by excluding the opinion that they justify. But our enemies falsely charge that we abolish good ordinances and church discipline. We can claim that the public liturgy in the church is more dignified among us than among the opponents. If anyone would look at it in the right way, we keep the ancient canons better than the opponents. Among the opponents, unwilling celebrants and hirelings celebrate the Mass, and very often they do so only for the money. They chant psalms, not in order to learn or pray, but for the sake of the rite, as if this work were a required act of worship, or for the sake of financial reward. Many among us celebrate the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s day after they are instructed, examined, and absolved. The children chant the Psalms in order to learn them,; the people also sing in order either to learn or to pray.! Among our opponents there is no catechesis of children whatever, even though the canons prescribe it. Among us, pastors and ministers of the church are required to instruct and examine the youth publicly, a custom that produces very good results.*0? Among the opponents there are many regions where no sermons are delivered during the entire year except during Lent. And yet the chief worship of God is to preach the gospel. And when the opponents do preach, they talk about human traditions, about the devotion to the saints and similar trifles. This the people rightly loathe, and so they walk out on them immediately after the reading of the gospel. A few of the better ones have begun now to speak about good works, but they still say nothing about the righteousness of faith, about faith in Christ, and about the consolation of consciences. Indeed they rail against this most salutary part of the gospel in their polemics. On the contrary, in our churches all the sermons deal with topics like these: repentance, fear of God, faith in Christ, the righteousness of faith, consolation of consciences through faith, the exercise of faith, prayer (what it should be like and that everyone may be completely certain that it is efficacious and is heard), the cross, respect for the magistrates and all civil orders, the distinction between the kingdom of Christ (the spiritual kingdom) and political affairs, marriage, the education and instruction of children, chastity, and all the works of love. From this description of the state of our churches it is possible to determine that we diligently maintain churchly discipline, godly ceremonies, and good ecclesiastical customs. With regard to the mortification of the flesh and discipline of the flesh, we teach—just as the Confession states*0*>—that a genuine rather than a counterfeit death takes place through the cross and afflictions by which God exercises 401. For this distinction, see LC, “Lord’s Prayer,” 7-8.

402. For an example of this instruction, held four times a year, see Luther’s catechetical ser-

mons of 1528 (WA 30/1: 57-122; LW 51:133-93). 403. See above, CA XXV, 33-39.

38

39

40

41

42

43

44 45

230

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

us. In these it is necessary to submit to the will of God, as Paul says [Rom.,

46

47

12:1], “Present your bodies as sacrifices. . . ” These are the spiritual exercises of fear and faith. Alongside this true putting to death, which takes place through the cross, a voluntary and necessary kind of exercise also exists, about which Christ says [Luke 21:34], “Be on guard so that your hearts are not weighed down with dissipation,” and Paul [1 Cor. 9:27] says, “but I punish my body and enslave it . . ” We should undertake these exercises not because they are devotional exercises that justify but as restraints on our flesh, lest satiety overcome us and render us complacent and lazy. This results in people indulging the flesh and catering to its desires. Such diligence must be constant, because God con-

48

49

50

51

stantly commands it. That prescription of certain foods at certain times contributes nothing toward restraining the flesh. For their fasts are more luxurious and sumptuous than regular meals, and the opponents do not even observe the canonical prescriptions. This topic concerning traditions involves many difficult and controversial questions, and we know from actual experience that traditions are real snares for the conscience. When they are required as necessary, they terribly torture consciences that omit any observance. At the same time, their abrogation carries with it its own evils and questions.** But we have an open-and-shut case, because the opponents condemn us for teaching that human traditions do not merit the forgiveness of sins. Likewise they require universal traditions—as they call them—as necessary for justification. Here Paul [Gal. 4:3, 9] is our constant defender; everywhere he contends that these observances neither justify nor are necessary above and beyond the righteousness of faith. Nevertheless, we teach that liberty in these matters should be exercised moderately, so that the inexperienced may not take offense and, on account of an abuse of liberty, become more hostile to the true teaching of the gospel. Nothing in the customary rites may be changed without good reason. Instead, in order to foster harmony, those ancient customs should be observed that can

52

be observed without sin or without proving to be a great burden. In this very assembly we have sufficiently shown that, for the sake of love, we will reluctantly observe adiaphora?® with others, even if such things may prove to be somewhat burdensome. We judge that the greatest possible public concord which can be maintained without offending consciences ought to be preferred to all other interests. But about this entire matter we will say a little more later when we discuss vows and ecclesiastical authority.

404. The ambivalence first came to light during the Wittenberg Unrest. See Luther’s Invocavit sermons of March 1522 (WA 10/3: 1-64; LW 51:67-100). 405. Melanchthon uses the Greek term (rendered in Jonas’s German translation as “customs

that can be kept without sin or burden to the conscience”), which was often used by Stoic philosophers to designate actions that were neither good nor evil.

Article XVI: Political Order

231

[XVTI: Political Order] The opponents accept article sixteen without qualification.**® In it we confessed “that it is permissible for a Christian to hold public office, to render verdicts on the basis of imperial laws or other established laws, to prescribe just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve in the military, to enter into legal contracts, to own property, to take an oath when magistrates require it, or to contract marriage.”*%’ In short, we confessed that legitimate civil ordinances are good creations of God and divine ordinances in which a Christian may safely take part. This entire topic on the distinction between Christ’s kingdom and the civil realm has been helpfully explained in the writings of our theologians.?%8 Christ’s kingdom is spiritual, that is, it is the heart’s knowledge of God, fear of God, faith in God, and the beginning of eternal righteousness and eternal life. At the same time, it permits us to make outward use of legitimate political ordinances of whatever nation in which we live, just as it permits us to make use of medicine or architecture or food, drink, and air. Neither does the gospel introduce new laws for the civil realm. Instead, it commands us to obey the present laws, whether they have been formulated by pagans or by others, and urges us to practice love through this obedience. Thus, Karlstadt*®® was insane when he tried to impose the judicial laws of Moses upon us. Our people have written extensively on these matters, because the monks had spread many pernicious ideas throughout the church. They called it an evangelical order to hold property in common, and they called it an evangelical counsel not to own property and not to go to court.#!? These notions seriously obscure the gospel and the spiritual kingdom and are dangerous to public matters. For the gospel does not destroy the state or the household but rather approves them, and it orders us to obey them as divine ordinances not only on account

of the punishment but Julian the Apostate, grounds that the gospel legal redress and taught 406. Confutation

also “because of conscience” [Rom. 13:5]. Celsus, and many others opposed Christians on the would destroy the political order because it prohibited certain other things not suited to civil society.*!! These

(pt. I, art. XVI): “The

sixteenth article, concerning

civil magistrates, is

accepted with pleasure as consonant not only with civil law but also canonical laws, the gospel, Scripture, and the universal norm of faith. . . . And the princes are commended for condemning the Anabaptists, who destroy all civil ordinances and prohibit Christians from being magistrates or holding other civil offices.” 407. With slight changes, Melanchthon cites CA XVI, 1-2. 408. Especially Martin Luther, On Temporal Authority (1523) (WA 11:245-80; LW 45:75-129), and Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved (1526) (WA 19:623-62; Melanchthon, Scholia on Colossians (1528) (on Col. 2:23).

LW 46:87-137), and Philip

409. In the conflicts with Luther growing out of the Wittenberg Unrest of 152122, Karlstadt insisted that the civil laws within the Mosaic code were binding on Christians. See Luther’s refutation in Against the Heavenly Prophets (1525) (WA 18:75, 11-84, 34; LW 40:92-101). 410. See CA XXVII, 12, and the references cited there.

411. Roman emperor Julian, Against the Christians II, 12, and Origen, Against Celsus VII, 58

(GCS 3:207-8; ANF 4:634).

232

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

questions were very disturbing to Origen, Nazianzus, and others,*'? though indeed they can easily be explained if we remember that the gospel does not make laws concerning the civil realm, but is instead the forgiveness of sins and the beginning of eternal life in the hearts of believers. Furthermore, it not only approves secular government but also subjects us to them [Rom. 13:1], just as we have been necessarily placed under the laws of the seasons (changes of winter and summer) as divine ordinances. The gospel forbids private redress, and Christ stresses this frequently in order that the apostles would not think that they ought to usurp the governing authority from those who hold it (as in the Jewish dream of a messianic kingdom) but instead would understand that they ought to teach about the spiritual kingdom and not change the civil realm. Thus, private revenge is prohibited, not as an [evangelical] counsel but as a command

(Matt. 5[:39]

and Rom.

12[:19]). Public redress, which is made

through the office of the judge, is not forbidden but is commanded and is a work of God according to Paul in Romans 13. Now the different kinds of public redress include judicial decisions, punishment, wars, and military service.

10

11

12

How poorly many writers understood these matters is evident from their erroneous view that the gospel is something external, a new and monastic form of government. They failed to see that the gospel brings eternal righteousness to hearts while outwardly approving the civil realm. It is also completely false to claim that Christian perfection consists in not holding property. For Christian perfection is not found in contempt for civil ordinances but in the inclinations of the heart, in profound fear of God, and in strong faith. Abraham, David, and Daniel also possessed great wealth and held high positions, but they were no less perfect than any hermit. But the monks have spread this outward hypocrisy before the eyes of people and blinded them from seeing the essence of true perfection. How they have praised as “evangelical” holding property in common! However, praising such things is fraught with many dangers, especially since it contradicts the Scriptures. For Scripture does not command that property be held in common. Instead, when the Decalogue says, “you shall not steal,” it recognizes rights of ownership and orders each person to keep his or her own. Wycliffe was obviously out of his mind when he denied that priests were allowed to hold property.#1* There are endless discussions about contracts, which can never satisfy good consciences

13

unless they understand the rule: that a Christian may make use of civil ordinances and laws. This rule protects consciences, for it teaches that contracts are lawful before God to the extent that the magistrates or laws approve them. Our theologians have explained this entire topic on political affairs so clearly that many good people involved in the affairs of state and commerce have testified how they were greatly helped after having been troubled by the opin412. Origen, Against Celsus VII, 59-61

(GC§‘3":208—11; ANF 4:634-35), and Gregory of

Nazianzus, Oration IV against Julian 1, 97 (MPG 35:632). 413. John Wycliffe, On the Church VIII.

Article XVIII: Free Will

233

ions of the monks on whether the gospel permitted such public and private business. Accordingly, we have repeated these things so that even outsiders may understand that our teaching does not weaken but rather strengthens the authority of magistrates and the value of civil ordinances in general. The importance of these matters had been completely obscured by the silly monastic opinions, which far preferred the ridiculous and completely false hypocrisy of poverty and humility to the state and household, even though the latter have God’s command, while the platonic commune does not.

[XVII: Christ’s Return for Judgment] The opponents accept article seventeen without qualification. In it we confess that Christ will appear at the consummation of the world and will raise up all the dead, giving eternal life and eternal joys to the godly but condemning the ungodly to endless torment with the devil.

[XVIII: Free Will]414 The opponents accept article eighteen concerning the freedom of the will, although they add several references that are not at all applicable to this matter.4!5 They also make a big point that too much should not be granted to the free will as with the Pelagians nor should all freedom be denied it as with the Manichaeans.?!6 Well said! But what is the difference between the Pelagians and our opponents? Both hold that apart from the Holy Spirit people can love God and keep the commandments of God “according to the substance of the act” and can merit grace and justification by works that reason can produce by itself.#"” How many absurdities follow from these Pelagian opinions that are taught in the schools with great authority! Augustine, following Paul, emphatically refuted these notions. We quoted his statements earlier in the article on justification.*!8 Nor indeed do we deny that the human will has freedom. The human will possesses freedom regarding works and matters that reason can comprehend by itself. It can to some extent produce civil righteousness or the righteousness 414. Throughout this article, with the exception of par. 4, Melanchthon uses the words liberum arbitrium or “free choice,” thought of by medieval theologians as a separate power within the intellect or will. In par. 4 he uses the term voluntas, “will,” understood by the medieval theologians as a faculty of the human soul. It is not clear how and whether he distinguishes them here. 415. The Confutation (pt. I, art. XVIII) cites 1 Corinthians 7:37; Sirach 31:10; Genesis 4:7; Isaiah 1:19-20; Jeremiah 3:5; Ezekiel 18:31-32; 1 Corinthians 14:32; 2 Corinthians 9:7; Mark 14.7;

and Matthew 23:37, all in favor of free will. 416. The Confutation (pt. I, art. XVIII}: “For it is fitting that Catholics walk the middle way, $0 as not to ascribe too much free will with the Pelagians or to deny the will all freedom with the Manichaeans. For both are not without fault” 417. According to Gabriel Biel and others, deeds performed according to the “substance of the act” lacked only the infusion of God’s grace. Then they matched “the intention of the lawgiver.” 418. See Ap 1V, 29-30.

234

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

of works. It can talk about God and offer God acts of worship with external works; it can obey rulers and parents. By choosing an external work it can keep back the hand from murder, adultery, and theft. Because human nature still retains reason and judgment concerning things subject to the senses, it also retains the ability to choose in such matters, as well as the freedom and ability

to achieve civil righteousness. For Scripture calls this the righteousness of the flesh, which carnal nature (that is, reason) produces by itself apart from the Holy Spirit. To be sure, the power of concupiscence is such that people more often obey their evil impulses than sound judgment. Moreover, the devil, who is at work in the ungodly as Paul says [Eph. 2:2], never stops inciting this feeble nature to various offenses. For these reasons even civil righteousness is rare among human beings. We see that not even the philosophers, who seemed to have aspired after this righteousness, attained it. However, it is false to say that people do not sin when they do the works prescribed by the law outside of grace. Furthermore, they also add that the forgiveness of sins and justification are necessarily due for such works.4!® For apart from the Holy Spirit human hearts lack the fear of God and trust in God. They do not believe that God hears their prayers, forgives them, or helps and preserves them. Therefore they are ungodly; for a bad tree cannot bear good fruit [Matt. 7:18], and “without faith it is impossible to please God” [Heb. 11:6]. Therefore, even though we concede to free will the freedom and power to perform external works of the law, nevertheless we do not ascribe to free will those spiritual capacities, namely, true fear of God, true faith in God, the conviction and knowledge that God cares for us, hears us, and forgives us, etc. These are the real works of the first table,*?? which the human heart cannot produce without the Holy Spirit, just as Paul says [1 Cor. 2:14]: “Those who are natural,” that is, those who use only their natural powers, “do not perceive the things which are of God.”#2! This issue can easily be decided if people will consider what their hearts believe about the will of God, that is, whether they truly believe that God cares for them and hears them. It is even difficult for the saints to retain such faith; it is impossible for the ungodly. However, as we said above, it comes into being when terrified hearts hear the gospel and receive consolation.#?? Therefore, it is helpful to distinguish between civil righteousness, which is ascribed to the free will, and spiritual righteousness, which is ascribed to the

operation of the Holy Spirit*? in the regenerate. In this way outward discipline is preserved, because all people alike ought to know that God requires civil righteousness and that to some extent we are able to achieve it. Nevertheless, it 419. See Ap 1V, 19-21.

420. Of the Ten Commandments, comprised of the first three commandments. 421. Following the Vulgate. NRSV: “Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s

Spirit.”

422. See Ap 1V, 61-68. 423, Jonas’s German translation adds: “alone.”

"

Article XX: Good Works

235

reveals the distinction between human and spiritual righteousness, between philosophical teaching and the teaching of the Holy Spirit. It is necessary to have the Holy Spirit to understand this. Nor did we invent this distinction, for

Scripture teaches it most clearly. Augustine also discusses it, and recently William of Paris has dealt with it very well.#?* But those who dream that people can obey the law of God without the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is given to them out of regard for the merit of this obedience have criminally suppressed this teaching.

[XIX: The Cause of Sin] Our opponents accept article nineteen, in which we confess that, although the one and only Son of God alone established all of nature and preserves all that exists, nevertheless the causeof sin lies in the will of the devil and humankind

that turns itself away from God, according to the words of Christ about the devil [John 8:44]: “When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature.”

[XX: Good Works] In the twentieth article they expressly state that they reject and condemn our statement that people do not merit the forgiveness of sins by good works.42> They clearly declare that they reject and condemn this article. What more must be said on such a clear issue? The framers of the Confutation have openly shown what spirit leads them. For what is more certain in the church than that the forgiveness of sins takes place freely on account of Christ, that Christ—and not our works—is the atoning sacrifice for sin just as Peter says [Acts 10:43], “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” We would rather agree with this church of the prophets than with those damnable writers of the Confutation, who so impudently blaspheme Christ. For although there have been writers who held that after the forgiveness of sins people are righteous before God not by faith but by their works, nevertheless, they did not think that the forgiveness of sins itself takes place on account of our works and not freely on account of Christ. Therefore, the blasphemy of attributing the honor of Christ to our works must not be tolerated. These theologians have lost all sense of shame if they dare to smuggle such thinking into the church. We have no doubt that His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty and many of the princes would have refused

424. For Augustine, Melanchthon probably had in mind Pseudo-Augustine, Hypomnesticon

111, 4, 5, (MPL 44:1623), cited in CA XVIII, 5-6. For William Peraldus, see Summa de virtutibus V. 425. The Confutation (pt. I, art. XX): “In article twenty, which does not so much contain a

confession of the princes and cities but more a defense of their preachers, one thing is handled that does pertain to the princes and the cities, namely, that good works do not merit forgiveness of sins, which, as it was rejected and disapproved before, so also it is rejected and disapproved now.”

10

236

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

to let this statement [of the Confutation] stand had their attention been called

10

to it. We could cite innumerable passages from Scripture and the Fathers on this topic. But we have said more than enough on this subject.*?® There is no need for more testimonies for anyone who knows why Christ was given to us, namely, who knows that he is the atoning sacrifice for our sin. Isaiah says [53:6], “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The opponents, on the contrary, teach that God places our iniquities not on Christ but on our works. Nor are we inclined to mention here what kind of works they promote. We see that a horrible decree has been drawn up against us, which would terrify us still more if we were arguing about dubious or trivial matters. Now when our consciences realize that our opponents condemn the manifest truth—the defense of which is necessary for the church and extols the glory of Christ—we can easily despise the terrors of the world and patiently bear whatever we have to suffer on account of the glory of Christ and the welfare of the church. Who would not gladly die in the confession of these articles: that by faith we receive the forgiveness of sins freely on account of Christ and that we do not merit the forgiveness of sins by our works? The consciences of the godly will not have sufficiently firm consolation against the terrors of sin and death or against the devil’s inciting them to despair, unless they know that they ought to stand firmly upon the fact that they have the forgiveness of sins freely on account of Christ. This faith sustains and enlivens hearts in their most bitter struggles with despair. Therefore, the cause is a worthy one. Because of it we shrink from no danger. “Do not yield to the wicked, but boldly go forward,”#?” every one of you who has agreed with our Confession, when by terrors, tortures, and punishments our opponents try to drive you away from the consolation that has been offered to the universal church in this article of ours. Those seeking support from Scripture to strengthen their mind will have no trouble finding it. For Paul (at the top of his voice, as the saying goes) cries out in Romans 3[:24] that “they are now justified by his grace as a gift,” and in 4[:16] that “for this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be firm.”42 That is, if the promise depended upon our works, it would not be firm. If the forgiveness of sins were given on account of our works, when would we know

that we had taken hold of it, when would a terrified conscience find a work that 11

it could consider sufficient to conciliate the wrath of God? But we spoke about all these matters above.*?? The reader can find the references there. For the shameful treatment of this topic has compelled us to register a complaint rather than compose a point-by-point refutation. For they have clearly gone on record as rejecting our teaching that we receive the forgiveness of sins not on account of our works but by faith and freely on account of Christ. 426. Ap IV and XII. 427. Vergil, Aeneid VI, 95.

428. NRSV: “guaranteed.” 429. See Ap IV, 40—47.

Article XXI: The Invocation of the Saints

237

The opponents also include some passages to support their condemnation, and it is worthwhile to examine several of them. They quote from Peter [2 Peter 1:10], “be all the more eager to confirm your call . . > Now here you see, dear reader, that our opponents have not wasted any effort in learning logic, for they have learned the art of inferring whatever they like from the Scriptures. “Make your calling sure through good works.” Therefore works merit the forgiveness of sins! This is a very good way of arguing, since one could argue this way about a person who stood under the sentence of death and who was then pardoned. “The judge commands that from now on you stop stealing what belongs to another. Therefore, through this you have merited the pardon of the penalty, because you from now on will refrain from taking what belongs to another.” To argue this way is to make a cause out of an effect. Peter is talking about the works that follow the forgiveness of sins and teaches why they should

12

13

be done, namely, in order to confirm their calling, that is, so that they do not

fall from their calling by sinning again. Do good works to persevere in your calling and to keep from losing the gifts of your calling, which were given beforehand, not on account of the works that follow, and which are now retained by faith. Faith does not remain in those who lose the Holy Spirit and reject repentance. As we said above, faith exists in repentance. They add other passages that are no more relevant. Finally, they say that our position was condemned a thousand years ago during the time of Augustine. This, too, is patently false. For the church of Christ has always held that the forgiveness of sins takes place freely. In point of fact, the Pelagians were condemned for contending that grace was given on account of our works. Besides, we have sufficiently shown above that we maintain that good works must necessarily follow faith.#*° For we do not abolish the law, Paul says [Rom. 3:31], but we establish it, because when we receive the Holy Spirit by faith the fulfillment of the law necessarily follows, through which love, patience, chastity, and other fruits of the Spirit continually grow.

[XXTI:] The Invocation of the Saints They condemn article twenty-one completely, because we do not require the invocation of the saints.#3! On no other topic do they speechify more prolixly. 430. See Ap IV, 122-82.

431. Confutation (pt. I, art. XXI): “Lastly [the princes and cities] propose a twenty-first article, in which they admit that remembering the saints can be stressed to imitate their faith and good works but not to pray to them or to ask their help. It is remarkable that the princes and cities have allowed this error to be stirred up in their domains, which was often condemned in the church. For 1,100 years ago Jerome defeated the heretic Vigilantius on this battlefield.” After listing several heretical groups who held similar views, the Confutation continues: “For in favor of prayers to saints we have not only the authority of the universal church but also the consensus of all the holy Fathers: Augustine, Bernard, Jerome, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Basil, and this sort of similar teachers of the church. Nor is the authority of Holy Scripture lacking for this catholic assertion.” The rest of the response is made up of biblical and patristic citations.

14

15

238

'

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

And yet they are unable to demonstrate anything other than that the saints should be honored, and likewise, that the saints who are still living should pray for one another—as if for that reason invocation of dead saints were also necessary. They cite Cyprian, because he asked Cornelius, while he was still alive, to pray for his disciples after his departure.*32 From this example they prove the invocation of the dead. They also cite Jerome [in his controversy] against Vigilantius.433 “1,100 years ago,” they say, “Jerome defeated Vigilantius on this battlefield.” In this way the opponents triumph, as if the war was already over. These jackasses do not see that in Jerome’s controversy with Vigilantius there is not a syllable about invocation [of the saints]. He speaks about honoring the saints, not about invoking them. Nor do the rest of the ancient writers prior to Gregory I mention invocation. Such invocation, together with the theories that the opponents now teach about the application of merits, clearly lacks the support of the ancient writers. Our confession approves giving honor to the saints. This honor is threefold. The first is thanksgiving: we ought to give thanks to God because he has given examples of his mercy, because he has shown that he wants to save humankind, and because he has given teachers and other gifts to the church. Since these are the greatest gifts, they ought to be extolled very highly, and we ought to praise the saints themselves for faithfully using these gifts just as Christ praises faithful managers [Matt. 25:21, 23]. The second kind of veneration is the strength-

ening of our faith. When we see Peter forgiven after his denial, we, too, are encouraged to believe that grace truly superabounds much more over sin [Rom. 5:20]. The third honor is imitation: first of their faith, then of their other

virtues, which people should imitate according to their callings. The opponents do not require these true honors. They only argue about invocation, which, even if it were not dangerous, is certainly not necessary. Besides, we also grant that angels pray for us. For there is a passage in Zechariah 1[:12], where the angel prays, “O Lord of hosts, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem . .. ?” To be sure, concerning the saints we grant that in heaven they pray for the church in general, just as they prayed for the entire church while living. Nevertheless, there are no testimonies in Scripture about the dead praying, except that of a dream recorded in 2 Maccabees [15:14].

10

Moreover, even supposing that the saints do pray for the church, it still does not follow that they are to be invoked. However, our Confession affirms only this much, that Scripture does not teach us to call upon the saints or to ask the saints for help. Because neither a command, nor a promise, nor an example from Scripture about invoking saints can be brought forward, it follows that the conscience can find no certainty about such invocation. And since prayer ought to be made from faith, how do we know that God approves such invo432, Cyprian, Epistles 60, 5 (MPL 3:863; ANF 5:352). 433. Jerome, Against Vigilantius 5,7 (MPL 23:343, 345; NPNF, ser. 2, 6:418-20).

Article XXI: The Invocation of the Saints

239

cation? Without the testimony of Scripture, from what source do we know that the saints hear the prayers of individuals? Some evidently attribute divinity to the saints, namely, that they discern the silent thoughts of our minds. They debate about “morning knowledge” and “evening knowledge,”*** perhaps because they have some doubt whether the saints hear us in the morning or in the evening. They invent these things not for the purpose of honoring the saints but to defend their lucrative worship. The opponents cannot produce anything against our argument that since invocation lacks the testimony of God’s Word, we cannot possibly affirm that the saints are aware of our invocation or, supposing that they are aware, that God approves it. Therefore the opponents should not force us to adopt something so uncertain, because prayer without faith is not prayer. For when they cite the example of the church, it becomes clear that this is a new custom in the church; for even when the ancient prayers mention the saints, they still do not invoke the saints. Besides, this novel invocation is not the same as the invocation of individuals. Moreover, the opponents not only require invocation in the veneration of the saints, they also apply the merits of the saints to others and turn the saints

not only into intercessors but also into propitiators. In no way is this to be tolerated. For this completely transfers to the saints the honor that properly belongs to Christ. It makes them mediators and propitiators. And even though they distinguish between mediators of intercession and mediators of redemption, they deviously still make the saints mediators of redemption. Without any testimony from Scripture they say that saints are mediators of intercession, which, even when stated very mildly, still obscures the office of Christ and transfers to the saints the confidence that we should place in the mercy of Christ. People imagine that Christ is more severe and that the saints are more easily conciliated, and so they rely more on the mercy of the saints than on the mercy of Christ. Thus, they flee from Christ and turn to the saints. In this way, they actually make them mediators of redemption. For this reason we shall show that they actually make the saints out to be not simply intercessors but propitiators, that is, mediators of redemption. We will not list here the abuses of the common people. We will discuss only the views of the theologians. Even the inexperienced can pass judgment about the rest. Two conditions must be met for a person to qualify as a propitiator. First, there should be a Word of God from which we know with certainty that God wants to have mercy upon and to answer those who call upon him through this propitiator. Therefore, such a promise exists for Christ [John 16:23]: “If you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.” No such promise exists for the saints. Therefore, consciences cannot establish with any degree 434. For example, Gabriel Biel, Exposition on the Canon of the Mass, lect. 31, based on statements by Augustine in his commentary on the literal sense of Genesis (De genesi ad litteram 4, 24.29-32 [MPL 34:313, 315-17]) concerning knowledge possessed by angels.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

240 18

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

of certainty that we will be heard if we call upon the saints. Such an invocation does not flow from faith. Then we also have the command to call upon Christ according to [Matt. 11:28], “Come to me, all you that are weary ...,” which certainly applies also to us. Isaiah says in 11[:10], “On that day the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples; the nations shall inquire of him.” Psalm 45[:12], “The people of Tyre will seek your favor with gifts, the richest of the people.” Psalm 72[:11, 15], “May all kings fall down before him,” and a little later, “May prayer be made for him continually.” In John 5[:23], Christ says, “ .. so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” Paul, praying in 2 Thessalonians 2[:16], says, “Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and

19

20

21

22

23

God our Father . . . give us eternal comfort and good hope. .. ” Now what commandment or what example can they bring forward from Scripture to support the invocation of the saints? The second qualification for a propitiator is this: his merits must be authorized to make satisfaction for others who are given these merits by divine reckoning in order that through them, just as though they were their own merits, they may be reckoned righteous. It is as when a person pays a debt for friends, the debtors are freed by the merit of the other, as though it were by their own. Thus, Christ’s merits are given to us so that we might be reckoned righteous by our trust in the merits of Christ when we believe in him, as though we had merits of our own. Trust in mercy arises from both the promise and the bestowal of merits. Such trust in the divine promise and in the merits of Christ must provide the basis for prayer. For we must be completely certain that we are heard on account of Christ and that by his merits we have a gracious Father. Here the opponents command us first of all to call upon the saints, even though they have neither a promise of God, nor a command, nor an example from Scripture. Nevertheless, they contend that we should place greater confidence in the saints’ mercy than in Christ’s, even though Christ commands us to come to him and not to the saints. Second, as with Christ’s merits, they apply the saints’ merits to others. They command us to trust in the merits of saints, as though we were pronounced righteous because of them just as we are by Christ’s merits. We are not making this up! They claim to apply the merits of the saints to us in indulgences.*>> And Gabriel [Biel], the interpreter of the

canon of the Mass, confidently asserts: “According to the order instituted by God, we should take refuge in the aid of the saints in order that we might be saved by their merits and vows.”#*¢ These are Gabriel’s own words. The opponents say even more absurd things throughout their books and sermons. What qualifies the saints as propitiators if not this? They are made completely equal to Christ, if we are to trust that we are saved by their merits.

435, First decreed by Pope Clement VI in Unigenitus (1343). 436. Gabriel Biel, Exposition of the Canon of the Mass, lect. 30.

Article XXI: The Invocation of the Saints

241

But where is the “divinely instituted order that we should take refuge in the help of the saints,” as this fellow says? Let him produce an example or a command from Scripture. Perhaps they derive this order from the courts of the kings where friends must be used as intercessors. But if a king appoints a certain person as the intercessor, he will not want cases to be brought to him through others.*3” Thus since Christ is appointed as our intercessor and priest, why should we seek others? Here and there this form of absolution has come into use: “The passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and the merits of the most blessed Virgin Mary and all

the saints be to you for the forgiveness of sins.”#3® Here an absolution is pronounced that declares that we are reconciled and accounted righteous not only by the merits of Christ but also by the merits of the other saints. Some of us have seen a case where a teacher of theology was dying and a certain monastic theologian was summoned to offer consolation. He could do no better than press upon the dying man this prayer, “Mother of grace, protect us from the enemy; receive us in the hour of death.”4% Now we grant that the blessed Mary prays for the church. But she does not receive souls in death, conquer death, or give life, does she? What does Christ do if the blessed Mary performs all these things? Even though she is worthy of the highest honor, nevertheless she does not want herself to be made equal with Christ but instead wants us to consider and follow her example. The fact of the matter is that in the court of public opinion the blessed Virgin has completely replaced Christ. People have called upon her, trusted in her mercy, and through her have sought to conciliate Christ, as though he were not the propitiator, but only a dreadful judge and avenger.#4® We contend, however, that we are justified by the merits of Christ alone, not by the merits of the blessed

24

25

26

27

28

29

Virgin or the other saints. It has been said about other saints [1 Cor. 3:8], “each

will receive wages according to the labor of each,” that is, they cannot bestow their own merits on one another like the monks who peddle the merits of their orders. Even Hilary says of the foolish virgins, “Since the foolish virgins could not go out with their lamps extinguished, they begged the wise ones to lend them oil. These latter replied that they could not give it because there might not be enough for all. That is, no one can be helped by the works and merits of another, because it is necessary for each one to buy oil for one’s own lamp.”*! Therefore, because the opponents teach us to place confidence in prayers to the saints, even though they possess neither a Word of God nor an example from Scripture for this, and because they apply the merits of the saints to oth437. This point was made in the Torgau Articles. 438. A similar formula was attested to in the archdiocese of Paris. 439. Compare Luther’s account of his own brush with death as a young man (WATR 1, no. 119; LW 54:14-15).

440. See, for example, the popular catechism of Dietrich von Kolde, A Fruitful Mirror (1470), chap. 29, where the penitent asks Mary to “deliver me from the wrath of your dear child.” 441. Hilary, Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew 27, 5 (MPL 9:1060-61).

30

31

242

32

33

34

35

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

ers in the same way as the merits of Christ (thereby transferring to the saints the honor that properly belongs to Christ), we cannot accept either their opinions concerning the veneration of saints nor the practice of calling upon them. For we know that we must place trust in the intercession of Christ because it alone has God’s promise. We know that the merits of Christ alone are an atoning sacrifice for us. On account of the merits of Christ we are accounted righteous when we believe in him, as the text says [Rom. 9:33; 1 Peter 2:6; and Isa. 28:16]: “Whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” We are not justified by trusting in the merits of the blessed Virgin or any other saint. Among theologians this error also prevails: that a special sphere of activity has been assigned to each saint. Thus Anne bestows riches;**? Sebastian fends off the plague;*4> Valentine heals epilepsy;** George protects knights.*4> These opinions clearly arose from pagan examples. For among the Romans, Juno was thought to bestow riches, Febris to fend off fever, Castor and Pollux to defend knights, etc. Even if we should suppose that the invocation of the saints could be taught with great moderation, nevertheless the precedent would be very dangerous. What is the point of defending such a thing, when it has neither a command nor testimony from the Word of God? Indeed, it does not even have the support of the writers in the ancient church. As I said earlier, when we seek other mediators in addition to Christ and place our trust in them, our entire knowledge of Christ disappears. The facts bear this out. It seems that when the saints were first mentioned, as in the ancient prayers, this was done in a tolerable way. Soon afterward, invocation followed and then after that enormous abuses far worse than pagan practices. The invocation of saints then led to the veneration of their images. These supposedly contained some sort of power, just as sorcerers imagine that when artisans fashion astrological signs at a certain time, they contain power. In one monastery we saw a statue of the blessed Virgin that was manipulated like a puppet so that it seemed either to refuse or approve a request. However, all the contrived stories about statues and pictures are surpassed by the incredible tales of the saints that are being publicly taught with great authority. In the midst of her tortures, Barbara asks for the reward—that no one who called upon her should die without the Eucharist. Another person recited the entire Psalter daily while standing on one foot. Some wise person depicted Christopher in such a way as to show through an allegory that there ought to be a great strength of soul in those who bear Christ, that is, who teach or confess the gospel, because it necessarily entails the greatest perils.**® Then 442. The mother of Mary and patron saint of the poor. 443. According to legend, a member of the Praetorian guard under Diocletian. 444, Two martyrs of the early church, a priest and a bishop of Terni, were called Valentine. 445. Cappadocian knight and martyr under Diocletian. 446. In his Holy Saturday 1530 sermon delivered at the Coburg to the delegation departing for Augsburg, Luther also stressed the example of Christopher as Christ-bearer (WA 32:32, 17-37, 28; LW 51:201-6).

Article XXI: The Invocation of the Saints

243

the foolish monks taught that the people ought to call upon Christopher—as if such a Polyphemus*4” had once existed! Even though the great things that the

36

saints have done serve as examples to people in their public or private life, as a

means of strengthening faith and as an incentive to imitate them in public affairs, no one has searched for such examples in the true stories of the saints. It is indeed helpful to hear how the saints administered public affairs, how they

underwent calamities and dangers, how holy individuals came to the aid of

kings in times of great danger, how they taught the gospel and did battle with heretics. Examples of God’s mercy are also beneficial, as when we see Peter forgiven for his denial [John 21]; when we see Cyprian forgiven for having been a sorcerer;#8 when we see Augustine while sick steadfastly affirm the power of faith, that God hears the prayers of believers.**’ Such examples, which contain admonitions for either faith or fear or for the administration of the state, are

worth repeating. But these clowns, endowed with the knowledge of neither faith nor the administration of public affairs, have invented stories in imitation of the epics, in which there are nothing but superstitious examples about certain prayers and fasts, to which certain things have been tacked on in order to earn revenue. In this way they have invented miracles about rosaries and similar ceremonies. Nor is there any need to cite further examples. There are extant

37

“legends,” as they call them, and “mirrors” of examples, and “rosaries,”#°% which

contain many things that resemble the true stories of Lucian.*! The bishops, theologians, and monks applaud these monstrous and wicked

38

tales because they put bread on the table. They refuse to tolerate us, who, in

order to extol the honor and work of Christ, do not require prayer to the saints and condemn abuses in the veneration of saints. Although all good people everywhere have greatly longed for either the intervention of the bishops or the diligence of the preachers in the necessary correction of these abuses, nevertheless our opponents in the Confutation completely overlook even the most

39

manifest abuses, as though they intended us to approve even the most notori-

ous vices by forcing our acceptance of the Confutation. Thus the Confutation has been deceitfully written, not only on this topic but almost everywhere. There is no passage in which they make a distinction between the manifest abuses and their teachings. Yet some of those who have any sense admit both that the teachings of the scholastics and canonists contains many false opinions and that many abuses have crept into the church 447. Cyclops. 448, Legend held that Cyprian, bishop of Antioch (not Cyprian of Carthage), had been a sorcerer. 449. See Possidius, Life of Augustine 29 (MPL 32:59).

450, Typical names for such books: The Golden Legend (a thirteenth-century collection), the Mirror of Perfection (about Francis of Assisi), the Rosary of Preachable Sermons (a compilation by Bernardino de Busti). 451. Lucian of Samasota, who wrote satirical accounts of religious charlatans in the ancient

world.

40

244 41

42

43

44

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

through the ignorance and negligence of the pastors. For Luther was not the first one to complain of public abuses. Long before this time, many learned and excellent individuals deplored the abuses of the Mass, trust in monastic observances, the veneration of saints for the purpose of revenue, and confusion in the doctrine of repentance, which ought to be as clear and plain in the church as possible. We ourselves have heard leading theologians ask for restrictions upon the scholastic teaching because it is more useful for philosophical quarrels than for piety.#5? Nevertheless, the older ones are generally closer to Scripture than the more recent ones. Thus, their theology has steadily degenerated. Many good people sided with Luther at the beginning for no other reason than because they saw that he was freeing human minds from the labyrinths of the most confused and endless discussions of scholastic theologians and canonists and was teaching things that contributed to godliness. Therefore the opponents have not acted honestly, because, although they wanted us to give our approval to the Confutation, they covered up these abuses. If they wanted to act in the best interests of the church, especially on this issue, they should have taken this occasion and asked Our Most Excellent Emperor to take steps for the correction of abuses. As we clearly observe, he greatly desires the healing and improvement of the church. But the opponents do not act in a way that supports the most honorable and most holy will of the emperor, but act so as to crush us in every possible way. They show no concern

for the condition of the church, nor are they making any effort to provide a summary of the teaching of the church among the people. They defend obvious abuses by new and unusual cruelty. They do not tolerate capable teachers in the church. Concerned individuals can easily gauge the outcome of these things. In this way they have shown no regard for either their own authority or the church. For after the good teachers have been killed and sound doctrine crushed, fanatical spirits will rise up whom the opponents will be unable to restrain. These people will disrupt the church with godless dogmas and will overthrow the entire ecclesiastical government, which we greatly desire to maintain.

‘

Therefore, Most Excellent Emperor Charles, for the sake of Christ’s glory, which we have no doubt that you desire to praise and magnify, we implore you not to assent to the violent counsels of our opponents but to seek other honorable ways of establishing harmony—ways that will not burden godly consciences or wreak cruelty against the innocent, as we have experienced up to now, nor suppress sound doctrine in the church. You have the responsibility above all to God: to preserve sound doctrine, to propagate it for posterity, and to defend those who teach rightly. For God demands this when he honors kings with his own name and calls them gods [Ps. 82:6], “I say, ‘You are gods, ” so.that they may take care in preserving and propagating on earth “divine matters,” 452. Perhaps Wendelin Steinbach, professor at Tiibingen during Melanchthon’s student days, or even Erasmus of Rotterdam, for example, in his In Praise of Folly (1508).

Article XXII: Concerning Both Kinds in the Lord’s Supper

245

the life and that is, Christ’s gospel, and as vicars of God that they may defend

welfare of the innocent.*>?

[XXII:] Concerning Both Kinds in the Lord’s Supper There can be no doubt that it is godly and in accordance with the institution of Christ and the words of Paul to use both elements in the Lord’s Supper. For Christ instituted both elements and instituted them not for part of the church but for the entire church. For not only the presbyters but the entire church, by Christ’s authority and not by human authority, use the sacrament, as we suppose the opponents will admit. Now if Christ instituted it for the entire church, why is one element denied to part of the church? Why is one element prohibited? Why is the ordinance of Christ altered, especially when he himself calls it his testament? But if it is not permissible to annul a human testament, much less will it be permissible to annul the testament of Christ. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11[:23ff.] that he had received from the Lord what he passed on. But he passed on the use of both kinds, as the text of 1 Corinthians 11

clearly shows. First, concerning the body he says [vv. 24-25], “Do this”; afterward he repeats the same words about the cup. Then he says [v. 28], “Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” These are the words of the one who instituted the sacrament. Indeed, it is prescribed that those who use the Lord’s Supper use both together. Therefore, it is evident that the sacrament was instituted for the entire church. And the custom has continued to this day in the Greek churches and once also prevailed in the Latin churches, just as Cyprian®* and Jerome attest. For thus Jerome says on

Zephaniah: “The priests who administer the Eucharist distribute the Lord’s blood to the people. . . ”#55 The Council of Toledo gives the same testimony.** Nor would it be difficult to pile up a great number of testimonies. We do not exaggerate here. We only leave it to the prudent reader to determine what to think about the divine ordinance. Our opponents in the Confutation do not even try to explain to the church why one element of the sacrament has been withheld. This would have been appropriate for good and religious teachers. They should have looked for a solid reason for explaining this to the church and instructing those who were not permitted to receive the entire sacrament.*”” Now they maintain that it is right to prohibit the use of one element, and they refuse to grant the use of

453. For a similar treatment of this psalm, a treatment that Martin Luther published in 1530, see WA 31/1: 189-218 (LW 13:39-72).

454. Cyprian, Epistle 57.2 (CSEL 3/2: 651-52; ANF 5:337, listed there as Epistle 53.2). 455. Jerome, Commentary on Zephaniah, c. 3 (MPL 25:1375). 456. Council of Toledo (633 a.p.), canon 7. 457. Tn 1521 Melanchthon was one of the first to receive both

Wittenberg.

the bread and wine

in

246

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

both elements.458 First they imagine that in the beginning of the church it was the custom that only one element was distributed. Nevertheless, they are not able to bring forward any ancient example of this. They cite the passages in which bread is mentioned, as in Luke 24[:35], where it is written that the dis-

e

11

458. The Confutation (pt. II, art. I): “We must respond that in light of the custom of the holy church, it is wrong to count this among the abuses when, according to the sanctions and statutes of the same church, it is rather an abuse and disobedience to give both kinds to the laity.” 459, Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7.

460. The text refers to synecdoche. N 461. In the early church, lay Communion was a punishment meted out to the clergy in which they were demoted to the status of laymen, and were thus to receive Communion with the laity. 462. Gabriel Biel, Exposition of the Canon of the Mass, Lect. 84.

it e < v

10

ciples recognized Jesus in the breaking of bread. They also cite other passages about the breaking of bread.*® Although we do not seriously object if some of these passages are understood as referring to the sacrament, still it does not follow that only one element was given, because according to the common usage of language, the naming of one element also includes the other.** They also refer to “lay Communion,”#6! which included not the use of one kind only, but of both kinds. Whenever priests were commanded to make use of lay Communion, it meant they had been removed from the ministry of consecration. Our opponents are not ignorant of this, but they take advantage of the ignorance of the unlearned who hear the phrase “lay Communion” and immediately imagine that it refers to our present custom of giving only one element of the sacrament to the laity. Consider their impudence. Among other reasons, Gabriel [Biel] recounts that both elements are not given in order to distinguish between the laity and the clergy.462 This is no doubt the chief reason for defending the prohibition of one element, namely, in order to exalt the status of the clergy more highly by some religious ritual. To put it mildly, this is a human arrangement, and its purpose can easily be determined. In the Confutation they also quote texts concerning the sons of Eli, in which after the loss of the high priesthood they were to seek the “one part pertaining to the priests” [cf. 1 Sam. 2:36]. Here they say that this signified the use of one kind. Then they add, “Likewise, therefore, our laity also ought to be content with the one kind, the one part pertaining to the priests.” Clearly, our opponents are joking when they apply the history of Eli’s sons to the sacrament. The story describes Eli’s punishment. Now will they also say that the laity is kept from the other element as a punishment? The sacrament was instituted for the consolation and encouragement of terrified hearts, when they believe that the flesh of Christ, given for the life of the world, is their food, and when they believe that they are made alive by being joined to Christ. But the opponents argue that the laity has been kept from the other element as a punishment. They say, “They ought to be content.” This is the way a tyrant would act. Why should they be satisfied? “They should not ask for a reason. Instead, let

Article XXIII: The Marriage of Priests

247

whatever the theologians say be the law!” This is a concoction of [John] Eck.46?

For we recognize those Thrasonian voices,*** and, if we wanted to criticize them, we would have plenty to say. For you see how great is his impudence. He

issues commands like one of the tyrants in the tragedies, “Whether they like it or not, they should be satisfied.” Will these reasons that he gives exonerate in God’s judgment those who withhold a part of the sacrament and rage against those who use the entire sacrament? If they withhold one element so that there might be a distinction between Jay and ordained orders, this in itself should keep us from agreeing with our opponents, even though we would be inclined in other respects to comply with their custom. There are other distinguishing marks between the order of priest and the people. But it is no mystery as to why they defend this distinction so zealously. To avoid the impression that we are disparaging the true dignity of orders, we will not say more about this cunning counsel. They also refer to the danger of spilling and certain similar concerns that do not have such power as to change Christ’s ordinance. Indeed, if we assume that we are free to use one element or both elements, how can a mandatory prohibition of one element be defended? But the church cannot assume to itself the liberty of making Christ’s ordinances matters left to human choice.*6 We indeed do not blame the church, which has borne the injustice since it could not obtain both elements, but we do blame the authors of the Confutation, who maintain that the use of the entire sacrament is rightly prohibited and who now not only prohibit it but even excommunicate and violently persecute those who use the entire sacrament. Let them figure out how they will give an account of their decisions to God. Nor do we dare assume that the church immediately approves or accepts whatever the pontiffs decide, especially when Scripture prophesies about bishops and pastors in the passage where Ezekiel says {7:26], “Instruction shall perish from the priest.”

[XXIII:] The Marriage of Priests Despite the infamy of their sordid celibacy, our opponents have the audacity not only to defend the pontifical law under the ungodly and false pretext of divine authority but also to exhort the emperor and princes not to disgrace and shame the Roman Empire by tolerating the marriage of priests. This is exactly what they say.46° '

463, Luther’s opponent in Leipzig in 1519 and one of the chief theologians of the Roman party in Augsburg. 464. The loudmouthed soldier in Terence’s play The Eunuch. 465. res indifferentia, literally, indifferent matters, the Latin equivalent of adiaphora. 466. Confutation (pt. II, art. II): “ . . [The Lutheran princes] call celibacy an abuse, when the

direct contrary, the violation of celibacy and the illicit transition into the married estate, deserves to be called the worst abuse among priests.” It later states: “The princes ought not tolerate this—

12

13

14 15

16

17

248

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Where in any history can one read of greater brazenness than that of our opponents? We will review the arguments they employ in a moment. For now let the discriminating reader consider the effrontery of these good-for-nothings, who say that marriage produces disgrace and shame for the empire—as if the church were adorned by the public disgrace and the unnatural lusts of these holy Fathers “who look like Curius and live like bacchantes.”*¢” Modesty forbids even mentioning most of the things which these people do with the greatest license. And they demand that you defend their lusts with your most chaste right hand, Emperor Charles (you whom even some of the ancient prophecies call “the king with a chaste face”; for the saying appears about you, “A man with a chaste face shall reign everywhere”).4%8 Contrary to divine law, contrary to the law of the Gentiles, contrary to the canons of the councils, they demand that you dissolve marriages. They demand that, merely because of the marriage of priests, you sentence innocent people to cruel punishments and priests to death whom even barbarians reverently spare, and drive into exile the women they leave behind and the children they leave fatherless. They propose such laws to you, Most Excellent and Most Chaste Emperor, which no barbarous country, however monstrous and cruel, would consider. But because neither disgrace nor cruelty stains your character, we hope that you will deal with us gently on this matter, especially once you have learned that we have the weightiest reasons for our conviction, derived from the Word of God, which our opponents resist with the most trifling and pointless opinions. Now for all that, they do not seriously defend celibacy. For they know good and well how few practice chastity. Instead, they use religion as a pretext in order to maintain their authority, which they think celibacy promotes. As we can see, Peter rightly warns [2 Peter 2:1] that there will be false prophets who will deceive people with invented tales. For the opponents say, write, or do nothing truly, frankly, or candidly in this entire matter. In fact, they actually contend for only one thing, namely, their control, which they falsely think is imperiled and which they try to fortify with a wicked pretense of godliness. We cannot approve this law concerning celibacy which our opponents defend, because it conflicts with divine and natural law and because it conflicts with the very canons of the councils. It is also apparent that it is superstitious and dangerous. For it produces endless scandals, sins, and corruption of public morals. Our other controversies demand some discussion by theologians. But this matter is so clear to both parties that it requires no discussion. It only requires as judge a person who is honest and fears God. Although we defend this manifest truth, nevertheless the opponents have devised trivial charges to make our arguments look silly. to the perpetual shame and disgrace of the Roman Empire—but rather should conform to the universal church and not be swayed by these suggestions.” 467. A well-known adage from Juvenal, Satires 1I, 3. Curius Dentatus was a Roman general

famed for his moderation. 468. A reference to the Sibylline Oracles VIII, 169-70.

Article XXIII: The Marriage of Priests

249

First, Genesis [1:28] teaches that human beings were created to be fruitful

and that one sex should desire the other sex in a proper way. Now we are not speaking about concupiscence, which is sin, but about that desire which was to have been in our uncorrupted nature, which they call natural affection.*®® This love of one sex for the other is truly a divine ordinance. However, since this

order of God cannot be suspended without an extraordinary act of God, it follows that the right to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows. Our opponents trivialize these arguments. They say that in the beginning there was a command to fill the earth, but now that the earth has been filled marriage is not commanded.*’? Look at their clever argument! The Word of God formed human nature in such a way that it may be fruitful not only at the beginning of creation but as long as this physical nature of ours exists. Likewise, the earth became fruitful by this Word [Gen. 1:11]: “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed.” Because of this ordinance, the earth commenced to produce plants, not only in the beginning, but yearly the fields are clothed as long as this natural order exists. Therefore, just as the nature of the earth cannot be changed by human laws, so neither can human nature be changed by vows or by human law without a special act of God. Second, because this creation or divine ordinance in the human creature is a natural law, the jurists have accordingly spoken wisely and rightly that the union of male and female is a matter of natural law. However, since natural law is immutable, the right to contract marriages must always remain. For where nature is not changed, it is necessary for that order with which God has endowed nature to remain; it cannot be removed by human laws. It is therefore

ridiculous for our opponents to prate that marriage was commanded in the beginning, but that it is no longer. This is the same as if they were to say: “Formerly people were born with a sex, now they are not.” No artisan could fabricate anything more artful than these foolish, inept thoughts, devised to elude natural law. Therefore let this remain the case, both what Scripture teaches and what the jurists wisely have said: the marriage of male and female is a matter of natural right. Moreover, a natural right truly is a divine right, because it is an order divinely stamped upon nature. However, because this right cannot be changed without an extraordinary act of God, the right to contract marriages must of necessity remain, for the natural desire of one sex for the other sex is an ordinance of God in nature. For this reason it is right; otherwise why would both sexes have been created? As we said above, we are speaking not about concupiscence (which is sin), but about that desire which they call nat-

ural affection and which concupiscence has not removed from nature. Concupiscence inflames it so that now it rather needs an antidote. Marriage is 469. 470. offspring pressure,

Employing a Greek term used even by Cicero in Affica X, 8, 9. The Confutation (pt. II, art. I1): “At that time a command concerning the procreation of was given to fill the earth, but now that that has been filled so that there is population the command no longer pertains to those able to be continent.”

10

11 12

13

250

14 15

16

'

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

necessary not only for the sake of procreation but also as a remedy. These things are so clear and well established that they can in no way be refuted. Third, Paul says [1 Cor. 7:2], “But because of cases of sexual immorality,

each man should have his own wife.” Now this is an express command pertaining to anyone who is not fit for celibacy. Our opponents ask that they be shown a commandment that prescribes that priests marry*’!—as though priests were not human beings! We maintain indeed that the things we are discussing about human nature in general applies also to priests. Does not Paul prescribe here that those who do not have the gift of continence marry? For he

interprets himself a little later [1 Cor. 7:9], when he says, “For it is better to

17

18

19

20

marry than to be aflame with passion.” Christ, too, has clearly said [Matt. 19:11], “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.” Because now, ever since sin, these two things converge, namely, natural desire and concupiscence, which inflames natural desires, there is even more need for marriage than when nature was pure. Paul, accordingly, speaks of marriage as a remedy and on account of these flames commands to marry. Moreover, the phrase, “it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion,” cannot be removed by any human authority, any law, or any vow, because these cannot abolish either nature or concupiscence. Therefore, all who are aflame retain the right to marry. Paul’s command, “because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife,” binds all who are not truly continent; it is up to each person’s conscience to decide this matter. For here they order people to seek the gift of continence from God, and they urge them to subdue the body by hard work and hunger.*”?> But why do they not apply these magnificent commandments to themselves? But as we said earlier, the opponents are only joking; they take nothing seriously. If continence were possible for everyone, it would not require a special gift. But Christ shows that it does need a special gift; therefore, it is not for everyone. God wants the rest of us to use the common law of nature which he has instituted. For God does not want his orders and his creatures to be despised. He wants people to be chaste by using the remedy he offers, just as he wishes to nourish our life when we use food and drink. Gerson also testifies that there have been many good men who tried to control the body, yet with little success.*”> Accordingly, Ambrose is right in saying, “Virginity is only something that can 471. The Confutation (pt. II, art. II): “In addition, they vainly boast of God’s command. Let them show, if they can, where God has commanded priests to marry.”

472. The Confutation (pt. I, art. II): “For those consecrated to God have other remedies for

their weaknesses, For example, they may avoid contact with women, shun idleness, lessen the flesh’s appetites through fasts and vigils, keep the outward senses (especially sight and hearing) from forbidden things—especially the eyes from seeing vanities. Finally, they may [Ps. 137:9] ‘dash their little ones’ (that is, carnal thoughts) ‘against the rock’ (and the Rock is Christ), suppress their

passions, and frequently and devoutly resort to God in prayer. These are undoubtedly the most potent remedies for incontinence in ecclesiastics and servants of God.” 473. Perhaps John Gerson’s On Celibacy 3.

Article XXIII: The Marriage of Priests

251

be recommended, but not commanded; it is voluntary rather than obligato-

ry”#74 If anyone would raise the objection here that Christ praises those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” [Matt. 19:12], let that person also remember that Christ praises those who have the gift of continence, which is why he adds, “Let anyone accept this who can.” For impure continence does not please Christ. We, too, commend true continence. But here we are discussing a regulation and those who do not have the gift of continence. The matter ought to be left free, and traps should not to be set for the weak through this law. Fourth, the pontifical regulation also disagrees with the canons of the councils. For the ancient canons do not prohibit marriage, neither do they dissolve marriages that have been contracted, though they do remove from the public ministry those who got married while in office. At that time, this dismissal was an act of kindness. But the new canons, which have not been framed by synods but have been made according to the private judgment of the popes, both prohibit the contracting of marriages and dissolve them when contracted. This is done in open defiance of Christ’s mandate [Matt. 19:6], “What God has joined together, let no one separate.” In the Confutation, our opponents shriek that celibacy has been commanded by the councils. We do not find fault with the conciliar decrees, for they permit marriage in certain circumstances; but we do find fault with the regulations that the Roman pontiffs have set up long after the ancient synods and contrary to their authority. Accordingly, the popes show contempt for the authority of the synods, while wanting to appear sacrosanct to others. Therefore, this law concerning perpetual celibacy is unique to this new pontifical tyranny, and for good reason. For Daniel [11:37] attributes to the kingdom of the Antichrist this mark, namely, the contempt for women. Fifth, even though our opponents do not defend the regulation for reasons of superstitious religiosity (since they see that it is generally not observed), nevertheless they cloak it with pious-sounding phrases to give it a religious pretext. They claim that they require celibacy because it is pure, as if marriage were impure and sinful, or as if celibacy merited justification more than marriage!*’% To this end they cite the ceremonies of the Mosaic laws, arguing that since under the law the priests were separated from their wives during

their time of service, the priest of the New Testament, inasmuch as he ought always to pray, ought always to practice continence. This silly analogy is cited as a proof to compel priests to perpetual celibacy, even though in this very analogy marriage is permitted and intercourse forbidden only during the time of ministering. Besides, it is one thing to pray, another to minister. The saints 474. Ambrose, Exhortation to Virginity 3, 17 (MPL 16:356).

475. The Confutation (pt. II, art. II): “It makes sense that priests who frequently partake of the Passover Supper of our Lord gird their loins [Exod. 12:11] with continence and cleanness.” And later: “The church does not prohibit marriage . . . therefore it seems right that higher ministry demands a more excellent purity for clerics.”

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

252

28

29 30

31 32

33 34

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

prayed even when they did not exercise the public ministry; nor did conjugal intercourse prevent them from praying. But we will respond to these figments of their imagination one by one. First, our opponents must acknowledge that marriage is pure in believers because it is sanctified by the Word of God, that is, it is a matter that the Word of God permits and approves, as Scripture testifies abundantly. For Christ calls marriage a divine union when he says [Matt. 19:6], “What God has joined together . . ” And Paul says about marriage, foods, and similar things [1 Tim. 4:5] that they are “sanctified by God’s Word and by prayer,” that is, through the Word, by which the conscience is made certain that God approves, and through prayer, that is, through faith, which uses marriage with thanksgiving as a gift of God. Likewise, 1 Corinthians 7[:14], “the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife . . . ,” that is, marriage is permitted and sanctified on account of faith in Christ, just as it is permitted to use food, etc. Likewise, 1 Timothy

2[:15], “she will be saved through childbearing. . . .” If our opponents could produce such passages about celibacy, then they indeed could stage a wonderful victory celebration. Paul says that a woman is saved through childbearing. In contrast to the hypocrisy of celibacy, what greater honor could he bestow than to say that woman is saved by the conjugal functions themselves, by conjugal intercourse, by childbirth, and by her other domestic duties? But what does Paul mean? Let the reader observe that faith is added and that the domestic duties are not praised apart from faith: “provided they continue,” he says, “in faith” For he is speaking about the entire class of mothers. Therefore, he especially requires faith, by which a woman receives the forgiveness of sins and justification. Then he adds a particular work of her calling, just as in every human creature a good work of a particular calling ought to follow faith. This work pleases God on account of faith. Thus the duties of a woman please God on account of faith, and a believing woman who faithfully serves in these duties of her calling is saved. These passages teach that marriage is permissible. If therefore purity refers to something that is permissible and approved before God, then marriages are pure, because they have been approved by the Word of God. Paul says about permissible things [Titus 1:15], “To the pure all things are pure,” that is, to

those who believe in Christ and by faith are righteous. Thus, as virginity is

35

impure in the ungodly, so marriage is pure in the godly on account of the Word of God and faith. Second, if, properly speaking, purity stands in contrast to lust, then “purity” here means a purity of the heart and the putting to death of lust. It is not marriage that the law forbids, but lust, adultery, and fornication. Therefore, celibacy is not necessarily pure. For there may be greater purity of heart in a married man, as in Abraham or Jacob, than in most of those who are truly continent.

36

_

Finally, if they understand celibacy as pure in the sense that it merits justification more than marriage does, we shall object most emphatically. For we

Article XXIII: The Marriage of Priests

253

are justified neither on account of virginity nor on account of marriage but freely on account of Christ, when we believe that on account of him we have a gracious God. Here they will perhaps exclaim that we put marriage on the same level with virginity as Jovinian did.*’¢ But these reproaches will not compel us to reject the truth concerning the righteousness of faith, which we explained above. Nevertheless, we do not put virginity and marriage on the same level. For just as one gift surpasses another, as prophecy surpasses eloquence [cf. 1 Cor. 14:5], knowledge of military affairs surpasses agriculture, and eloquence surpasses architecture, so virginity is a more excellent gift than marriage. And vet, just as an orator is not more righteous before God on account of eloquence than an architect on account of building, so also a virgin does not merit justification by virginity any more than the married person merits it by conjugal duties, but all ought to serve faithfully with their own gift while maintaining that by faith they receive forgiveness of sins on account of Christ and that by faith they are accounted righteous before God. Neither Christ nor Paul praises virginity because it justifies but because it provides more time for praying, teaching, and serving and is less distracted by domestic activities. Accordingly, Paul says [1 Cor. 7:32], “The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord.” Therefore, virginity is praised on account of meditation and study. Thus Christ does not simply commend those “who have made themselves eunuchs,” but he adds, “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,” that is, in order to have time for learning or teaching the gospel. He does not teach that virginity merits the forgiveness of sins or salvation. As for the analogy of the Levitical priests, we have replied that this does not establish the need for imposing perpetual celibacy upon priests. Furthermore, the Levitical regulations about uncleanness must not be transferred to us. At

37

38

39

40

41

that time, intercourse contrary to those regulations was an impurity. Now it is

not an impurity, because pure” The gospel frees us Moreover, all who defend consciences with Levitical

Paul says [Titus 1:15], “All things are pure to the from these Levitical regulations about impurities. the law of celibacy with the purpose of burdening observances must be resisted, just as the apostles in

42

Acts 15[:10ff.] resisted those who required circumcision and tried to impose

the Mosaic law on Christians.

At the same time, good people will know how to exercise their marital rela-

tionships within bounds, especially when they are occupied with public service, which is often so burdensome to God-fearing people that domestic considerations are excluded from their minds. Good people know also that Paul enjoins [1 Thess. 4:4] each person to “control your own body in holiness.” Likewise they know that sometimes they must abstain in order to have time for prayer. However, Paul does not wish to make this perpetual [1 Cor. 7:5]. Now 476.

As

6:346-416).

recounted

in Jerome’s

tract Against Jovinian

(MPL

23:211-338;

NPNF,

ser. 2,

43

44

254

50

51

52

R

46

such continence is easy for those who are virtuous and busy. But this great crowd of lazy priests in the confraternities, given their wild living, cannot afford to keep even this Levitical continence, as the facts show. And this verse is well known, “The boy accustomed to pursue a lazy life hates those who are busy.”477 Many heretics who have incorrectly understood the Law of Moses have treated marriage with contempt. Such were the Encratites, of whom we have spoken above.*™8 It is also evident that, as a matter of course, monks spread around declarations about celibacy filled with superstitious religiosity, which disturbed many devout consciences concerning the legitimate exercise of marital relations. It would not be difficult for us to recount examples. To be sure, because of procreation, they did not entirely condemn marriage, nevertheless they found fault with it as a kind of life scarcely ever pleasing God or at least only pleasing to him on account of procreation. But they extolled celibacy as though it were an angelic mode of life, proclaimed that it was a sacrifice most pleasing to God, that it merited the forgiveness of sins, merited golden rewards, bore fruit a hundredfold, and infinite other things.*’® Paul condemns such “worship of angels” in Colossians [2:18]. For it suppresses the knowledge of Christ when people imagine that they are accounted righteous because of such observances, and not because of Christ. Furthermore, it suppresses the knowledge of God’s commands, when in addition to God’s commands new acts of worship are devised and preferred to God’s commands. Therefore, these superstitious opinions about celibacy must be constantly resisted in the church, to the end that godly consciences may know that marriage is pleasing to God, and may understand what kind of worship God approves. However, our opponents do not require celibacy on the grounds of superstitious religiosity; for they know that chastity is not ordinarily given as a gift. But they employ superstitious opinions as a pretext in order to trick the inexperienced. Therefore, they are more contemptible than the Encratites, who seem to have erred through some sort of religious way of thinking. These pleasure-seekers*8 purposely use religion as a pretext. Sixth, although we have many reasons for disapproving the law of perpetual celibacy, yet beyond all others it endangers souls and causes public scandal. Even if the law were not unjust, this alone should keep good people from approving this kind of burden that has destroyed innumerable souls. Good people everywhere have long complained about this burden, either for their own sake or on account of others whom they saw to be in danger. But

477. Ovid, Cures for Love 149. 478. Melanchthon rewrote par. 45-49 of the quarto edition for the octavo, placing his discussion of the Encratites and Epiphanius in Ap XV, 21. 479. For example, Thomas Aquinas, STh 11, 2, q. 186,a. 4 and a. 7.

480. Literally, sardanapali, after Sardanapalus, the Assyrian king who, according to legend, spent his life in dissipation.

AR

45

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Article XXIII: The Marriage of Priests

255

no pope paid any attention to these dangers.*8! It is no secret how this regulation undermines public morals and what vices and shameful lusts it has produced. In the published Roman satires, Rome still recognizes and reads about its own morals.*8? In this way God takes vengeance on those who show contempt for his own gift and ordinance, that is, those who prohibit marriage. Since in the case of other laws it has been customary to change them if the common good

53

demanded it, why was the same not done with respect to this law, for which

there are so many weighty reasons for changing it, especially in these last times? Nature is growing older and is gradually becoming weaker, and vices are increasing; therefore, divinely given remedies should be employed. We see what vices God denounced before the destruction of the Flood and before the burning of the five cities. Similar vices have preceded the destruction of many other cities, like Sybaris8® and Rome. These present a preview of what the times will be like just prior to the end of things. Accordingly, at this time the very strictest laws and institutions ought especially to provide defense for marriage, and people should have been encouraged to marry. This pertains to the duty of public officials who ought to maintain public order. Meanwhile teachers of the gospel should do both: they should exhort the incontinent to marry, and they should exhort others not to despise the gift of continence. The popes daily dispense and change other very fine laws; yet on this single law of celibacy they are as inflexible as iron, even though it is clearly simply a matter of human law. And they now make this very law more unbearable in

54

55

56

57

several ways. The canon orders them to suspend priests;*3* these rather inept

interpreters suspend them—not from office, but from trees! They cruelly kill many good men just because they are married. Such murders show that this Jaw is a “teachings of demons” [1 Tim. 4:1-3]. For since the devil is a murderer (John 8:44), he uses murders to defend his law.

We know we are laying ourselves open to the charge of schism because we seem to have separated ourselves from those who are regarded as the regular bishops. But our consciences are very much at ease since we know that while we most earnestly want to establish harmony, it is not possible to please our opponents without casting aside the clear truth. We would have to go along with the opponents in the defense of this unjust law, the dissolution of existing marriages, the murder of priests who refuse to submit, the exile of poor women and orphaned children. But since it is well established that these actions displease God, we can in no way have an alliance with the multitude of murderers among the opponents. 481. The reforms of Pope Gregory VII first imposed mandatory celibacy on the Western clergy in the eleventh century. 482. Satires of contemporary life in Rome, especially prepared and posted during the annual Paquino festival between 1504 and 1518.

483. An ancient Greek city in southern Italy, renowned for its love of luxury and pleasure. 484. Synod of Rome (1078), canon 11.

58

59

256 60

61

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

We have explained why we are unable with a good conscience to agree with the opponents when they defend the pontifical law concerning perpetual celibacy. It conflicts with divine and natural law; it disagrees with the canons themselves; it is superstitious and very dangerous; and, finally, the entire thing is a fraud. The real purpose of the law is not religion but domination, for which religion is just a wicked pretext. Neither can sane people bring anything forward against these very firmly established arguments. The gospel allows marriage for those who need it. Nevertheless, it does not compel those to marry who can be continent, provided that they are truly continent. We believe that this freedom should also be conceded to priests. We desire neither to compel anyone to be celibate by force nor to dissolve marriages that have been

contracted.

62

63

|

In recounting our own arguments, we have incidentally recited and refuted the silly counterarguments of our opponents. Now we shall review as briefly as possible the important reasons why they defend the law. First, they say that it has been revealed by God.*®> You see the extreme impudence of these sorry clowns. They dare to claim revelation for the law of perpetual celibacy, although it conflicts with the clear testimonies of Scripture

that command “because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife” [1 Cor. 7:2] and that forbid dissolving marriages that have been

contracted [Matt. 5:32; 19:6; 1 Cor. 7:27]. Paul reminds us who the author of such a law is when he calls it “teachings of demons” [1 Tim. 4:1]. The results

64

65

(that is, so many monstrous lusts and so many murders now committed under the pretext of that law) also reveal their author. The second argument of our opponents is that priests ought to be pure according to Isaiah 52{:11], “[P]urify yourselves, you who carry the vessels of the Lord.”#8¢ And they cite many passages in this connection. We have already refuted this incredibly specious argument. For we have said that virginity without faith is not purity in the sight of God and that marriage on account of faith is pure, according to [Titus 1:15], “All things are pure to the pure.” We have also said that external purity and ceremonies of the law do not apply here, because the gospel requires the purity of the heart and does not require the ceremonies of the law. It may happen that the heart of a husband, like Abraham and Jacob, who were polygamists, was purer and burned with less lust than the hearts of many celibates who are truly continent. But Isaiah’s words, “be clean you who bear the vessels of the Lord,” ought to be understood as referring to purity of the heart and to the whole of repentance. Besides, the saints will know the value of moderation in marital intercourse and of what Paul calls possessing 485. The Confutation (pt. II, art. II): “The holy martyr Cyprian testifies that the Lord revealed it to him. . . . Hence, since priestly celibacy has been commanded by councils and popes, revealed by God, and promised by the priest in a vow to God, it must not be rejected.” See Pseudo-Cyprian, The Unmarried State of Clergy 1. 486. See above, Ap XXIII, 26, n. 472.

Article XXIII: The Marriage of Priests

257

one’s vessel in holiness [1 Thess. 4:4].4%7 Finally, since marriage is pure, it is correct to say that those who are not continent in celibacy should marry wives in order that they might be pure. Thus, the same law, “be clean you who bear the vessels of the Lord,” commands impure celibates to become pure husbands. The third argument is horrible, namely, that the marriage of priests is the Jovinian heresy.*8® Fine words! This is a new charge: marriage is a heresy! In Jovinian’s time the world did not yet know about a law of perpetual celibacy. Therefore it is a shameless lie to say that the marriage of priests is a Jovinian

heresy or that such marriage was at that time condemned by the church. In such passages it is clear what purpose the opponents had in writing the Confutation. They decided that the best way to arouse the uninformed was to raise the cry of heresy against us over and over and to give the impression that our cause had been tried and convicted by many previous tribunals of the church. Thus, they often misquote these tribunals of the church. They are well aware of this; hence they refused to show us a copy of their Confutation, lest this fraud and slander be exposed. Earlier, however, we expressed our position on the relative value of virginity and marriage in connection with the case of Jovinian. For we do not make marriage and virginity equal, although neither virginity nor marriage merits justification.

With such destructive to princes to take to account for

patently false arguments they defend a law that is ungodly and good morals. With such reasons as these they persuade the a position contrary to the judgment of God, who will call them dissolving marriages and for torturing and killing priests. Have

66

67

68

69

70

no doubt that as the blood of dead Abel cried out [Gen. 4:10], so also the blood

of many innocent victims will cry out that they had been unjustly and cruelly violated. God will avenge this cruelty. Then you will discover how empty the opponents’ reasoning is, and you will understand that in the judgment of God no perversion of God’s Word will stand, as Isaiah says [40:6], “All people are grass, their constancy is like the flower of the field.” Whatever happens, our princes will be able to console themselves with a clear conscience because, even if the priests had done wrong in marrying, the dissolution of marriages, the prohibitions, and the cruelty obviously contradict God’s will and Word. Our princes do not delight in change for its own sake or dissension but have greater respect for the Word of God than for anything else, especially when the issue is so clear.

487. NRSV: “body.” 488. The Confutation (pt. II, art. II): “This is obviously the ancient heresy of Jovinian, condemned by the Roman church and refuted by Jerome in his writings.” See Ap XXIII, 37, n. 476, and CA XXVI, 30.

71

258

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

[XXIV:] The Mass At the outset it is again necessary, by way of preface, to point out that we do not abolish the Mass but religiously retain and defend it. Among us the Mass is celebrated every Lord’s day and on other festivals, when the sacrament is made available to those who wish to partake of it, after they have been examined and absolved. We also keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of readings, prayers, vestments, and other similar things. The opponents include a long harangue about the use of Latin in the Mass, in which they childishly quibble about how it benefits hearers who are ignorant of the church’s faith to hear a Mass that they do not understand.**® Apparently, they imagine that the mere act of hearing itself is a useful act of worship even where there is no understanding. We do not want to belabor this point, but we leave it to the judgment of the reader. We mention it only in passing in order to point out that our churches retain the Latin readings and prayers. Ceremonies should be observed both so that people may learn the Scriptures and so that, admonished by the Word, they might experience faith and fear and finally even pray. For these are the purposes of the ceremonies. We keep the Latin for the sake of those who learn and understand it. We also use German hymns in order that the [common] people might have something to learn, something that will arouse their faith and fear. This custom has always existed in the churches. For even if some have more frequently used German hymns and others more rarely, nevertheless almost everywhere the people sang something in their own language. No one has ever written or suggested that people benefit from the mere act of hearing lessons that they do not understand or that they benefit from ceremonies not because they teach or admonish but simply ex opere operato, that is, by the mere act of doing or observing. Away with such Pharisaical ideas! The fact that we celebrate only the public or common Mass among us does not contradict the catholic church. For even today, Greek parishes do not hold private Masses. There is only a public Mass, and this only on Sundays and festivals. In their monasteries daily Mass is held, but only in public. These are remnants of the ancient custom. For nowhere do the ancient writers before Gregory mention the celebration of private Masses. For the present, we will forgo any discussion of their origins. It is clear that after the mendicant monks became dominant, private Masses spread—due to completely false beliefs and 489. The Confutation (pt. I, art. III): “Against the practice of the entire Roman church they perform ecclesiastical rites not in Latin but in German and pretend to do this on the authority of St. Paul, who taught that in church a language understood by the people should be used (1 Cor. 14[:19]). . .. If the words of the Apostle are pondered, it suffices that the person responding take the place of the unlearned and say ‘Amen,’ the very thing the canons prescribe. Nor is it necessary for a person to hear or understand every word of the Mass, or always to pay attention with understanding. It is more important to pay attention to its purpose: for Mass is celebrated in order that the Eucharist may be offered in memory of Christ’s passion.”

Article XXIV: The Mass

259

moneymaking—so that for a long time good people have wanted to set some limits on them. Although St. Francis sought to regulate this with the provision that each community should be content with a single common daily Mass,* it was later changed either for reasons of superstition or for the sake of gain. So when it suits them, they themselves change what the Fathers instituted and then cite the authority of the Fathers against us. Epiphanius writes that in Asia, Communion was celebrated three times a week and that there were no daily Masses. He says that this was the custom handed down from the apostles. “Assemblies for Communion were appointed by the apostles to be held on the fourth day, on Sabbath eve, and on the Lord’s day.”4! Now even if the opponents assemble many sayings on this topic to prove that the Mass is a sacrifice, nevertheless the great roar of their words will be silenced by advancing this single response: no matter how long their list of authorities, reasons, and testimonies may be, it still does not prove that the Mass confers grace ex opere operato.**? Nor does it prove that when the Mass is applied to others, it merits the forgiveness of venial and mortal sins or the remission of guilt and punishment for them.**> This single response overthrows all the opponents’ objections not only in the Confutation but in all the writings that they have published about the Mass. We need to remind our readers that this is the point at issue here. Just as Aeschines** reminded the judges that, like wrestlers fighting for their position, both parties in a controversy must deal only with the central point of the controversy and not be allowed to wander off into side issues, in the same way our opponents here ought to be compelled to speak on the subject under discussion. In addition, a knowledge of the central point at issue will facilitate an evaluation of the arguments presented by both sides. For we have shown in our Confession that we hold that the Lord’s Supper does not confer grace ex opere operato, nor does it ex opere operato confer merit for others, living or dead, the forgiveness of sins, guilt or punishment. And this is the clear and firm proof of this position: It is impossible to receive the forgiveness of sins ex opere operato on account of our works. Instead, faith must

conquer the terrors of sin and death, when we comfort our hearts with the knowledge of Christ and realize that we are forgiven on account of Christ and are given the merits and righteousness of Christ. “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace” [Rom. 5:1]. These things are so certain and so firm that they can prevail against all the gates of hell [cf. Matt. 16:18]. 490. Francis of Assisi, Letters to the General Chapter 3. 491. Cited in Greek. Epiphanius, Heresies, bk. 3, 22. 492. This term, used extensively here and in Ap IV, means that by the mere performance of a rite or action with religious significance (here: a sacrament), God’s grace, understood as an indwelling disposition (habitus) or power, is effective. In this way, for example, grace confected in a Mass could be applied to the dead. An opus operatum is the performed rite. 493. Medieval theologians held that sin entailed two consequences: guilt and punishment. 494. In Ctesiphontem 206.

10

11 12

260

13

14

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

If this were all that needed saying, the case would already be settled. For no sane person can approve this Pharisaical and pagan opinion about ex opere operato. Nonetheless this idea has taken hold among the people and has infinitely multiplied the number of Masses. For Masses are purchased for the purpose of conciliating God’s wrath, and by this work they desire to receive the forgiveness of guilt and punishment, to secure whatever they need in this life, and even to liberate the dead.*?> The monks and sophists have brought this Pharisaical opinion into the church. Although we have already stated the case, yet because our opponents foolishly distort many passages of Scripture in the defense of their errors, we shall say a few more things on this topic. In the Confutation they have said many things about “sacrifice,” even though in our confession we intentionally avoided this term because of its ambiguity. We have already described how those whose abuses we reject understand the term “sacrifice” Now, in order to explain those maliciously distorted passages of Scripture, it is necessary at the

15

outset to explain what a sacrifice is. For a decade, our opponents have published endless volumes about sacrifice, and yet not one of them thus far has given a definition of “sacrifice.”4% They tear the term “sacrifice” out of context either from the Scriptures or from the Fathers and then attach their own ideas to it, as if “sacrifice” meant whatever they want it to mean.

What Is a Sacrifice, and What Are the Kinds of Sacrifice?*¥’ 16

17

In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates says that he is especially fond of distinctions because without them nothing can either be explained or understood in a discussion and that if he could find someone skillful in making them, he would pursue and follow in his footsteps as in those of a god.**® He urges those who make distinctions to sever the parts at their very joints in order that they may not, like unskilled cooks, chop some parts to pieces. But our opponents haughtily despise these instructions and thus truly are according to Plato “poor cooks,”4% since they hack to pieces the various parts of the concept “sacrifice,” as our enumeration of the types of sacrifice will make clear. As a matter of course, theologians rightly distinguish between a sacrament and a sacrifice. Therefore, the genus that includes both of these could be either a “ceremony”

18

or a “sacred work.” A sacrament is a ceremony or work in which God presents to us what the promise joined to the ceremony offers. Thus baptism is not a 495, Jonas’s German translation has “from purgatory.”

496. For example, John Cochlaeus, On the Grace of the Sacraments (1522); Conrad Wimpina,

Recapitulation of Sects, Errors, Wanderings, and Schisms (1528); Henry VIII of England, Assertion of the Seven Sacraments (1520); John Fisher, Confutation of the Lutheran Assertion (1523).

497. Here Melanchthon uses two chief categories of Aristotelian logic: what a thing is and what are its types (genus and species). 498. Plato, Phaedrus 50:266. 499. Plato, Phaedrus 49:265. The Greek cited here literally means “poor butchers.”

Article XXIV: The Mass

261

work that we offer to God, but one in which God, through a minister who functions in his place, baptizes us, and offers and presents the forgiveness of sins, etc., according to the promise [Mark 16:16], “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved.” By contrast, a sacrifice is a ceremony or work that we render to God in order to give him honor. Now there are two, and no more than two, basic kinds of sacrifice. One is the atoning sacrifice, that is, a work of satisfaction for guilt and punishment

19

that reconciles God, conciliates the wrath of God, or merits the forgiveness of

sins for others. The other kind is the eucharistic sacrifice. It does not merit the forgiveness of sins or reconciliation but is rendered by those who have already been reconciled as a way for us to give thanks or express gratitude for having received forgiveness of sins and other benefits. In this controversy and in other disputes, we must never lose sight of those two kinds of sacrifices, and we should take special care not to confuse them. If this type of book allowed it, we would include the reasons for making this distinction, for it has more than enough testimonies in the Letter to the Hebrews and elsewhere.>% All the Levitical sacrifices can be classified under one or the other of these headings. For the law called certain sacrifices atoning sacrifices on account of what they signified or foreshadowed, not because they merited forgiveness of sins in God’s eyes but because they merited the forgiveness of sins according to the righteousness of the law, so that those for whom they were offered would not have to be excluded from the community. Thus, they were called atoning sacrifices for sin or burnt offerings for trespasses. But eucharistic sacrifices were the offering of wheat flour, the thank offering, the first fruits, and tithes.>! In point of fact there has been only one atoning sacrifice in the world, namely, the death of Christ, as the Letter to the Hebrews teaches when it says [10:4], “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” A little later [v. 10] it says about the will of Christ, “And it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” Isaiah, too, interprets the law to mean that the death of Christ—not the ceremonies of the law—is a real satisfaction or expiation for our sins. Thus he says [53:10], “When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days,” etc. Now the word he uses here (’asam)>% refers to a victim sacrificed for transgression. In the Old Testament this meant that a certain Victim was to come in order to make satisfaction for our sins and reconcile us to God, so that people might know that God wants to be reconciled to us not on account of our righteousness but on account of another’s merits, namely,

Christ’s. Paul interprets the same

500. Hebrews 10:5-16; Exodus 22:6; 2 Samuel 6:17. 501. Leviticus 1-7.

502. ’asam: sin offering.

word

(‘asam)

as sin in

20

21

22

23

262

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Romans

26

These are the sacrifices of the New Testament, as Peter teaches [1 Peter 2:5],

“a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices.” Spiritual sacrifices, however, are contrasted not only with animal sacrifices but also with human works offered ex opere operato, because “spiritual” refers to the work of the Holy Spirit with-

in us. Paul teaches the same thing in Romans 12[:1]: “[P]resent your bodies as

a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” “Spiritual worship” refers to worship where God is recognized and is grasped by the mind, as happens when it fears and trusts God. Therefore, it is contrasted not only to Levitical worship, in which animals were slain, but with any worship in which people imagine that they are offering God a work ex opere

503. Following the Vulgate. The alternate reading in the NRSV is: “As a sin offering, he condemned sin.” 504. Like others of his day, Melanchthon assumed pagan religions were distortions of preAbrahamic patriarchal practices. 505. Using Greek words found in 1 Corinthians 4:13. 506. See, for example, Leviticus 3; 7:11-18; Psalm 56:12.

507. See above, n. 492: By the mere performance of the rite.

i

25

502T

24

8[:3]: “through sin he condemned sin,”*® that is, he punished sin

through sin, that is, through a sacrificial victim for sin. We can understand the meaning of the word more easily if we look at the customs the pagans adopted from their misinterpretation of the patriarchal tradition.>® The Latins spoke of a sacrificial victim offered to conciliate the wrath of God in great calamities, when it seemed that God was unusually angry. Sometimes they offered human sacrifices, perhaps because they had heard that a human sacrifice was going to conciliate God for the entire human race. The Greeks at times called them “refuse” and at other times “offscouring.”*% Isaiah and Paul understand that Christ was made a sacrificial victim, that is, an expiation, and that by his merits and not ours, God would be reconciled. Therefore let this remain the case, that the death of Christ alone is truly an atoning sacrifice. The Levitical sacrifices of atonement were so called only in order to point to a future expiation. By some sort of analogy, therefore, they were satisfactions since they purchased a righteousness of the law and thereby prevented those persons who sinned from being excluded from the community. But they had to come to an end after the revelation of the gospel. Moreover, because they had to come to an end with the revelation of the gospel, they were not truly atoning sacrifices, since the gospel was promised for the very reason that it set forth the atoning sacrifice. Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices, which are called “sacrifices of praise,”5% namely, the preaching of the gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the afflictions of the saints, and indeed, all the good works of the saints. These sacrifices are not satisfactions for those who offer them, nor can they be applied to others so as to merit the forgiveness of sins or reconciliation for others ex opere operato.’” They are performed by those who are already reconciled.

Article XXIV: The Mass

263

operato. The Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 13[:15], teaches the same thing, “Through him, then, let us continually offer a sacrifice of praise to God,” and it adds an interpretation, “that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name.” He commands us to offer praises, that is, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, and the like. These avail not ex opere operato but on account of faith. This is stressed by the phrase, “through him let us offer,” that is, by faith in Christ. In summary, the worship of the New Testament is spiritual, that is, it is the righteousness of faith in the heart and the fruits of faith. Accordingly, it abro-

27

gates the Levitical worship. And Christ says in John 4[:23-24], “[T]rue wor-

shipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” This passage clearly condemns the notions about sacrifices that imagine they avail ex opere operato, and teaches that one should “worship in spirit,” that is, with the deepest activity of the heart and faith. Accordingly the Old Testament prophets condemn the popular notion of worship ex opere

28

operato and teach righteousness and sacrifices of the spirit. Jeremiah 7[:22, 23],

“For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God....” How may we suppose that the Israelites received this sermon, which seems to conflict openly with Moses? Clearly God had given the Fathers commands about burnt offerings and sacrificial victims. But Jeremiah condemns an opin-

ion about sacrifices that God had not delivered, namely, that these acts of ship pleased God ex opere operato. However, concerning faith he adds that had commanded: “Obey my voice,” that is, “believe that I am your God that I want to be recognized when I show mercy and help you, for I do not

worGod and need

your sacrifices. Believe that I want to be God, the one who justifies and saves,

not because of works but because of my Word and promise. Truly and from the heart seek and expect help from me.” Psalm 50[:13, 15] also condemns the opinion about ex opere operato, when it rejects sacrificial victims and requires prayer, “Do I eat the flesh of bulls? . .. Call on me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.” The psalmist testifies that it is true worship, that is, giving true glory, when we call upon God from the heart. Likewise Psalm 40{:6], “Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear.” That is to say, “You have offered your Word that I might hear it, and you require that I believe your Word and your promises that you desire to be merciful and to help,” etc. Likewise, Psalm 51[:16, 17], “For you have no delight in sacrifice. . . . The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” Likewise Psalm 4[:5], “Offer right sacrifices, and put your trust in the Lord.” He commands us to trust and says that this is a right sacrifice, thereby indicating that other sacrifices are not true and righteous sacrifices. Psalm 116[:17], “I will offer to you a thanksgiving sacrifice and call on the name of the Lord.” They call prayer a sacrifice of thanksgiving.

29

264 30

31

32

33

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

But Scripture is fullof such testimonies, which teach that sacrifices ex opere operato do not reconcile God. Accordingly, with the abrogation of Levitical worship, the New Testament teaches that new and pure sacrifices will be made, namely, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the preaching of the gospel, suffering on account of the gospel, and similar things. Malachi [1:11] speaks about such sacrifices, “For from the rising of the sun

to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is

offered to my name, and a pure offering.” Our opponents distort this passage by applying it to the Mass, and they cite the authority of the Fathers.*®® It is easy to reply, because even if this were a reference to the Mass, it would not follow that the Mass justifies ex opere operato or, when applied to others, that it merits the forgiveness of sins, etc. The prophet says nothing about these shameless fabrications of the monks and sophists. Besides, the prophet’s own words give us their meaning. They say, first, that the name of the Lord will be great. This takes place through the preaching of the gospel, which makes known the name of Christ and the Father’s mercy promised in Christ. The proclamation of the gospel produces faith in those who receive the gospel. They call upon God, they give thanks to God, they bear afflictions for their confession, they do good works on account of the glory of Christ. In this way the name of the Lord becomes great among the nations. Therefore “incense” and “a pure offering” do not refer to a ceremony ex opere operato but to all those sacrifices through which the name of the Lord is made great, namely, faith, prayer, the preaching of the gospel, confession, etc. We readily concede that all who want to include the ceremony [of the Mass] here may do so as long as they do not interpret it as a mere ceremony or do not mean that by itself (ex opere operato) the ceremony is beneficial. For just as among the sacrifices of praise, that is, among the praises of God, we include the proclamation of the Word, so the reception of the Lord’s Supper itself can be a praise or thanksgiving. However, it does not justify ex opere operato, nor should it be applied to others as if it merited the forgiveness of sins. In a little while we shall show how even this ceremony is sacrifice. But because Malachi is talking about all the acts of worship of the New Testament—not only about the Lord’s Supper—and because he does not favor the Pharisaical opinion about ex opere operato, he is not against our position. More than that,

34

he supports it. For he requires the worship of the heart, by which the name of the Lord truly becomes great. They cite another passage from Malachi [3:3], “[A]nd he will purify the descendants of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, until they present offerings to the Lord in righteousness.” This passage clearly requires the sacri508. The Confutation (pt. I, art. ITI): “For the Lord predicted through Malachi the casting off of the Jews, the call of the Gentiles, and the sacrifice of the Evangelical law. . . . In this text ‘a pure

offering’ now offered to God is nothing other than the purest Eucharists in the Sacrifice of the Altar” The Confutation refers to Augustine.

Article XXIV: The Mass

265

fices of the righteous; therefore it does not support the opinion concerning ex opere operato. For the sacrifices of the sons of Levi (that is, those in the New

Testament who teach) are the preaching of the gospel and the good fruits of

such a preaching, as Paul speaks in Romans 15[:16] of “the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit,” that is, that the Gentiles might become offerings acceptable to God through faith, etc. For the slaughter of animals in the Old Testament signified both the death of Christ and the preaching of the gospel, by which this old flesh should be killed, and the new and eternal life be begun in us.

But at every turn our opponents twist the word “sacrifice” until it only includes the mere ceremony. They omit the proclamation of the gospel, faith, prayer, and the like, even though the ceremony has been established on account

of these. The New Testament requires that sacrifices of the heart, not the ceremonial sacrifices for sin, must be offered according to the practice of the Levitical priesthood. They also refer to the “daily sacrifice.”>% Just as in the Old Testament there was a daily sacrifice, so also the Mass ought to be the daily sacrifice of the New Testament. It will go well for opponents if we allow ourselves to be conquered by allegories. It is evident that allegories do not prove or establish anything. We are perfectly willing for the Mass to be understood as a daily sacrifice, provided that this includes the entire Mass, that is, the ceremony together with the proclamation of the gospel, faith, prayer, and thanksgiving. For these things are joined together as a daily sacrifice in the New Testament; the ceremony was instituted for the sake of these things, and must not be separated from them. Accordingly, Paul says [1 Cor. 11:26], “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” But it in no way follows from this Levitical analogy that a ceremony necessarily justifies ex opere

35

operato or that it should be applied to others so as to merit the forgiveness of

sins for them, etc. But this type aptly symbolizes not only the ceremony but also the proclamation of the gospel. Numbers 28[:4-5] lists three parts of this daily sacrifice: the burning of the lamb, the drink offering, and the offering of wheat flour.

36

The Old Testament contained pictures or shadows of future things. Thus, this

scene depicts Christ and the entire worship of the New Testament. The burning of the lamb signifies the death of Christ. The drink offering signifies the sprinkling (that is, the sanctifying) of believers throughout the world with the blood of that lamb through the proclamation of the gospel, just as Peter says [1 Peter 1:2], “ .. sanctified by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood.” The offering of flour similarly points to faith,

prayer, and giving thanks from the heart. Therefore, as we perceive the “shad-

509. See Exodus 29;38-39; Daniel 8:11-12; 12:11.

37

266

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

ow” in the Old Testament [cf. Col. 2:17], so also in the New we must seek the

38

39

40

41

42

43

thing signified and not another figure that seems to be a sacrifice. Therefore, although the ceremony is a memorial of Christ’s death, nevertheless in itself it is not a daily sacrifice. Instead, the commemoration is the real daily sacrifice, that is, proclamation and faith that truly believes God is reconciled by the death of Christ. A drink offering is required, namely, the effect of the proclamation, that through the gospel we are sanctified by the blood of Christ having been put to death and made alive. Offerings are also required, that is, thanksgiving, confession, and affliction. Now that we have overthrown the Pharisaical opinion about the opus operatum, let us understand that spiritual worship and the daily sacrifice of the heart are signified here, because in the New Testament we must consider “the body” of good things [cf. Col. 2:17], that is, the Holy Spirit, being put to death, and being made alive. From these things it is quite clear that the type of a daily sacrifice does not refute us, instead it supports us because we require all the actions signified by the daily sacrifice. Our opponents falsely imagine that the ceremony alone is signified and not the proclamation of the gospel, putting the heart to death, bringing it to life, etc. Now, therefore, good people can easily determine the complete falsity of the charge that we abolish the daily sacrifice. Experience shows the kind of tyrants who rule the church. Under the pretext of religion they take up a worldly way of ruling, and, having cast aside any concern for religion and the teaching of the gospel, they dominate, wage war like kings of the world, and institute new acts of worship in the church. For in the Mass, our opponents retain only the ceremony and publicly use it for sacrilegious gain. Then they pretend that this work can be applied to someone else in order to merit for them grace and all good things. In their sermons they do not teach the gospel, console consciences, or show that sins are forgiven freely on account of Christ. Instead, they promote the worship of saints, human satisfactions, and human traditions, claiming that through them people are justified before God. Despite the obvious godlessness of some of these traditions, they still defend them with force. If preachers want to be regarded as more learned, they take up philosophical questions, which neither they nor the people understand. Finally, the better ones teach the law and say nothing about the righteousness of faith. In the Confutation the opponents make quite a scene about the “desolation of the temples,” namely, that altars stand unadorned, without candles or statues.’’0 They call these trifles the adornment of the churches. Daniel [11:31;

12:11] describes a vastly different desolation, namely, ignorance of the gospel.

510. The Confutation (pt. II, art. I1I): “The daily sacrifice will cease universally at the advent of ‘the abomination,’ that is of the Antichrist, just as it has already ceased in particular among some churches. In this way ‘it will sit in the place of desolation, namely, when the churches are desolate, in which the canonical hours will not be sung, Masses not celebrated, sacraments not dispensed,

and there will be no altars, no images of saints, no candles, no ornamentation.”

Article XXIV: The Mass

267

The people were swamped by the many different traditions and opinions and

were in no way able to grasp the sum of Christian teaching. For who among the people ever understood the teaching about repentance®!! as the opponents

46

explain it? Yet this is the chief topic of Christian teaching!

Consciences were tormented by enumeration of sins and satisfactions. The opponents never mentioned faith, by which we freely receive the forgiveness of sins. All their books and sermons were silent about the exercise of faith in its struggle with despair or about the free forgiveness of sins on account of Christ. In addition, they horribly profaned the Mass and introduced many other godless acts of worship into the churches. This is the desolation that Daniel describes. By contrast, due to God’s blessing, our priests attend to the ministry of the Word. They teach the gospel about the blessings of Christ, and they show that the forgiveness of sins takes place on account of Christ. This teaching offers solid consolation to consciences. In addition they teach about the good works that God commands, and they speak about the value and use of the

47

48

sacraments.

Now if the use of the sacrament were the daily sacrifice, we could lay more claim to observing it than our opponents, because among them the priests use the sacrament to make money. Among us it is used more frequently and more devoutly. For the people use it, but only after they have been instructed and examined. They are taught about the proper use of the sacrament, that it was instituted as a seal and testimony of the gracious forgiveness of sins and therefore as an encouragement to sensitive consciences in order that they may be completely convinced and believe that their sins are freely forgiven. Since, therefore, we retain the proclamation of the gospel and the proper use of the sacraments, a daily sacrifice remains among us. Moreover, if we must speak about outward appearances, attendance in our . churches is greater than among the opponents’. Practical and clear sermons hold an audience. But neither the people nor the theologians have ever understood the opponents’ teaching. The true adornment of the churches is godly,

49

50

51

useful, and clear doctrine, the devout use of the sacraments, ardent prayer, and

the like. Candles, golden vessels, and similar adornments are appropriate, but they are not the distinctive adornment of the church. Now if the opponents

make such things the center of worship rather than the proclamation of the gospel, faith, and its struggles, they should be numbered among those whom Daniel describes as worshiping their god with gold and silver [Dan. 11:38]. They also quote the Epistle to the Hebrews [5:1], “Every high priest chosen from among mortals is put in charge of things pertaining to God on their behalf, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.” From this they conclude that because in the New Testament there are high priests and priests, there must also be some sort of sacrifice for sins. This passage especially makes an impression 511. Poenitentia may be also translated “penitence” or “penance.”

52

268

53

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

upon the unlearned, particularly when the pomp of the priesthood and the sacrifices of the Old Testament are spread out before their eyes. This resemblance deceives the inexperienced, so that they think that, just as in the Old Testament, we ought to have some ceremony or sacrifice for sins, applicable to the sins of others. The services of the Mass and the rest of the papal order are nothing else than false zeal arising from a misinterpretation of the Levitical order. Although our position finds its primary support in the Epistle to the Hebrews, our opponents twist and use against us mutilated passages from this very epistle, as in this passage, where it is said that every high priest is appointed to offer sacrifices for sins. Scripture itself immediately adds that Christ is the high priest [Heb. 5:5, 6, 10]. The preceding words talk about the Levitical priesthood and indicate that it was an image of Christ’s priesthood. Levitical sacrifices for sin did not merit the forgiveness of sins before God; as we have

54

55

56

57

58

59

already said, they were only an image of the sacrifice of Christ, which was to be the one atoning sacrifice. Thus, the epistle is devoted to a large extent to the theme that the ancient priesthood and the ancient sacrifices were instituted not for the purpose of meriting forgiveness of sins before God or for reconciliation, but only to point to the future sacrifice of the one Christ. For in the Old

Testament as in the New, saints had to be justified by faith on the basis of the promise of the forgiveness of sins given on account of Christ. Since the beginning of the world, all the saints have had to believe that Christ would be the promised offering and satisfaction for sins, just as Isaiah teaches [53:10], “When you make his life an offering for sin .. .” Therefore, the Old Testament sacrifices did not merit reconciliation—

unless by a certain analogy (for they did merit civil reconciliation)—but only pointed to the coming sacrifice. It follows that only the sacrifice of Christ can be applied to the sins of others. No other such sacrifice applicable to the sins of others remains in the New Testament outside the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross. These people who imagine that Levitical sacrifices merited the forgiveness of sins before God and who from this example require in the New Testament sacrifices applicable to others besides the death of Christ are completely wrong. This notion completely negates the merit of Christ’s suffering and the righteousness of faith. It corrupts the teaching of the Old and New Testaments and replaces Christ as our mediator and propitiator with priests and sacrificers who daily sell their services in the churches. Therefore, if anyone argues that the New Testament must have a priest who makes offerings for sins, this must be applied only to Christ. The entire Epistle to the Hebrews supports this interpretation. If we required some other satisfaction for application to the sins of others and reconciliation with God, we would simply be setting up another mediator besides Christ. Again, because the priesthood of the New Testament is a ministry of the Spirit, as Paul teach-

es in 2 Corinthians 3[:6], it has but the one sacrifice of Christ which makes sat-

isfaction for and is applied to the sins of others. It has no sacrifices like the

Article XXIV: The Mass

269

Levitical, which could be applied ex opere operato>'? to others; instead, it presents the gospel and sacraments to others so that they may thereby receive faith and the Holy Spirit, be put to death and be made alive. For the ministry of the Spirit conflicts with the application of an opus operatum. Through the ministry of the Spirit, the Holy Spirit works in our hearts. Therefore his ministry benefits others when he works in them and gives them new birth and life. This does not happen by applying, ex opere operato, one person’s work to another. We have shown why the Mass does not justify ex opere operato and why, when applied on behalf of others, it does not merit forgiveness for them: both conflict with the righteousness of faith. For the forgiveness of sins cannot take place and the terrors of sin and death cannot be conquered by any work or anything else except by faith in Christ, as it says [Rom. 5:1]: “[S]ince we are justified by faith, we have peace.” We have also shown that the Scripture passages cited against us do not support the impious notion of our opponents concerning the opus operatum. Good people in every country can judge this. We therefore must reject the error of Thomas when he wrote: “The body of the Lord, once offered on the cross for original debt, is daily offered on the altar for daily offenses so that in this [offering] the church might have a service that reconciles God to itself”>!? We must also reject other common errors: that the Mass confers grace ex opere operato upon the one who uses it; that it merits the remission of sins, guilt, and punishment when applied to others, even wicked people, as long as they do not put an obstacle in its way. These are all false and godless and were recently invented by unlearned monks; they destroy the glory of Christ’s suffering and the righteousness of faith. | These errors have given birth to countless others. For example, Masses have validity when applied to many persons just as much as when applied to an individual.>'* The scholastics have specific scales of merit, just as the money changers have scales for weighing gold or silver. Then, too, they peddle the Mass as the price for obtaining what each one seeks: to merchants that business may be successful, to hunters that hunting may be successful; and countless other things like that.5!® Finally, they transfer it also to the dead and apply the sacrament to the liberation of souls from the pains of purgatory, even though without faith the Mass does not even benefit the living. Neither can our oppo-

nents produce a single syllable from the Scriptures in defense of these fables, which they teach with such great authority in the church; nor do they have the support of the ancient church and the Fathers.

512. 513, 514. for their 515.

By the mere performance of the rite. See above, n. 492. Thomas Aquinas, Opuscula 58: The Venerable Sacrament of the Altar, c. 1. A reference to confraternities, where people joined together to purchase Masses to be said souls after death. So-called votive Masses for special intentions.

60

61 62

63

64

65

270

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

The Patristic Position Regarding Sacrifice 66

67

Now that we have explained those Scripture passages that are cited against us, we must discuss the Fathers. We are not ignorant of the fact that the Fathers called the Mass a sacrifice, but they do not mean that the Mass confers grace ex opere operato or that it merits the remission of sins, guilt, and punishment for those to whom it is applied. Where do the Fathers ever say anything so monstrous? They clearly state that they are talking about thanksgiving; accordingly, they call it a Eucharist.>!6 But we said earlier that a eucharistic sacrifice does not merit reconciliation; instead it comes from those already reconciled, just as afflictions do not merit reconciliation but are eucharistic sacrifices when the reconciled endure them. This suffices as a general defense against our opponents regarding the statements of the Fathers. For certainly these fictions about the merit ex opere operato are not to be found anywhere in the Fathers. However, to make the whole matter as clear as possible, we will discuss the use of the sacrament in a way that without a doubt agrees with the Fathers and with Scripture.

Sacrifice and the Use of the Sacrament 68

69

70

Some charming people’!” imagine that the Lord’s Supper was instituted for two reasons. First, it was to be a mark and testimony of profession, just as a certain type of hood is the mark of a particular monastic profession. Second, they suppose that such a mark (namely, a meal) especially pleased Christ because it symbolized the mutual union and friendship among Christians, since banquets are signs of agreement and friendship. But this is a secular idea; it ignores the chief use of the things as handed down from God. It talks only about exercising love, which even profane and secular people understand; it does not speak about faith, the nature of which very few understand. Sacraments are signs of God’s will toward us, not simply signs of the people’s will among themselves, and so it is right to define the New Testament sacraments as signs of grace.>!® A sacrament consists of two parts, the sign and the Word. In the New Testament the Word is the added promise of grace. The promise of the New Testament is the promise of the forgiveness of sins, just as this text says [cf. Luke 22:19 and Matt. 26:28], “This is my body, which is given for you. . .. [T]his is the cup of the New Testament in my blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” The Word, therefore, offers forgiveness of sins. The ceremony is like a picture of the Word or a “seal,” as Paul calls it [Rom. 4:11], that shows forth the promise. Therefore, just as the

516. Here and throughout, Melanchthon uses the Greek term. 517. Melanchthon summarizes the position of Ulrich Zwingli and his followers. See CA XIII, 1.

518. Cf. CA V and XIII. This position is similar to Thomas Aquinas, STh IIL, q. 62, a. 1, ad 1.

Article XXIV: The Mass

271

promise is useless unless it is received by faith, so also the ceremony is useless unless faith, which really confirms that the forgiveness of sins is being offered here, is added. Such a faith encourages contrite minds. Just as the Word was

given to awaken this faith, so also the sacrament was instituted in order that, as

the outward form meets the eyes, it might move the heart to believe. For the Holy Spirit works through the Word and the sacrament. Such use of the sacrament, in which faith gives life to terrified hearts, is the New Testament worship, because the New Testament involves spiritual impulses: being put to death and being made alive. Christ instituted the sacrament for

71

this use when he commanded [1 Cor. 11:24], “Do this in remembrance of me.”

For to remember Christ is not an empty celebration or a show nor something instituted for the sake of an example, the way plays celebrate the memory of Hercules or Ulysses. It is rather to remember Christ’s benefits and to receive them by faith so that we are made alive through them. Accordingly the psalm [111:4, 5] says, “He has gained renown by his wonderful deeds; the Lord is gracious and merciful. He provides food for those who fear him.” This means that in the ceremony we should acknowledge the will and mercy of God. Now faith that recognizes mercy makes alive. This is the principal use of the sacrament, through which it becomes clear both that terrified consciences are the ones worthy of it and how they ought to use it. There is also a sacrifice, since one action can have several purposes. Once a conscience has been uplifted by faith and realizes its freedom from terror, then it fervently gives thanks for the benefits of Christ and for his suffering. It uses the ceremony itself as praise to God, as a way of demonstrating its gratitude, and as a witness of its high esteem for the gifts of God. In this way the ceremony becomes a sacrifice of praise. The Fathers also speak about a twofold effect, about consolation for the conscience and thanksgiving or praise. The first of these effects pertains to the

72

73

74

75

nature of the sacrament; the second pertains to the sacrifice. Concerning con-

solation Ambrose says, “Go to him and be absolved, because he is the forgive-

ness of sins. Do you ask who he is? Listen to him when he says [John 6:35], ‘1

am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty’ ”>!° Here he testifies that the forgiveness of sins is offered in the sacrament and ought to be received by faith. Countless statements in this vein are found in the Fathers. Our opponents twist them all

to support their idea that the sacraments work ex opere operato and can be transferred to others—even though the Fathers clearly require faith and speak about the appropriation of the comfort and not about any transfer. There are also statements about thanksgiving, like that very beautiful statement of Cyprian concerning those who receive the sacrament in godly fashion: He says, “In returning thanks to the Giver for such an abundant blessing, piety

519. Ambrose, Exposition of Psalm 118, c. 18, 28 (MPL 15:1462).

76

272

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

divides its thanks between what has been given and what has been forgiven.”>20

77

That is, piety focuses on what has been given and what has been forgiven; it compares the greatness of God’s blessings with the greatness of our ills, our sin and our death, and it gives thanks. From this the term “Eucharist” arose in the church. Nor is the ceremony itself a giving of thanks ex opere operato that can be applied for the benefit of others in order to merit the forgiveness of sins for them, etc., or in order to free the souls of the dead. The theory that a ceremo-

ny could somehow benefit either the worshiper or anyone else without faith conflicts with the righteousness of faith. The Term “Mass”>?1 78

79

80

81

Our opponents also refer us derive their arguments, which follow from the fact that the opere operato>? or that when

to philology.®?> do not deserve Mass is called a it is transferred

From names for the Mass they a lengthy discussion. It does not sacrifice that it confers grace ex to others it merits for them the

forgiveness of sins, etc. The word “liturgy” [leitourgia] in Greek means sac-

rifice, they say, and the Greek church calls the Mass the liturgy.>* Why do they omit here the old term “Communion,”?* which shows that the Mass was formerly the Communion of many? But let us speak about the term “liturgy.” This word does not properly mean a sacrifice but rather public service.>2¢ Thus, it agrees quite well with our position, namely, that the one minister who consecrates gives the body and blood of the Lord to the rest of the people, just as a minister who preaches sets forth the gospel to the people, as Paul says [1 Cor. 4:1], “Think of us in this way, as servants of Christ and stewards of God’s mysteries,” that is, of the gospel and the sacraments. And 2 Corinthians 5:20, “So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. ...” Thus the term “litur-

gy” fits well with the ministry. It is an old word, ordinarily used in public civil law. To the Greeks it meant “public responsibilities,” like taxes collected for the equipping of a fleet or similar things. As Demosthenes’ oration Leptines shows, it is completely taken up with public responsibilities and exemptions: “He will say that some unworthy people have found an exemption to avoid public 520. Pseudo-Cyprian (actually Arnold, abbot of Bonneval), The Cardinal Works of Christ 6

(MPL 189:1647).

521. This section varies widely from Jonas’s German translation.

522. The Confutation (pt. I, art. III): “The force of the word ‘Mass’ shows it is a sacrifice, for

it is nothing but an oblation and altar, from the Hebrew mizbeach. ... 523. By the mere performance of the rite. See above, n. 492. 524. The Confutation (pt. II, art. III): “What we read in the new translation [by Erasmus] of Acts 13[:1-2] also applies here. ‘Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Saul sacrificed;

that is, they offered an oblation . . . of the Mass. For the Greeks call it liturgy.” Throughout this section of the Apology, Melanchthon uses the Greek word for liturgy, leitourgia. 525. Greek: synaxis. 526. Already in Homer and also Aristotle’s Politics V, 11. Melanchthon lectured on both.

Article XXIV: The Mass

273

duties [leitourgia].”>?” They also used it this way during Roman times, as the rescript of Pertinax, concerning the law of immunity, shows. “Even though the number of children does not excuse parents from all public duties [leitourgia) .. 5% A commentary on Demosthenes states that “liturgy” is a kind of tax to pay for the expense of the games, the equipping of naval vessels, the care of the school, and similar public responsibilities.”? Paul uses the same word for the collection in 2 Corinthians 9[:12]. Taking of the collection not only supplied what the saints needed but also led them to give thanks to God more abundantly, etc. And in Philippians 2[:25], he calls Epaphroditus a leitourgos, a “minister to my need,” where Paul certainly does not mean a sacrificer. But there is no need for more testimonies. Anyone who

reads the Greek authors can find examples everywhere of how leitourgia meant public duties or services. Moreover, because of the diphthong, philologists do not derive it from the lite, which means prayers, but from leita,>*® which means public goods; thus the verb leitourgeo means, “I attend to or I administer public goods.” It is a ridiculous argument to say that since the Sacred Scriptures mention an altar, therefore the Mass must be a sacrifice, especially when Paul refers to the figure of an altar only by way of an illustration.>*! They also imagine that “Mass” is derived from mizbeach, the Hebrew word for altar. Why do they need such a far-fetched etymology unless perhaps it is to show off their knowledge of the Hebrew language? Why must they go so far afield for the etymology

82

83

84 35

when the term “Mass” is found in Deuteronomy 16[:10], where it refers to the

collections or gifts of the people rather than the offering of the priest? People coming to the celebration of the Passover were required to bring some gift as a contribution. In the beginning Christians also retained this practice. The apostolic canons show that when they gathered they brought bread, wine, and other things.>?2 A portion of this was then taken to be consecrated; the rest was distributed to the poor. With this practice they also kept the term “Mass” as the name for the contributions. Because of such contributions it appears that the Mass was also called in other places agape, unless someone prefers to think that it was called this on account of the common meal. But let us forget about these trifles. It is ridiculous for our opponents to raise such silly conjectures about such a matter. For even if the Mass is called an offering, what does that term have to do with these dreams about ex opere operato and the transfer that supposedly merits the forgiveness of sins for others? It can be called an offering for the same reason it is called a Eucharist: here are offered prayers, thanksgiving, 527. 528. office, in 529. 530. 531. 532.

Demosthenes, Leptines 1:457, 7. Melanchthon first lectured on Demosthenes in 1524. Emperor Pertinax, regarding the father of a large family whom he had removed from the Digest of Laws 6, 6, par. 2. Ulpian, Commentary on Demosthenes’ Oration to Leptines 494, 26. The word is actually derived from leitos, “concerning the people or nation.” Here Melanchthon argues against the Confutation’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9:13. Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 47.

86

37

274

88

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

and the entire act of worship. But neither ceremonies nor prayers provide benefits ex opere operato without faith. Nevertheless, we are not arguing here about prayers, but specifically about the Lord’s Supper. The Greek canon also says a lot about an offering; but it clearly shows that it is not talking about the body and blood of the Lord in particular, but about the entire service, about the prayers and thanksgivings. This is what it says: “And make us worthy to come to offer you entreaties and supplications and bloodless sacrifices for all the people.”?3? Properly understood, this is not offensive. It prays that we might be made worthy to offer prayers and supplications and bloodless sacrifices for the people. It calls even prayers “bloodless sacrifices” It also says this a little later: “We offer you this reasonable and bloodless service”>% It is a misinterpretation to translate this as a “reasonable victim” and to apply it to the body of Christ itself. For the canon is talking about the entire service; and by “reasonable service” [Rom. 12:1] Paul meant the service

of the mind, fear, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, and the like, in opposition to a

theory of ex opere operato.

The Mass for the Dead 89

Our opponents in fact defend the application of the ceremony for freeing the souls of the dead from which they receive unlimited revenue. Yet they have no testimonies and no command from Scripture for this. It is no small sin to establish such acts of worship in the church without the command of God and without the example of Scripture, and to transfer the Lord’s Supper, instituted for commemoration and preaching among the living, to the dead. This abuses the name of God contrary to the Second Commandment. For one thing, it shows contempt for the gospel to hold that a ceremony without faith is a sacrifice that reconciles God and makes satisfaction for sins ex opere operato. It is a horrible teaching to attribute as much to the work of the

priest as to the death of Christ. For another thing, faith in Christ alone can conquer sin and death, as Paul teaches [Rom. 5:1], “[H]aving been justified by

o 99

%

)

faith we have peace.” Therefore, it is not possible to overcome the punishments of purgatory by the application of someone else’s work. For now we will omit the kind of proofs that our opponents have for purgatory, the sort of punishments they think exist in purgatory, and the types of reasons they adduce in support of the doctrine of satisfactions, which we have shown earlier are empty.>3> We counter with only this. Surely the Lord’s Supper was instituted on account of the forgiveness of guilt. For it offers the forgiveness of sins, which really makes it necessary to understand guilt. However, it 533, Prayer at the beginning of the missa fidelium in the liturgy of Chrysostom. 534. The invocation from the same liturgy; both are cited in Greek, but only this passage is translated into Latin.

535. Ap XII, 113-21.

Article XXIV: The Mass

275

does not make satisfaction for guilt, otherwise the Mass would add something to the death of Christ. The forgiveness of guilt can be received in no other way than by faith. Therefore the Mass is not a satisfaction but a promise and sacrament that requires faith. Indeed, the bitterest sorrow must seize all upright persons if they consider the fact that the Mass has largely been transferred to the dead and to satisfactions for punishments. This banishes the daily sacrifice from the church. This is the rule of the tyrant>3¢ who transferred the blessed promises of the remission of guilt and faith to the most useless ideas concerning satisfactions. This contaminates the gospel and corrupts the use of the sacraments. These are the ones whom Paul called [1 Cor. 11:27] “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” They have suppressed the teaching concerning faith and, under the pretext of satisfactions, have debased the remission of guilt and the body and blood of the Lord for sacrilegious profit. Someday they will pay the penalty for this sacrilege. Therefore, we and all godly consciences should be on guard against approving the abuses of the opponents. But let us return to the issue at hand. Since the Mass is not a satisfaction for either punishment or for guilt ex opere operato>’ and apart from faith, it follows that its transfer to the dead is useless. There is no need for lengthy discussion here. Clearly this transference to the dead does not have a single testimony from Scripture. It is not safe to institute an act of worship in the church without the authority of Scripture. If the need ever arises, we shall discuss this whole issue at greater length. Why should we argue with the opponents now

91

92

when they understand neither the nature of a sacrifice, nor a sacrament, nor

forgiveness of sins, nor faith? Nor does the Greek canon apply the offering as a satisfaction in behalf of the dead, because it applies it equally to all the blessed patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. Therefore, it appears that the Greeks offer it only as a thanksgiving and do not apply it as a satisfaction for punishments. Moreover, they speak not only about the offering of the body and blood of the Lord but about the other

93

parts of the Mass, namely, prayers and thanksgiving. For after the consecration

they pray that it may benefit those who partake of it, with no mention of others. Then they add, “Yet we offer you this reasonable service for those who have departed in faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, etc.”>% “Reasonable service,” however, does not mean the offering itself but the prayers and everything which is there carried out. The opponents cite the Fathers concerning the offering on behalf of the dead. We know that the ancients spoke of prayer for the dead. We do not pro536. Literally: “of Antiochus [IV Epiphanes],” the Syrian tyrant over Israel in the intertestamental period referred to in Daniel 11:21-45 as a precursor to the Antichrist, according to the reformers. See Luther’s 1530 preface to Daniel (WADB 11/2: 2-131; LW 35:294-316). See also Ap XXIV, 41. : 537. By the mere performance of the rite. See above, n. 492. 538. The intercession in the liturgy of Chrysostom, cited in Greek.

94

276

95

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

hibit this, but we do reject the transfer, ex opere operato, of the Lord’s Supper to the dead. The ancients do not support our opponents’ idea of the transfer ex opere operato. And even though they have the support, especially of Gregory and of some of the more recent theologians, we set against them the clearest and surest passages of Scripture. There is also a great variety among the Fathers. They were human beings who could err and be deceived. However, if they were to come back to life now and were to see how their sayings are being used as pretexts to support the most notorious falsehoods that the opponents

96

97

e

5 98

teach about ex opere operato, they would express themselves far differently. The opponents also falsely cite against us the condemnation of Aerius, who they say was condemned because he denied that an offering was made in the Mass for the living and the dead.>*® They frequently use this dodge. They cite ancient heresies and falsely compare them with our position in order to crush us by the comparison. Epiphanius testifies that Aerius believed that prayers for the dead were useless.>*° This he rejects. We do not support Aerius either. But we are contending with you for wickedly defending a heresy that clearly conflicts with the prophets, apostles, and holy Fathers, namely, that the Mass justifies ex opere operato and that it merits the remission of guilt and punishments even for the wicked to whom it is transferred, if they place no obstacle in the way. We reject these pernicious errors, which violate the glory of Christ’s suffering and completely overthrow the teaching concerning the righteousness of faith. Among the godless in the Old Testament there was a similar opinion, that they merited the forgiveness of sins through sacrifices ex opere operato and did not receive it freely through faith. Thus they increased those acts of worship and sacrifices, introduced the worship of Baal in Israel, and in Judah even sacrificed in the groves. Therefore when the prophets condemned those notions, they waged war not only against the worshipers of Baal but also against other priests who performed the sacrifices instituted by God with this wicked notion in mind. But this notion, that acts of worship and sacrifices make atonement, clings to the world now and always will. Carnal human beings cannot stand that this honor is ascribed only to the sacrifice of Christ or that he is the atoning sacrifice, because they do not understand the righteousness of faith. Instead, they ascribe equal honor to other services and sacrifices. Therefore, just as a false opinion concerning sacrifices clung to the godless priests in Judah and just as in Israel services of Baal continued—even though the church of God was there, which condemned the godless services—so Baal worship clings to the realm of the pope, namely, the abuse of the Mass, which they direct in such a way that by it they might merit the remission of guilt and punishment 539. The Confutation (pt. II, art. III): “Augustine says this was an ancient heresy that denied that in the Mass there was an offering for the living and the dead.” Aerius especially attacked intercessions for the dead. 540. Epiphanius, Panarion haereses 75:2, 3, 7.

Article XXVII: Monastic Vows

277

for the unrighteous. It appears that this Baal worship will endure together with the reign of the pope until Christ comes for judgment and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of the Antichrist. Meanwhile, everyone who truly believes the gospel should reject this ungodly worship, which was invented contrary to the command of God in order to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith. We have spoken briefly about the Mass so that all good people in every part of the world can understand that we maintain the dignity of the Mass with the greatest of zeal, that we show its proper use, and that we have valid reasons for disagreeing with the opponents. Moreover, we want to warn all good people not to help the opponents in defending the profanation of the Mass, lest they

burden themselves with other people’s sin. This is an important issue and an important matter, no less important than the work of the prophet Elijah, who condemned the worship of Baal. We have presented such an important issue with the greatest moderation and have now replied without casting any reproach. But if the opponents compel us to compile the entire range of abuses of the Mass, we shall not handle the case so gently.

[XXVII:] Monastic Vows In the Thuringian town of Eisenach thirty years ago, there was, to our knowledge, a Franciscan monk named John Hilten,**! who was cast into prison by his order because he had condemned some very notorious abuses. We have seen his writings, in which the gist of his teaching can be well understood. Those

who knew him testify that he was a mild old man, serious, to be sure, but not

morose. He predicted many things, some of which have already come to pass, and others of which still seem to lie ahead. We do not want to recount them here, lest we give the impression that we are doing so out of hatred or favor toward anyone. But finally, when he became ill, due either to age or to the filth of prison, he sent for the guardian in order to inform him of his illness. The guardian, who was inflamed with Pharisaic hatred, began to denounce the man

harshly for his false teaching that seemed to have gotten in the way of [the cloister’s] cuisine. Then, without mentioning his illness, Hilten said with a sigh that he was bearing these injuries patiently for Christ’s sake, since he had

indeed neither written nor taught anything that could undermine the monastic way of life, but had only protested against some well-known abuses. “But another one,” he said, “will come in the year of our Lord 1516. He will destroy 541. Luther wrote in the margin of his copy of the quarto edition: “I think that this man was still alive or had only recently died when I was beginning my education at Eisenach. For I remember that my host, Henry Schalden, mentioned him compassionately, as though he were still in prison. I was about fourteen or fifteen years old at the time. The same Henry Schalden was likewise very familiar with the Minorites, and together with his entire family was almost taken as their captive and slave” Luther Franciscans in 1500.

came

to Eisenach

in

1497

or 1498;

Hilten

died

a captive

of the

99

278

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

you, and you will unable to resist him.” Later, his friends found this same statement about the decline of the monastic regime and this same date written down by him in the commentaries he left on certain passages in Daniel.”*? History will show how much credence should be given to this declaration. There are, however, other signs, no less sure than oracles, that portend a change in the power of the monks. Everyone knows how much hypocrisy, ambition, and greed there are in the monasteries; how ignorant and cruel these illiterates are; how vain they are in their sermons and in constantly devising new ways of making money. There are other vices that we would prefer not to mention. While monasteries were once schools for Christian instruction, they have now degenerated—as though from a golden to an iron age, or as the Platonic cube®® degenerates into bad harmonies that, as Plato says, bring destruction. Some of the very wealthy monasteries just feed a lazy crowd, which gorges itself upon the public alms of the church under the false pretext of religion. But Christ admonishes

[Matt. 5:13] that salt which has lost its flavor should be

“thrown out and trampled under foot.” When they act this way, therefore, the monks are singing their own requiem. An additional sign is that in many places they are responsible for murdering upstanding people. Without doubt, God will soon avenge these murders. To be sure, we are not blaming all the monks. We think that here and there good men can be found in the monasteries who have a moderate opinion of these human acts of devotion and who do not approve of the cruelty that the hypocrites among them display. We are discussing the kind of teaching that the architects of the Confutation are now defending, not the question of whether vows should be kept. We hold that legitimate vows should be kept, but we are arguing about other things: whether such acts of devotion merit the forgiveness of sins and justification; whether they are satisfactions for sin; whether they are equal to baptism; whether they are the observances of commandments and counsels; whether they are evangelical perfection; whether they have the merits of supererogation; whether these merits save others when transferred to them;

whether vows made on the basis of these notions are legitimate; whether vows that are undertaken under the pretext of religion merely for the sake of the belly and out of laziness are legitimate; whether they are true vows when they have been extorted either from the unwilling or from those who due to age were not able to have a say about their the type of life, whom parents or friends pushed into the monasteries so that they might be taken care of at the public expense without the loss of private patrimony; whether vows are legitimate if they openly tend toward an evil end, either because weakness prevents their observance, or because those who are in these orders are compelled to approve and support the abuses of the Mass, the godless worship of saints, and savage 542. Melanchthon himself had read and excerpted portions of Hilten’s work. 543, Possibly a reference to a work attributed to Plato but written by the Pythagorean, Timaeus of Lokroi.

Article XXVII: Monastic Vows

279

conspiracies against good people. Although in the Confession we said much about such vows, which even the papal canons condemn, nevertheless the

10

opponents urge the rejection of everything we proposed. These are the very

words they used.>* It is worth hearing how they twist our arguments and what they offer in support of their case. Accordingly, we will briefly run through a few of our arguments and, in passing, refute the sophistry of our opponents. Since, however, Luther dealt with this entire matter carefully and completely in a book, On Monastic Vows, we want to be interpreted here as reiterating that book.>#> First, it is most certainly not a legitimate vow if the one who makes it imagines thereby to merit forgiveness of sins before God or to make satisfaction for sins before God.5*6 This idea is an open insult to the gospel, which teaches that the forgiveness of sins is freely given on account of Christ, as we said at length

11

above. Therefore, we correctly cited Paul’s statement from Galatians [5:4], “You

who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.” Whoever seeks the forgiveness of sins not by faith in Christ but by monastic works detracts from the honor of Christ and again crucifies Christ. But listen carefully how the architects of the Confutation escape! They explain this passage of Paul only according to the law and add that the monks observe everything on account of Christ and try “to live more closely according to the gospel in order to merit eternal life.” To this they append a horrible epilogue in these words, “Therefore, what has here been charged against monasticism is wicked.” O Christ, how long will you endure these insults which our enemies heap upon your gospel! In the Confession we said that the forgiveness of sins is received freely on account of Christ through faith. If this is not the very voice of the gospel, if it is not the statement of the eternal Father, which you, who are

12

13

“close to the Father’s heart” [John 1:18], have revealed to the world, then the

charge against us is true. But your death is a witness, your resurrection is a witness, the Holy Spirit is a witness, the entire church is your witness: that it is truly the heart of the gospel that we receive the forgiveness of sins not on account of our merits but on account of you through faith. Since Paul denies that people merit the forgiveness of sins by the Law of Moses, he refuses even more to praise human traditions, as he clearly testifies

in Colossians [2:1-23]. If the Law of Moses, which was divinely revealed, did not merit the forgiveness of sins, how much less do those silly observances— opposed as they are to decent living in society—merit the forgiveness of sins! 544. The Confutation (pt. II, art. VI): “Therefore what has been charged here against monasticism is wicked.” 545. The Judgment

of Martin

Luther

on

Monastic

Vows

(1521)

(WA

8:573-669;

LW

44:243-400).

546. The Confutation (pt. II, art. VI): “For monks have not fallen from God’s grace, like the Jews of whom Paul speaks in Galatians 5[:4], who continued to seek justification in the Law of

Moses, but monks strive to live more closely according to the gospel, in order to merit eternal life.”

14

280 15 16

17

18

19

20

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

The opponents pretend that Paul abolished the Law of Moses and that Christ took its place, so that he does not give the forgiveness of sins freely but on account of the works of other laws that have now been dreamed up. By this wicked and fanatical notion they bury the blessing of Christ. Then they pretend that among those who observe this law of Christ, the monks come closer in their observance than others because of their hypocritical poverty, chastity, and obedience—although they are all full of sham. They brag about poverty in the midst of an abundance of everything. They brag about obedience, even though no class of human beings has greater license than the monks. As for celibacy, we would rather not discuss it. Gerson indicates how pure this is in most of those who strive to be continent.*” And how many of them strive to be continent? By this sham, to be sure, the monks “pattern their lives more closely after the gospel”! Christ takes Moses’ place not by forgiving sins on account of our works but by setting his merits and his atoning sacrifice against the wrath of God for us so that we might be freely forgiven. All who (in addition to Christ’s atoning sacrifice) set their own merits against the wrath of God; all who try to acquire the forgiveness of sins because of their own merits by carrying out the works of the Mosaic law or of the Decalogue or of the Rule of Benedict or of the Rule of Augustine or of other rules®*—all who do these things abolish the promise of Christ, have cast Christ aside, and have fallen from Christ. This is Paul’s verdict. But take a look, Most Clement Emperor Charles; take a look, princes; take a look all you [imperial] estates, at the impudence of the opponents! Although we have quoted Paul’s statement, they have written, “What has been charged against monasticism here is wicked.” What is surer than that people acquire the forgiveness of sins by faith for Christ’s sake? But these wretches have the audacity to call this statement wicked! We do not doubt that had you been told about this passage, you would have seen to it that such blasphemy was removed from the Confutation. Since we have above shown at length the wickedness of the opinion that we obtain the forgiveness of sins because of our works, we shall be briefer here. From that the fair-minded reader will easily be able to conclude that we do not merit the forgiveness of sins by monastic works. Therefore it is also an intolerable blasphemy when Thomas says that “the monastic profession is equal to baptism.”5#? It is madness to put a human tradition, which has neither a command nor a promise of God, on the same level with an ordinance of Christ, which has both a command and a promise of God, and which contains a covenant of grace and eternal life. 547. Perhaps John Gerson, On Celibacy 3, 11, 629C.

548. The Rule of Benedict of Nursia became basic for Western monasticism. The rule observed by Augustinian canons in the late Middle Ages was ascribed to Augustine. See his letter to the nuns of Hippo (Epistle 211; MPL 33:211-15; NPNF, ser. 1, 1:563-68). 549. Thomas Aquinas, STh 11, 2, q. 189, a. 3, ad 3.

Article XXVII: Monastic Vows

281

Second, obedience, poverty, and celibacy, provided they are not impure, are nonobligatory>*® forms of discipline. Hence the saints can use them without sinning, as did Bernard, Francis, and other holy men.>>! They used them for

21

their physical benefit, to have more leisure for teaching and other pious duties,

not because the works themselves are services that justify or merit eternal life. Moreover, these things belong to the class of which Paul says [1 Tim. 4:8] “physical training is of some value.” It is likely that here and there in the monasteries there are still some virtuous people serving the ministry of the Word who follow these observances without wicked ideas. But to hold that these observances are acts of devotion because of which we are accounted righteous before God and through which we merit eternal life conflicts with the gospel of the righteousness of faith, which teaches that for Christ’s sake we are given righteousness and eternal life. It also conflicts with Christ’s statement [Matt. 15:9], “[I]n vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doc-

22

23

trines” It also conflicts with this statement [Rom. 14:23], “[W]hatever does not

proceed from faith is sin.” How can they maintain that these are acts of devotion which God approves as righteousness before him when they have no proof for this from the Word of God? Just look at the impudence of the opponents! Not only do they teach that these observances are acts of devotion that justify, they also say that they are better acts of devotion than other ways of life, that is, that they merit forgiveness of sins and justification more than do the others. Many other false and wicked ideas flow from this. They imagine that they observe commandments and counsels.>>? Since they imagine that they have merits of supererogation, these generous people then sell them to others. All this is filled with Pharisaical vanity. It is the height of wickedness to hold that they satisfy the Ten Commandments in such a way that they have merits left over, when these commandments charge all the saints, “You shall love the Lord your God with all

24

25

your heart” [Deut. 6:5], and again, “You shall not covet” [Exod. 20:17]. The

prophet says [Ps. 116:11], “Everyone is a liar,” that is, they do not think correctly about God, they do not fear him enough, they do not believe in God enough. Therefore, it is false for the monks to boast that the observance of a monastic life satisfies the commandments and does more than the commandments require.

It is also false that monastic observances are the works of the gospel’s counsels. For the gospel does not give advice about distinctions among clothes or foods or the surrender of property. These are human traditions, about all of which it has been said [1 Cor. 8:8], “Food will not bring us close to God.” Hence 550. Using the Greek term, derived from Stoic ethics, adiaphora.

551. Bernard of Clairvaux and Francis of Assisi. 552. Medieval theologians distinguished between

God’s

commandments

(such as the

Decalogue), binding on all Christians, and the New Testament counsels (such as poverty, chastity,

and obedience), which were not required, the performance of which earned additional merit as works of supererogation.

26

282

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

they are neither acts of devotion that justify nor are they perfection. Indeed, when they are set forth under the cover of these titles, they are sheer “teachings of demons” [1 Tim. 4:1].

27

Virginity is commended—but to those who have the gift, as has been said above.33 However, it is a most wicked error to believe that Evangelical perfection may be found in human traditions. For if it were, then even the monks among the Mohammedans could boast that they have attained Evangelical perfection. Nor is it to be found in the observance of other things, which are called “adiaphora.”>** Because “the kingdom of God is righteousness” [Rom. 14:17] and life in the heart, therefore perfection means to grow in the fear of God, in trust in the mercy promised in Christ, and in dedication to one’s calling. Paul

28

29

also describes perfection this way [2 Cor. 3:18]: “All of us . . . are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit.” He does not say, “we are constantly receiving a different cowl, or different sandals, or different cinctures.” It is terrible to read and hear such Pharisaical and even Mohammedan expressions in the church, placing the perfection of the gospel and of the kingdom of Christ (which is eternal life) in these silly outward observances of vestments and similar trifles. Now listen to the worthless verdict that our supreme judges have rendered in the Confutation. This is what they say: “It has been stated in the Sacred Scriptures that the monastic life merits eternal life if it is maintained by a due observance, which by God’s grace any monk can maintain. Indeed, Christ has promised this in abundance to those who have forsaken home and family [Matt. 19:29].7%5 These are our opponents’ own words in which, first of all, they make the completely impudent claim that according to the statement of the Sacred Scriptures the monastic life merits eternal life. Where do the Sacred Scriptures talk about the monastic life? That is the way our opponents argue their case; that is the way these good-for-nothings quote the Scriptures. Even though everyone knows that monasticism is a recent invention, they still cite the authority of Scripture and even say that this decree of theirs is stated in the Scriptures.

30

31 32

In addition, they dishonor Christ when they say that human beings merit eternal life through a monastic life. God does not even give his own law the honor of meriting eternal life, as he clearly says in Ezekiel 20[:25], “I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live.” In the first place, it is certain that a monastic life does not merit the forgiveness of sins but that we receive this freely by faith, as has been said. In the second place, eternal life is given by mercy for Christ’s sake to those who receive forgiveness by faith and do not set their merits against the judgment of God. As Bernard also says very powerfully, “First of all, you must believe that you cannot have 553. Ap XXIIi, 36—40.

554. Rendered in Greek. Matters that are ethically neutral, neither right nor wrong. 555. From the Confutation (pt. I, art. VI).

Article XXVII: Monastic Vows

283

the forgiveness of sins except by God’s indulgence; second, that you cannot have any good work at all unless he has given this, too; finally that you can merit eternal life by no works, but that this is given freely as well.”>>¢ We cited this and what follows earlier, but at the end of it Bernard adds: “Let nobody be deceived, for with careful consideration, a person will undoubtedly discover that even with ten thousand soldiers an individual cannot stand up against the Lord, who comes at such a one with twenty thousand.”>>’ Since we do not merit the forgiveness of sins or eternal life even by the works of the divine law but must seek the mercy promised in Christ, so much less do monastic observances, which are mere human traditions, deserve the credit for meriting the forgiveness of sins or eternal life. Thus, those who teach that the monastic life merits the forgiveness of sins or eternal life are simply crushing the gospel about the free forgiveness of sins and the promised mercy available in Christ and are transferring to their own foolish observances the trust owed to Christ. In the place of Christ they worship their own cowls and their own filth. Although they, too, need mercy themselves, they wickedly fabricate works of supererogation and sell them to others. We have discussed this briefly, for on the basis of what we said earlier about justification, repentance, and human traditions, it is quite clear that monastic vows are not the price for which the forgiveness of sins and eternal life are

33

34

35

granted. And since Christ calls traditions “vain worship” [Matt. 15:9], they are

in no way evangelical perfection. ' But the opponents cunningly seek to give the impression that they are modifying the common notion about perfection. They deny that the monastic life is perfection and instead say that it is a state for acquiring perfection. Well said! We recall that this correction is found in Gerson.>* It seems that wise individuals were offended by the immoderate praises of the monastic life; but since they did not dare refuse to praise perfection altogether, they added this modification: that it is a state for acquiring perfection. If we follow this, the monastic life will be no more a state of perfection than the life of a farmer or an artisan. These, too, are states for acquiring perfection. All people, whatever their calling, should seek perfection, that is, growth in the fear of God, in faith, in the love for their neighbor, and in similar spiritual virtues. In the histories of the desert Fathers there are stories of Anthony and others that place various walks of life on the same level. It is written that when 556. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary I, 1. 557. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary 1, 2. The parallel citation is in Ap XII, 73. 558. The Confutation (pt. IT, art. VI): “It is maliciously proposed that those in religious orders are in a state of perfection—something they never claim. For the religious do not arrogate perfection to themselves but the state in which perfection may be attained, because their regulations are instruments of perfection, not perfection itself.” 559. John Gerson, On Evangelical Counsels and the State of Perfection 11, 679. The Confutation alludes to Gerson.

36

37

38

284

39

40

41

o _‘3/;?

42

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Anthony asked God to show him what progress he was making in his walk of life, God pointed him in a dream to a certain shoemaker in the city of Alexandria as a basis for comparison. The next day Anthony went into the city and came to the shoemaker in order to find out about his exercises and gifts. In conversation with the man he did not hear anything [special], except that in the morning he prayed in a few words for the whole city and then paid attention to his business. In this way Anthony came to understand that justification was not to be attributed to the particular walk of life he had taken up.>® Although the opponents are now modifying their praises of perfection, they actually think otherwise. They sell merits and transfer them to others under the pretext that they observe both commandments and counsels. Therefore, they really believe that they have leftover merits. If this is not “arrogating perfection to oneself,” what is? In the Confutation itself they say that “monks strive to live more closely according to the gospel.” They are ascribing perfection to human traditions, if they mean that monks pattern their lives more closely after the gospel because they do not have property, are unmarried, and obey the rule in trifles like clothing and food. Again, the Confutation says that monks merit a more abundant eternal life, and it quotes the passage [Matt. 19:29], “everyone who has left houses .. .” That is to say, here, too, it claims perfection for artificial religious acts. But this passage of Scripture has nothing to do with the monastic life. Christ does not intend that deserting parents or wife or brothers is a work we should do because it merits the forgiveness of sins or eternal life. Leaving them for such reasons is accursed. This insults Christ if anyone deserts parents or spouse in order to merit the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. There are two kinds of leaving. One happens without a call, without a command of God; this Christ does not approve, for the works we have chosen are “vain worship” [Matt. 15:9]. The fact that Christ speaks of leaving wife and children makes it even clearer that he does not approve this kind of flight, since we know that the command of God forbids the deserting of wife and children. The other kind of leaving is that which happens by a command of God, when a government or a tyranny forces us either to leave or to deny the gospel. Here we have the command rather to bear the injury, to let property, spouse, and children, even life itself, be taken from us. This kind of leaving Christ approves, and thus he adds the phrase “for the sake of the good news” [Mark 10:29] to show that he is not talking about those who do injury to wife and children but about those who bear injury for the sake of confessing the gospel. We ought to leave our body, too, for the gospel, but it would be silly to conclude from this that it is an act of devotion to God to commit suicide and to leave our body without the command of God. In the same way, it is silly to maintain that it is an act of devotion to God to leave possessions, friends, wife, and children without the command of God. : 560. Lives of the Fathers 111 (Verba seniorum), 130 (MPL 73:785).

Article XXVII: Monastic Vows

285

It is evident, therefore, that they wickedly distort the statement of Christ by applying it to monastic life—unless perhaps the statement that they will receive a hundredfold in this life applies here. For many become monks not for

43

inheritance they find the most abundant riches. But just as the whole monastic system is full of shams, so they quote passages of Scripture under false pretenses. Thus, they are guilty of a double sin—deceiving people and doing so under the pretext of the divine name. They quote another passage on perfection [Matt. 19:21], “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” This passage has troubled many people who imagined that perfection consists in getting rid of possessions and property. Let us permit the philosopher’s praise of Aristippus, who threw a great weight of gold into the sea.>! Such examples have nothing to do with Christian perfection. The distribution, control, and possession of property are civil ordinances, approved by the Word of God in the commandment [Exod. 20:15], “You shall not steal.” The abandonment of property is neither recommended nor advised in the Scriptures. The poverty of the gospel [Matt. 5:3] does not consist in the abandonment of property, but in the absence of greed and of trust in riches, just as David was poor in the midst of a very rich kingdom. Therefore, since the abandonment of property is merely a human tradition, it is vain worship. It is an exaggeration to praise it the way the “Extravagant” does, which says that renouncing the ownership of everything for God is meritorious and holy and a way of perfection.’®? It is extremely dangerous to extol with such extravagant praises something that conflicts with civil order. But Christ calls it perfection here! Indeed, he does, but they do violence to the text when they quote it in a mutilated form. Perfection consists in what Christ says next: “Follow me.” This sets forth the example of obedience in a calling. Since callings vary, this calling is not for everyone, but only for the person with whom Christ is talking here. Thus, it is not for us to imitate the call of David to rule or the call of Abraham to sacrifice his son. Callings are personal, just as matters of business themselves vary with times and persons; but the example of obedience is universal. It would have been perfection for this young man to believe and obey this calling. So it is perfection for each of us with true faith to obey our own calling. Third,363 in monastic vows chastity is promised. We have said earlier in connection with the marriage of priests that the law of nature in human crea-

44

the sake of the gospel but for the sake of food and leisure; instead of a slender

561. Diogenes Laertius I1, 77. Aristippus did it to prevent the gold from falling into the hands of pirates. 562. “Extravagantes” (literally, “things wandering outside”) were papal decrees not in all collections of canon law. In this case it is an “Extravagant” of Pope John XXII, tit. 14, cap. 5, citing a constitution of Pope Nicholas III. 563. Cf. par. 11 and 21.

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

286

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

tures cannot be repealed by vows or regulations.> Since not everyone has the gift of continence, many fail to be continent because of weakness. Nor can any vows or any laws abolish the command of the Holy Spirit [1 Cor. 7:2], “[B]ecause of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife.”

52

53

54

55

Therefore, such a vow is not right for those whose weakness causes them to defile themselves because they do not have the gift of continence. We have said enough earlier on this entire topic. It is indeed strange that with such dangers and scandals swirling before their very eyes, our opponents defend their traditions contrary to the clear command of God. They are also undaunted by the voice of Christ [Matt. 15:3, 9] upbraiding the Pharisees for setting up traditions contrary to the command of God. Fourth, those who live in monasteries are released from their vows of poverty by such wicked forms of worship as the desecration of the Mass, celebrated for the dead to make money. Then there is the veneration of saints, in which there is a twofold evil: it arrogates Christ’s place to the saints, and it wickedly worships them. Thus, the Dominicans invented the rosary of the blessed Virgin,363 which is mere babbling,>¢¢ as foolish as it is wicked; it nourishes a false confidence. This wickedness, too, is used only for making money. Meanwhile, they neither hear nor preach the gospel about the free forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake, about the righteousness of faith, about true repentance, about works that have the command of God. Instead, they spend their time on either philosophical discussions or ceremonial traditions that obscure Christ. Here we will not discuss all of their ceremonies

in worship—Ilessons,

chants, and the like. These could be tolerated if they were used as exercises, the way lessons are in school, that is, for the purpose of teaching the listeners and,

in the process of teaching, to move some of them to fear or faith. But now they

imagine that these ceremonies are the worship of God that merit the forgiveness of sins for themselves and for others. That is why they multiply these cer-

emonies. If they undertook them in order to teach and exhort hearers, brief

56

N oA

2

57

and pointed lessons would be more useful than these endless babblings. Thus the whole monastic life is full of hypocrisy and false opinions. In addition to all this, there is the danger that those who belong to these chapters are forced to agree with the persecutors of the truth. Therefore there are many serious and cogent reasons to release good people from this way of life. Finally, the canons themselves release many who took their vows without understanding because they were deceived by the tricks of the monks or because they were under duress from their friends. Not even the canons maintain that such vows are really vows. From all this it is apparent that there are many arguments for the position that the kind of monastic vows made until

564. Ap XXIII, 6-27.

_

565. A legend of the fifteenth century ascribed the origin of the rosary to Dominic’s vision of Mary. 566. Melanchthon uses a Greek word as found in Matthew 6:7.

Article XXVII: Monastic Vows

287

now are not vows and therefore that it is proper to abandon a way of life so full of hypocrisy and false opinions. Here they quote against us the example of the Nazarites from the Old Testament [Num 6:2ff.].°%7 But they did not undertake their vows with the notions that, as we have said, we condemn in the monks’ vows. The ritual of the Nazarites was intended to exercise or to give testimony to their faith before the people, not to merit the forgiveness of sins before God or to win justifica-

58

tion before God. Furthermore, just as circumcision or the slaughter of sacrifi-

cial animals would not be an act of worship now, so the ritual of the Nazarites should not be set forth as an act of worship, but should be regarded simply as an “indifferent matter.”>%® Hence it is not right to compare monasticism (invented without a Word of God as an act of worship to merit forgiveness of sins and justification) with the ritual of the Nazarites (which had a Word of God and was taught not as a way to merit the forgiveness of sins but as an outward exercise like the other ceremonies of the Old Testament). The same can

be said about other vows described in the Old Testament.

They also cite the case of the Rechabites, who, as Jeremiah writes (35[:6]),

neither had any possessions nor drank any wine. Yes, indeed, the example of

59

the Rechabites is a beautiful parallel to our monks, whose monasteries are

fancier than kings’ palaces and who live most sumptuously. Though they were poor in every regard, the Rechabites were married; though our monks abound in every delight, they claim to be celibate. : Besides, examples ought to be interpreted accordlng to the rule [of faith], that is, according to sure and clear passages of Scripture, not contrary to the rule or the passages. It is absolutely certain that our observances do not merit the forgiveness of sins or justification. When the Rechabites are praised, therefore, we must note that they did not observe their way of life in the belief that they would merit forgiveness of sins by it, or that this work was itself an act of worship that justified, or that because of it (and not by the mercy of God because of the promised Seed) they would attain eternal life. But because they

60 61

had a command from their parents, they are praised for their obedience, which

God commanded [Exod. 20:12], “Honor your father and your mother.”

Then, too, the custom had a particular purpose. Since they were nomads

rather than Israelites, it is apparent that their father wanted to distinguish them from the other tribes by certain marks, lest they relapse into the wickedness of those people. By these marks he wanted to remind them of the teaching of faith and immortality—surely a legitimate purpose. But vastly different purposes are set forth for monasticism. They imagine that the works of 567. The Confutation (pt. II, art. VI): “In the Old Testament, God approved the vows of the Nazarites (Num. 6[:2]) and the vows of the Rechabites, who did not drink wine or eat grapes (Jer. 35[:6, 19]). He consistently requires that a vow once made be kept (Deut. 23[:21-22]), because it is ruin for anyone who retracts a vow (Prov. 20[:25]). . . . God also teaches expressly through the prophet (Isa. 56[:4, 5]) that monastic vows please him. ...

568. Using the Greek adiaphoron.

62

288

63

64 65

66

67

68

69

e2

2%

* Apology of the Augsburg Confession

monasticism are acts of worship and that they merit the forgiveness of sins and justification. Therefore the example of the Rechabites does not resemble monasticism. We shall not even discuss the other dissimilarities inherent in present-day monasticism. They also cite 1 Timothy 5[:11-12] concerning the widows who served the church and were supported from public funds. It states, “[ T|hey want to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge.” First, even if we suppose that Paul is talking about vows here, this passage does not support monastic vows that are taken for godless acts of worship and with the idea that they merit the forgiveness of sins and justification. For Paul loudly condemns all worship, all laws, all works if they—instead of mercy for Christ’s sake—are observed in order to merit the forgiveness of sins or to secure eternal life for us. Therefore the vows of the widows, whatever they were, must have been different from monastic vows. Furthermore, as the opponents insist upon misapplying this passage to vows, they must also misapply in the same way the other passage [1 Tim. 5:9], which forbids putting a widow on the list if she is less than sixty years old. Thus vows made before that particular age must be invalid. But the church knew nothing about monastic vows. Thus, Paul condemns the widows, not because they were getting married (he commands the younger ones to marry [v. 14]), but because they had become wanton while being supported from public funds and thus had lost the faith. This is what he calls “first faith”—not a monastic vow but a Christian one. He uses “pledge” this way in the same chapter [1 Tim. 5:8], “{W]hoever does not provide for relatives, and especially for family members, has denied the faith.” He talks about faith differently

from the sophists. He does not attribute faith to people who have committed mortal sin; therefore he says that those who do not provide for their relatives have rejected the faith. In the same way he says that the wanton women had rejected the faith. We have reviewed a number of our arguments, and in passing we have refuted the opponents’ objections. We have recounted all these things not only for the sake of the opponents, but even more for the sake of showing godly minds why they should reject the hypocrisy and the sham worship of the monks, which Christ annuls with a single declaration when he says [Matt. 15:9], “In vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.” Therefore the vows themselves and the observance of foods, lessons, chants, vestments, sandals, cinctures—all these are unprofitable acts of devotion before God. Let all godly minds know for certain that such notions as the following are plain, damnable Pharisaism: that these observances merit the forgiveness of sins; that because of them we are accounted righteous; that we

70

attain eternal life because of them rather than because of Christ mercy. Holy individuals who followed this way of life have necessarily reject all confidence in such observances and to discover that they have giveness of sins freely for Christ’s sake, that they attain eternal life for

through come to the forChrist’s

Article XXVII: Ecclesiastical Power

289

sake by mercy and not for the sake of such acts of devotion, and that God is pleased only with acts of devotion instituted by his Word and done in faith.

[XXVIII:] Ecclesiastical Power Here the opponents rant about the privileges and immunities of ecclesiastical status, and they conclude with the summary: “Everything that the present article states against the immunity of churches and priests is false.”>* This is sheer slander, for in this article we were arguing about other things. Besides, we have frequently testified that we do not criticize political ordinances nor the gifts and privileges bestowed by princes.>”° If the opponents would only listen to the complaints of churches and pious hearts! The opponents valiantly defend their own position and wealth. Meanwhile, they neglect the state of the churches, and they do not care if there is correct preaching and proper administration of the sacraments in the churches. They admit all kinds of people to the priesthood quite indiscriminately. Then they impose intolerable burdens on them, as if they take pleasure in the destruction of their fellow human beings. They demand that their traditions be observed more carefully than the gospel. In these very serious and difficult controversies the people desperately want instruction in order to be certain which way to follow. Instead of alleviating such minds tortured by doubt, the opponents issue a call to arms. In these obvious questions they issue an edict written in blood, threatening people with horrible punishments unless they act in clear opposition to God’s commands. But here you ought to see the tears of the sufferers and hear the pitiful complaints of many good people. God undoubtedly sees and hears them, and it is to him that you will someday have to give an account of your stewardship. On this article in the Confession, we included various subjects. But the opponents make no reply other than that “bishops have . . . the power to rule and to correct by force in order to guide their subjects toward the goal of eternal bliss, and that the power to rule requires the power to judge, to define, to distinguish, and to determine what is helpful or conducive to the aforementioned goal”’5’! These are the words of the Confutation, by which the opponents inform us that bishops have the authority to create laws useful for attaining eternal life. This is the issue at the heart of the controversy. In the church we must preserve the teaching that we receive forgiveness of sins freely on account of Christ by faith. We must also retain the teaching that human traditions are pointless as acts of worship and therefore that neither sin nor righteousness ought to be connected with food, drink, clothing, and simi569. The Confutation, pt. II, art. VIL 570. CA XXVIII, 18-20, 29.

571. The sentence in the Confutation (pt. II, art. VII) begins: “Bishops have the power not only of the ministry of the Word but also. .. ”

290

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

lar matters. Christ wanted to leave their use free when he said [Matt. 15:11],

“[I]t is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person.” And Paul says [Rom. 14:17], “[T]he kingdom of God is not food and drink.” Therefore, bish-

ops have no right to create traditions in addition to the gospel as though they merited the forgiveness of sins or were acts of worship that God approves as righteousness and that burden consciences in such a way that their omission

would be a sin. That one passage in Acts [15:9], where the apostles say that

hearts are cleansed by faith, teaches all this. They go on to forbid imposing a yoke, showing how dangerous this is and emphasizing the sin of those who burden the church. “Why are you putting God to the test?” they ask [Acts

15:10]. But this thunderbolt does not scare our opponents, who vigorously defend their traditions and wicked notions. Earlier they also condemned Article XV, in which we maintained that traditions do not merit the forgiveness of sins; here they also say that traditions are conducive for obtaining eternal life. Do they merit forgiveness of sins? Are

10

11

12

13

they acts of worship that God approves as righteousness? Do they make hearts alive? In Colossians [2:20-23] Paul denies that traditions are valuable for eternal righteousness and eternal life because food, drink, clothing, and the like are

“things that perish with use” [v. 22]. But eternal things, namely, the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, work eternal life in the heart. So let the opponents explain how traditions are useful for winning eternal life. The gospel clearly testifies that traditions should not be imposed upon the church to merit the forgiveness of sins, or to be acts of worship that God approves as righteousness, or to burden consciences in such a way that their omission is judged to be a sin. Therefore the opponents will never be able to show that bishops have the power to institute such acts of worship. In the Confession we have said what power the gospel grants to bishops.”? Those who are now bishops do not perform the duties of bishops according to the gospel, even though they may well be bishops according to canonical order, about which we are not disputing. But we are talking about a bishop according to the gospel. We like the old division of power into the “power of the order” and the “power of jurisdiction.” Therefore, bishops have the power of the order,

namely, the ministry of Word and sacraments. They also have the power of

jurisdiction, namely, the authority to excommunicate those who are guilty of

14

public offenses or to absolve them if they are repentant and ask for absolution. Bishops do not have the power of tyrants to act apart from established law, nor regal power to act above the law. Bishops have a definite command, a definite Word of God, which they ought to teach and according to which they ought to exercise their jurisdiction. Therefore, it does not follow that because they have

a definite jurisdiction bishops may institute new acts of worship, for that does not come under their jurisdiction. They have the Word; they have the command about the extent to which they should exercise their jurisdiction, name572. CA XXVIII, 5-17.

Article XXVIII: Ecclesiastical Power

291

ly, when anyone does something contrary to the Word that they have received from Christ. However, in the Confession we fixed the extent to which they may legitimately create traditions. Traditions must not be required acts of worship but a means for preserving order in the church for the sake of peace. These must not ensnare consciences, as though they were commanding required acts of worship. This is what Paul teaches when he says [Gal. 5:1], “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” Therefore the use of such ordinances ought to be left free, with the stipulation that offenses should be avoided and that they not be regarded as required acts of worship. In this way the apostles themselves ordained many things that were changed over time, and they did not hand them down as though they could not be changed. For they did not contradict their own writings, in which they worked hard to free the church from the notion that human rites are required acts of worship. This is a simple rule for interpreting traditions. We should know that they are not required acts of worship, and yet we should observe them in their place and without superstition in order to avoid offense. This is the way many great and learned people in the church have felt about it. We do not see what possible objection there can be to this. Certainly the statement, “Whoever listens to you listens to me”

15

16

17 18

[Luke 10:16], is not referring to traditions but is rather

directed against traditions. It is not what they call a “commission with unlimited authority,” but rather a “caution about something prescribed,” about a special command. It is a testimony given to the apostles so that we may believe them on the basis of another’s Word rather than on the basis of their own. For Christ wants to assure us, as was needed, that the Word is efficacious when human beings deliver it and that we should not look for another word from heaven. “Whoever listens to you listens to me” cannot be applied to traditions. For Christ requires them to teach in such a way that he himself might be heard because he says “listens to me.” Therefore, he wants his voice, his Word, to be heard, not human traditions. Thus these jackasses take a statement that supports our position and contains the profoundest kind of comfort and teaching, and they misapply it to such trifles as the distinction of foods and clothing and

19

the like.

They also quote the statement [Heb. 13:17], “Obey your leaders.”>”* This statement requires obedience under the gospel; it does not create an authority for bishops apart from the gospel. Bishops must not create traditions contrary to the gospel nor interpret their traditions in a manner contrary to the gospel. When they do so, we are forbidden to obey them by the statement [Gal. 1:8], “[1}f we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!” 573. Both this text and the preceding one from Luke 10:16 are not in the Confutation but elsewhere; for example, in Nicholas Ferber’s (Herborn) Enchiridion 23, 27.

20

292

24

we are not inclined to review here. Nor are we so hard-hearted and so without

feeling that public offenses in no way bother us. But we remember that Christ said [Matt. 11:6], “Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.” For the devil tries 574. The Confutation (pt. I, art. VII): “Nor does Christian libert);, which they hold out as a pretext, help their cause, because this is not liberty but a tremendous license which, inculcated in the common people, excites them to deadly and extremely dangerous sedition.” This was a standard charge against the Lutherans, especially after the Peasants’ War of 1525. 575. The italicized material expands and rewrites materials in Ap XXVIII, 23-27, of the quarto edition. The second, octavo edition is, in most respects, parallel to Jonas’s German translation. 576. Pindar, Isthmionikai V11, 23, 24. Cited in Greek.

577. A reference to the Peasants’ War of 1525.

SIS

23

PN XE N

22

We give the same response to the passage [Matt. 23:3], “[D]o whatever they teach you.” Clearly, it does not set down the universal commandment that we are to observe everything, since elsewhere [Acts 5:29] Scripture commands that we must obey God rather than mortals. To the extent that they teach wicked things they should not be heard. But these are wicked things: that human traditions are the worship of God; that they are required acts of worship; that they merit the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. They also raise an objection on the basis of the public offenses and commotions that have arisen under the pretext of our teaching.”’* We shall respond briefly. In>75 the first place, it is evident that by the blessing of God our princes have an obedient populace in their realms. The very kind of teaching that we follow increases respect for rulers, because it crowns their authority with the fullest praises. This approach is also very conducive for preserving tranquillity. Second, if all the scandals are rolled up in one, there are still these two articles, which have so much good connected with them that they hide all offenses. The first is that we obtain the forgiveness of sins freely for Christ’s sake through faith and that we are accounted righteous for Christ’s sake by faith and not because of our fulfillment of the law. The second is that a ruler’s laws and the entire political structure are divine ordinances which the Christian ought to use in a holy way. For frightened consciences can have no firm consolation against God’s wrath unless the first article is known. The second article greatly preserves political tranquillity. Besides, no one is ignorant of how pernicious opinions suppressed both kinds of teaching prior to this time. The books of the opponents testify to this, for they nowhere mention faith when they speak of the forgiveness of sins. Nowhere do they teach about the importance of civil affairs. Nowhere do they teach how the gospel conveys eternal righteousness or how, in the meantime, it desires that we use political laws and customs in our bodily life. Originally these declarations gained for Luther not only our favor but also that of many others who now most atrociously oppose us. “The earlier favor will cease, and mortals are forgetful,” said Pindar.>’¢ For whatever rebellions have already arisen, the opponents can justly be blamed.>”” They first caused a schism by the unjust condemnation of Luther and broke up the churches, and now they exercise incredible cruelty toward good people, and those who teach godly things. They arouse the minds of people also in other ways that

A

21

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Article XXVIII: Ecclesiastical Power

293

both to suppress and to distort the gospel in countless ways. In some places he inflames tyrants against those who confess the gospel; in other places he ignites wars, in other places seditions, in other places heresies—all in order to render this kind of teaching odious, as if it afforded occasion for such commotions. Indeed, it is easier for discriminating people to ignore personal dangers than these scandals of public commotions. But it is necessary for the Christian mind to be fortified against these, too, lest on account of them it may cast away the Word of God. Although the following comparison does not please us, nevertheless, because the opponents burden us with such a charge, their own vices must not be kept secret. How much evil is there among the opponents in the sacrilegious profanation of Masses! How much disgrace is connected with their celibacy! The worship of the saints among them is clearly and completely idolatrous. There is nothing but scandal in the ambition of the popes, who for more than four hundred years have been waging war with our emperors, mostly in Italy, sometimes even in Germany, where they have committed crimes against one another, son and father, kindred and citizens.>’8 But if the causes for these wars are sought in the histories, nothing will be found worthy of the popes. For we will speak very moderately. How great an evil it is that in ordaining priests they do not choose fit candidates! What evil in the sale of benefices!>’® Again, is there no vice in their dangerous dispensations? But even these faults could be forgiven them if they nevertheless would preserve pure teaching in the churches. But how their teaching is contaminated by impious opinions and traditions the writings of the canonists attest, as do the books of their theologians, full of profane discussions which in part are useless to piety and in part even oppose the gospel. Furthermore, they play around in the interpretation of Scripture and fabricate whatever they please. This confusion of teaching is the chief scandal and is especially dangerous. Concerning this John complains especially in the Revelation, when he describes the realm of the pope.®® What shall we say when we come to the countless superstitions of the monks? How many pernicious offenses are there! What sort of transfer of merits was it when a cowl was placed upon a corpse, etc.? Moreover, is there no offense in their attempt at the present time to suppress the manifest truth of the gospel, in their cruel slaughter of good people who teach what is godly, in their forbidding of healing to doubting consciences when their circumstances have been made known, in their exhorting kings to cruel robbery? Truly these are to be judged not as offenses, but as the unadulterated good order of the papacy! Nor indeed do we desire to exaggerate anything in proportion to the magnitude of the subjects involved, so that no one may think that we are delighted by this recital, which the writers of the Confutation have forced from us against our will. For this 578. Most recently, the conflict between the pope and Charles V had led to the sack of Rome in 1527 by imperial troops. 579. Ecclesiastical livings associated with positions in the church. 580. The reformers, who had already associated the papacy with Revelation in the marginal notes to the 1522 translation of the New Testament, made even more explicit connections in the rewritten preface to the book, first published in 1530 (WADB 7:407-21; LW 35:399—411).

294

25

27

- X;;‘

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

case ought to be judged based not on human standards of conduct or on fortune but on the Word of God, which we earnestly desire all who pronounce judgment in these controversies would use. But here we must repeat what we have already said frequently. We greatly wish for public harmony and peace, which is certainly fitting for Christians to cherish greatly among themselves. Moreover, we do not wish to differ with His Majesty the Emperor, whom we revere not only on account of the dignity of the imperial office but also on account of the truly heroic virtues with which we have known him to be endowed. However, the opponents do not permit us to unite in peace except under the condition that we agree with those who condemn the manifest truth of the gospel, which the church needs. This we cannot do. For “we must obey God rather than any human authority” [Acts 5:29]. Therefore the opponents, who by a new and unheard-of cruelty are destroying the churches, will have to render to God an account of the schism. Nor is there any doubt that this cruelty will produce some change in public affairs. For the time being we have made this reply to the Confutation. Moreover, we leave it to the judgment of all upright people as to which of the two parties believes rightly, and we offer to explain our position on each topic more fully, should it be desired anywhere.

The Smalcald Articles Editors’ Introduction to the Smalcald Articles Although Martin Luther, at the Leipzig Disputation in 1519, already had called into question the doctrinal authority and competence of general councils of the church, he had appealed his case to a general council. For most of the fifteenth century the papacy had striven to reverse the decrees made at the Council of Constance, which placed conciliar authority on the level of papal authority. The Fifth Lateran Council, meeting in 1511-12, had been securely under papal control. Pope Leo X had little interest in the need for reform and failed to take seriously the “monk’s quarrel” in Germany; his successor, Adrian V1, came from the reform-minded circles around Erasmus in the Netherlands,

but his brief rule of twenty months (1522-23) afforded him no chance to overcome objections within the Curia to serious reform efforts. His successor, the Medici Clement VII, was not able to organize reform, and thus Pope Paul III was faced with the pressing need to do so when he ascended the papal throne in 1534. In June 1536 he called for a general council to meet in Mantua in May 1537, and launched a diplomatic offensive to bring German princes and their theologians to that council. International and ecclesiastical politics delayed the council’s opening until December 1545, when it was convened in the episcopal city of Trent, south of the Alps but still a part of the Holy Roman Empire. Although he felt it pointless to attend such a papal council, the Saxon elector, John Frederick, had long wanted Luther to compose a doctrinal “last will and testament,” a clear statement of his positions on the critical issues of the time. The closing section of Luther’s Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) had presented such a statement, but in this new situation the elector wanted another similar confession of faith from the reformer. At the same time he recognized that such a document could be a useful summary of the Lutheran position for submission to the papal council, and so on 11 December 1536, he commissioned Luther to assemble a group of theologians, similar to the group assembled in 1530 to draft a memorandum for use at the Diet of Augsburg. This group was to assist the ailing Luther in writing a summary statement of the Evangelical confession. Nicholas von Amsdorf, John Agricola, George Spalatin, and his Wittenberg colleagues Philip Melanchthon, Justus

Jonas, Caspar Cruciger Sr., and John Bugenhagen assembled at the Black Cloister in Wittenberg at the end of December to serve as a sounding board for the composition of what became “The Smalcald Articles.” In contrast to the overview of his theology that served as the conclusion of his 1528 Confession concerning Christ’s Supper, which arranged his teaching according to the outline of the Creed, the Smalcald Articles began with a con295

296

Smalcald Articles

fession of ancient trinitarian doctrine, on which both the papal party and the Lutherans publicly agreed. The second section of the document confessed Luther’s teaching on what he viewed as the heart of the biblical message: Christ’s atoning work and the concept of trust, topics on which he saw no hope of agreement because of the Roman position on the Mass and related abuses (including the doctrines of purgatory, pilgrimages, relics, and the invocation of saints), on monastic life, and on the papacy. A third section treated a series of doctrinal topics on which Luther hoped that theologians could find common formulations of biblical truths. The document was structured to present Luther’s teaching to the council. Written records suggest that some sharp disagreement took place while his colleagues discussed Luther’s draft. Particularly on the Lord’s Supper the group struggled to arrive at the simple confession that “the bread and the wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ” The group suggested some changes, including the addition of the section on the invocation of the saints (I1, 2) and material in II, 2, 26-28.

The Smalcald Articles were presented to the Lutheran princes in February 1537, at the meeting of the defensive league they had organized in Smalcald in 1531. They decided to use the Augsburg Confession and its Apology as the basis of their presentation at the council rather than Luther’s Articles. Melanchthon had expressed his reservations regarding the suitability of the Articles as a public confession. Most of the assembled theologians, however, did subscribe to the document, accepting it as their confession. Luther wrote a preface outlining his program for reform the following year (1538), and the Articles were printed, with a translation of Melanchthon’s “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope” attached. This revision also added certain sections to three articles (II, 2, 5, 13—15; II1, 3, 42—45; III, 8, 3-13). In 1544 the

Smalcald Articles were accepted in parts of Hesse as a defining confession of the church, alongside the Augsburg Confession. During the 1550s the Articles were used increasingly, particularly among the “Gnesio-Lutheran” theologians, as an authoritative confessional document, and they appeared in a number of corpora doctrinae in the following two decades. Thus, it was natural that the Articles be included in the Book of Concord.

Smalcald Articles

297

The Smalcald Articles ARTICLES OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, which were to have been presented by our side at the council in Mantua—or wherever else it was to have met—and which were to indicate what we could or could not accept or give up, etc. Written by Doctor Martin Luther in the year 1537.

The Preface of Doctor Martin Luther! Pope Paul III called a council to meet at Mantua last year around Pentecost.* Afterward he moved it from Mantua, so that it is still not known where he intends to hold it, or whether he can hold it.> We on our side had to prepare for the eventuality that, whether summoned to the council or not, we would be condemned. I was therefore instructed* to compose and assemble articles of our teaching in case it came to negotiations about what and how far we would or could compromise with the papists, and in which things we definitely intended to persist and remain firm. Consequently, I assembled these articles and submitted them to our side. They were also accepted and unanimously confessed by us, and it was resolved that they should be publicly submitted and presented as the confession of our faith—should the pope and his adherents ever become so bold as to convene a truly free council in a serious and genuine spirit, without deception and treachery,S as would be his duty. But the Roman court is so dreadfully afraid of a free council and so shamefully flees from the light that it has deprived even those who are on the pope’s side of 1. As a prefatory comment to his own manuscript of the SA, Luther wrote this sentence in Latin on the cover: “In these articles there is sufficient teaching for the life of the church.

Otherwise, in political and economic matters, there is sufficient law to which we are bound, so that beyond these burdens there is no need to fashion others. For we are warned, “Today’s trouble is

enough for today’ [Matt. 6:34].” This was not copied by Spalatin nor included in any subsequent versions of SA. The reconstruction here is based on “Die schmalkaldischen Artikel,” ed. Helmar

Junghans,

in Martin

Luther: Studienausgabe, ed. Hans-Ulrich

Delius

Verlagsanstalt, 1992), 5:350, except reading nexemur (“we are warned”)

(Berlin: Evangelische

for nixemur (“we rely

upon”). The following preface was added to the printed version in 1538 and hence is italicized. 2. Paul 11 published the council bull, Ad dominici gregis curam, on 2 June 1536. Pentecost in 1537 fell on May 20. 3. In 1538, when Luther wrote the preface and published SA, the council had already been postponed twice and did not meet until December 1545 at Trent. 4. John Frederick gave Luther this assignment on 11 December 1536. (See John Frederick’s letter to the theologians at Wittenberg, WABr 7:613f.) The bulk of the SA was written during the next two weeks. 5. Compare to Ep, Rule and Guiding Principle, 4. It is not clear whether Luther here refers to a December 1536 gathering of select theologians at Wittenberg or to the provincial diet at Schmalkalden in February 1537. 6. CA, Preface, 21,and Call of Dr. Martin Luther for a Council (1518/1520) (WA 2:34-50/WA 7:74-90; cf. LW 48:90, 171, 185).

298

Smalcald Articles

the hope that he will ever tolerate a free council, much less actually convene one. They are understandably greatly offended and are quite troubled when they observe that the pope would rather see all of Christendom lost and every soul damned than to allow himself or his followers to be reformed even a little and to permit limits on his tyranny. Therefore I still wanted to publicize these articles through the public press, in case (as I fully expect and hope) I should die before a council could take place. (For the scoundrels, who flee from the light and avoid the day, are taking such great pains to postpone and hinder the council.) I wanted to do this so that those who live and remain after me will have my testimony and confession to present, in addition to the confession that I have already published.” I have held fast to this confession until now and, by God’s grace, I will continue to hold to it. What should I say? Why should I complain? I am still alive—every day I write, preach, and teach. Yet there are such poisonous people, not only among our adver-

saries, but also unfaithful associates,® who want to be on our side and who dare to

e

B

b

use my writings and teaching directly against me. They let me look on and listen, even though they know that I teach otherwise. They want to conceal their poison under my work and mislead the poor people by using my name. What will happen in the future after my death?® 1 suppose I should respond to everything while I am still living. But then again, how can I alone stop all the mouths of the devil, especially those (for they are all poisoned) who do not want to listen or pay attention to what we write? Instead, they devote all their energy to one thing: how they might shamefully twist and corrupt our words down to the very letters. I will let the devil (or ultimately God’s wrath) answer them as they deserve. I often think of the good Gerson,'® who doubted whether one should make good writings public. If one does not, then many souls that could have been saved are neglected. But if one does, then the devil is there with innumerable vile, evil mouths that poison and distort everything so that it bears no fruit. Still, what they gain is seen in the light of day. For although they so shamelessly slandered us and wanted to keep the people on their side with their lies, God has continually furthered his work, has made their number less and less, while our number grows larger and larger, and has allowed and continues to allow them and their lies to come to naught. I must tell a story. A learned doctor,'* who came to Wittenberg from France, stated publicly in our presence that his king was persuaded beyond the shadow of a doubt that there was no church, no government, and no marriage among us, but 7. 8. he was 9.

Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:499-509; LW 37:360-72). Literally, “false brothers” (cf. Gal. 2:4). Luther may be thinking of John Agricola, with whom locked in struggle over the role of the law in the Christian’s life. SA 1II, 15, 3, and Confession concerning Christ’s Supper, especially pt. IIT (1528) (WA

26:500-502; LW 37:361-62).

10. John Gerson in his De laude scriptorum XI.

11. Gervasius Waim, who was trained under Idhh ‘Eck and was a legate for Francis I of France, came to Saxony in 1531. See Luther’s letter to Elector John Frederick, dated around 9 February 1537 (WABTr 8:36; LW 50:160).

Smalcald Articles

299

rather that everyone carried on with each other like cattle, and all did what they wanted. Now imagine, how will those people, who in their writings have represented as pure truth such gross lies to the king and to other countries, face us on that day before the judgment seat of Christ? Christ the Lord and Judge of us all knows quite well that they lie and have lied. They will have to hear his judgment; that I know for sure. May God bring to repentance those who can be converted. For the rest, there will be eternal suffering and woe. To return to the subject: I would indeed very much like to see a true council, in order to assist with a variety of matters and to aid many people. Not that we need it, for through God’s grace our churches are now enlightened and supplied with the pure Word and right use of the sacraments, an understanding of the various walks of life, and true works. Therefore we do not ask for a council for our sakes. In such matters, we cannot hope for or expect any improvement from the council. Rather, we see in bishoprics everywhere so many parishes empty and deserted'> that our hearts are ready to break. And yet, neither bishops nor cathedral canons ask how the poor people live or die—people for whom Christ died. And should not these people hear this same Christ speak to them as the true shepherd with his sheep?! It horrifies and frightens me that Christ might cause a council of angels to descend upon Germany and totally destroy us all, like Sodom and Gomorrah, because we mock him so blasphemously with the council.'* In addition to such necessary concerns of the church, there are also countless important matters in worldly affairs that need improvement. There is disunity among the princes and the estates. Greed and usury have burst in like a great flood and have attained a semblance of legality. Wantonness, lewdness, extravagant dress, gluttony, gambling, conspicuous consumption with all kinds of vice and wickedness, disobedience—of subjects, servants, laborers—extortion by all the artisans and the peasants'> (who can list everything?) have so gained the upper hand that a person could not set things right again with ten councils and twenty imperial diets. If participants in the council were to deal with the chief concerns in the spiritual and secular estates that are opposed to God, then their hands would be so full that they would forget all about the child’s games and fool’s play of long robes, great tonsures,'S broad cinctures, bishop’s and cardinal’s hats, crosiers, and similar clowning around. If we had already been following God’s command and precept in the spiritual and secular estates, then we would have found the spare time to reform food, vestments, tonsures, and chasubles. But if we swallow such camels and strain out gnats or let logs stand and dispute about specks,\7 then we might just as well be satisfied with such a council. 12. In 1538 it was reported in Wittenberg that there were some six hundred vacant parishes in the bishopric of Wiirzburg (WATR 4, no. 4002; LW 54:308). 13. John 10:3. SA III, 12, 2. 14. The Latin translation: “pretext of a council.” For the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, see Genesis 19. 15. LC, “Ten Commandments,” 226 and 235. 16. The distinctive haircut worn by medieval monks. 17. Matthew 23:24 and 7:3-5.

10

11

12

13

300

14

15

|

Smalcald Articles

I, therefore, have provided only a few articles, because in any case we already have received from God so many mandates to carry out in the church, in the government, and in the home that we can never fulfill them. What is the point, what is the use of making so many decretals and regulations in the council, especially if no one honors or observes the chief things commanded by God? It is as if God had to honor our buffoonery while in return we trample his solemn commands underfoot. In fact, our sins burden us and prevent God from being gracious to us, because we do not even repent and moreover want to defend every abomination. O dear Lord Jesus Christ, hold a council of your own and redeem your people through your glorious return! The pope and his people are lost. They do not want you. Help us who are poor and miserable, who sigh to you and earnestly seek you, according to the grace you have given us through your Holy Spirit, who with you and the Father lives and reigns, forever praised. Amen.

(L] The First Part of the Articles deals with the lofty articles of the divine Majesty, namely: 1. That Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three distinct persons in one divine essence and nature, is one God, who created heaven and earth, etc.®

2. That the Father was begotten by no one, the Son was begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.!® 3. That neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, but the Son, became a human

being. 4. That the Son became a human being in this way: he was conceived by the Holy Spirit without male participation and was born of the pure, holy Virgin Mary.20 After that, he suffered, died, was buried, descended into hell, rose from

the dead, ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God, in the future will come to judge the living and the dead, etc., as the Apostles’ and the Athanasian Creeds and the common children’s catechism teach.?! These articles are not matters of dispute or conflict, for both sides confess them. Therefore it is not necessary to deal with them at greater length now.

[11.] The Second Part is about the articles that pertain to the office and work of Jesus Christ, or to our redemption. ~ 18. Luther is paraphrasing the Nicene Creed. 19. Cf. the Athanasian Creed. 20. The Latin translation reads: “always virgin.” 21. Luther is using the word “teach” to refer to basic Christian instruction: the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. See his comments on this material in the SC, “Creed,” 3—4; LC, “Creed,” 25-33.

Smalcald Articles

301

Here is the first and chief article:

That Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, “was trespasses and was raised for our justification” “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa.

handed over to death for our (Rom. 4[:25]); and he alone is world” (John 1{:29]); and “the 53[:6]); furthermore, “All have

sinned,” and “they are now justified without merit?? by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus . . . by his blood” (Rom. 3[:23-25]).

Now because this must be believed and may not be obtained or grasped otherwise with any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us,?* as St. Paul says in Romans 3[:28, 26]: “For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law”; and also, “that God alone?* is righteous and justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.” Nothing in this article can be conceded or given up,? even if heaven and earth or whatever is transitory passed away. As St. Peter says in Acts 4[:12]: “There is no other name . .. given among mortals by which we must be saved.” “And by his bruises we are healed” (Isa. 53[:5]).

On this article stands all that we teach and practice against the pope, the devil, and the world. Therefore we must be quite certain and have no doubt about it. Otherwise everything is lost, and the pope and the devil and whatever opposes us will gain victory and be proved right. The Second Article:2¢ That the Mass under the papacy?’” has to be the greatest and most terrible abomination, as it directly and violently opposes this chief article. In spite of this, it has been the supreme and most precious of all the various papal idolatries. For it is held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass (even when performed by a rotten scoundrel) delivers people from sin both here in this life and beyond in purgatory, even though the Lamb of God alone should and must do this, as mentioned above. Nothing is to be conceded or compromised in this article either, because the first article does not allow it. And wherever there might be reasonable papists, a person would want to speak with them in a friendly way like this: “Why do you cling so tenaciously to the Mass?”28 22. Both Luther’s translation of the Bible and the NRSV read: “as a gift.”

23.SAIIL, 13, 1. On Translating: An Open Letter (1530) (WA 30/2: 632-33, 636-37, 639-44; LW 35:181ff., 187f., 193-99).

24. Luther’s translation of the Bible and the NRSV read “himself.” 25. The Latin translation adds: “no believer can . .. permit anything contrary to it.” 26. According to Luther’s understanding, what follows (SA II, 2-4) is connected directly to the office and work of Christ because it detracts from or replaces the biblical soteriology he outlined in SA II, 1, and because, as in the early church, teaching a doctrine correctly always entails condemnation of false doctrines that oppose it. 27. Here Luther is not referring to the Lord’s Supper but to the sacrifice of the Mass and the liturgy and practices that had grown up around it. 28. What follows reflects Luther’s five objections in this imaginary conversation.

302

Smalcald Articles

1. After all, it is nothing but a mere human invention, not commanded by God. And we may discard all human inventions, as Christ says in Matthew 15[:9]: “In vain do they worship me with human precepts.” 2. It is an unnecessary thing that you can easily omit without sin or danger. 3. You can receive the sacrament in a much better and more blessed way (indeed, it is the only blessed way), when you receive it according to Christ’s institution. Why do you want to force the world into misery and destitution for the sake of unnecessary fabrications—especially when the sacrament can be had in another better and more blessed way? Let it be publicly preached to the people that the Mass, as a human trifle, may be discontinued without sin and that no one will be damned who does not observe it but may in fact be saved in a better way without the Mass. What do you want to bet that the Mass falls of its own accord, not only among the mad mob but also among all upright, Christian, reasonable, and God-fearing hearts? How much more would this be the case were they to hear that the Mass is a dangerous thing, fabricated and invented without God’s Word and will?® 4. Because such innumerable, unspeakable abuses have arisen throughout the whole world with the buying and selling of Masses, they should properly be abandoned (if only to curb such abuses), even if in and of themselves Masses did contain something useful and good. How much the more should they be abandoned in order to guard forever against such abuses, since the Masses are completely unnecessary, useless, and dangerous, and everything can be had in a more necessary, useful, and certain manner without the Mass. 5. As the canon of the Mass and all the handbooks say,** the Mass is and can

be nothing but a human work (even a work of rotten scoundrels), performed in order that individuals might reconcile themselves and others to God, acquire the forgiveness of sins, and merit grace. (When the Mass is observed in the very best possible way, it is observed with these intentions. What purpose would it otherwise have?) Thus the Mass should and must be condemned and repudiated, because it is directly contrary to the chief article, which says that it is not an evil or devout servant of the Mass with his work, but rather the Lamb of

God and the Son of God, who takes away our sin [John 1:29]. If some want to justify their position by saying that they want to commune themselves for the sake of their own devotion, they cannot be taken seriously. For if they seriously desire to commune, then they do so with certainty and in the best way by using the sacrament administered according to Christ’s institution. On the contrary, to commune oneself is a human notion, uncertain,

unnecessary, and even forbidden. Such people also do not know what they are doing, because they are following a false human notion and innovation with29. This paragraph was added to the printed version of 1538.

30. For example, William Durandus in his Rationale divinorum officiorum 1V, 35, 12, states, “It has been passed down that Pope Gelasius, the fiftieth Primate since Saint Peter, first ordained in

the canon .. > For Luther’s comments on the canon of the Mass, see The Abomination of the Secret Mass (1525) (WA 18:22-36; LW 36:311-28).

Smalcald Articles

303

out the sanction of God’s Word. Thus it is not right (even if everything else

were otherwise in order) to use the common sacrament of the church for one’s

own devotional life and to play with it according to one’s own pleasure apart from God’s Word and outside the church community. This article on the Mass will be the decisive issue in the council because,

were it possible for them to give in to us on every other article, they could not give in on this one. As Campeggio said at Augsburg, he would sooner allow himself to be torn to pieces before he would abandon the Mass.*! In the same way I, too, with God’s help, would sooner allow myself to be burned to ashes before I would allow a servant of the Mass (whether good or evil) and his work to be equal to or greater than my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Thus we are and remain eternally divided and opposed to one another. They are well aware that if the Mass falls, the papacy falls. Before they would allow that to happen, they would kill us all, if they could do it. Besides all this, this dragon’s tail,*? the Mass, has produced many noxious maggots and the excrement of various idolatries: First, purgatory. Here they “traded” in purgatory, with Masses for the dead and vigils after seven days, thirty days, and a year,”® and, finally, with the

10

11

12

Common Week,?* All Souls’ Day,® and Soul Baths,* so that the Mass is only

used on behalf of the dead, although Christ instituted the sacrament only for the living. Purgatory, therefore, with all its pomp, requiem Masses, and trans-

actions, is to be regarded as an apparition of the devil. For it, too, is against the chief article that Christ alone (and not human works) is to help souls. Besides,

concerning the dead we have received neither command nor instruction.”” For these reasons, it may be best to abandon it, even if it were neither error nor

idolatry. At this point, the papists cite Augustine’® and some of the Fathers, who have supposedly written about purgatory. They suppose that we do not see why and 31. Lorenzo Campeggio, the papal legate at Augsburg. Luther mentions this event a number of times, for example in Dr. Martin Luther’s Warning to His Dear German People (1531) (WA 30/3: 311, 23-37; LW 47:45), and in a Table Talk, recorded 12 December 1536 (WATR 3, no. 3502; LW 54:215-16). 32. Revelation 12:3; 20:2. Cf. The Keys (1530) (WA 30/2: 506; LW 40:376).

33. The celebration of the Mass on the eve of the anniversary of the deceased is mentioned as

early as Tertullian in The Chaplet, or De Corona 3 (MPL 2:79; ANF 3:94), and celebrations on the

week or month following death are mentioned by Ambrose in “On the Death of Theodosius,” 3 (MPL 16:1386; Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Ambrose, trans. Leo P. McCauley et al., The Fathers of the Church 22 [New York: Fathers of the Church, 1953], 308).

34. The week following St. Michael’s Day (29 September), when many Masses were offered for the dead. 35. 2 November, when all the souls of the departed (as opposed to all the [unknown] saints, who were prayed for on 1 November) were commemorated. 36. Free baths endowed for the poor in the hope that they would pray for the donors’ salvation. 37. Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:508, 6-12; LW 37:369). 38. Augustine, City of God XXI, 24 (MPL 41:738; CSEL 40/2: 559; NPNEF, ser. 1, 2:470), and Enchiridion 67—69 (MPL 40:263—65; NPNF, ser. 1, 3:260).

13

304

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Smalcald Articles

how they use such passages. St. Augustine does not write that there is a purgatory and cites no passage of Scripture that persuades him to adopt such a position. Instead, he leaves it undecided whether there is a purgatory or not and says simply that his mother asked to be remembered at the altar, or sacrament.”® Now all of this is nothing but the human opinions of a few individuals, who can establish no article of faith (something God alone can do). But our papists employ such human words in order to make people believe in their shameful, blasphemous, accursed fairs of Masses offered up into purgatory for the souls of the dead, etc. They will never prove such a thing from Augustine. When they have given up their purgatorial “Mass fairs” (something Augustine never dreamed of), then we will discuss with them whether St. Augustine’s word, lacking support from Scripture, may be tolerated and whether the dead may be commemorated at the sacrament. It will not do to formulate articles of faith on the basis of the holy Fathers’ works or words. Otherwise, their food, clothes, houses, etc., would also have to be articles of faith—as has been done with relics. This means that** the Word of God—and no one else, not even an angel—should establish articles of faith.4! Second, as a result of their teaching on the Mass, evil spirits have caused much rascality, and, appearing as souls of the departed,*? they have demanded Masses, vigils, pilgrimages, and other alms with unspeakable lies and cunning. We all had to hold these matters as articles of faith and live according to them. The pope confirms this along with the Mass and all the other horrors. Here, too, there is no room for compromise or concession. Third, pilgrimages. Masses, the forgiveness of sins, and God’s grace were also sought here, for the Mass ruled everything. Now, it is certain that, lacking God’s Word, such pilgrimages are neither commanded nor necessary. For we can have forgiveness and grace in a much better way and can omit pilgrimages without any sin or danger. Why would one neglect one’s own parish, God’s Word, spouse and child, etc.—which are necessary and commanded—and run after unnecessary, uncertain, shameful, devilish will-o’-the-wisps? Only because the devil has driven the pope into praising and confirming such practices, so that the people routinely deserted Christ for their own works and (worst of all!) became idolatrous. Apart from the fact that they are unnecessary, uncommanded,

unwise,

uncertain,

and

even

harmful.

Therefore

here, too,

39. Confessions 1X, 11, 27, and IX, 13, 36 (MPL 32:775, 778-80; CSEL 33:219, 223, 225; NPNF, ser. 1, 1:138, 141). . 40. The Latin translation reads: “We have a different rule, namely, that .. ”

41. Galatians 1:8. SA I1, 2, 13-15 was not a part of Luther’s original manuscript or of the copy made by Spalatin and subscribed to at Smalcald in 1537. Luther inserted this paragraph into the text for the SA’s publication in 1538. 42. Luther apparently refers here to the reports of apparitions mentioned by Gregory the Great, Dialogues 1V, 40 (in Saint Gregory the Great: Dialogues, The Fathers of the Church 40 [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1959]), and Peter Damian, Opusculum 34, 5

(MPL 145:578£.).

Smalcald Articles

.

305

there is nothing to concede or give up, etc. Let it be preached that it is unnecessary as well as dangerous, and then see where pilgrimages stand.*’ Fourth, fraternities.** The monasteries, foundations, and lower clergy have assigned and conveyed to themselves (by lawful and open sale) all Masses, good works, etc., for both the living and the dead. They are not only purely human trifles, lacking God’s Word, completely unnecessary, and not commanded, but they are also contrary to the first article of redemption, and therefore they can in no way be tolerated. Fifth, relics. Here so many open lies and foolishness are based on the bones of dogs and horses. Because of such shenanigans—at which even the devil laughs—they should have long ago been condemned, even if there were something good in them. In addition, they lack God’s Word, being neither commanded nor advised, and are a completely unnecessary and useless thing. The worst part is that relics, like the Mass, etc., were also to have produced an indul-

gence and the forgiveness of sin as a good work and act of worship. Sixth, those precious indulgences belong here, which are given (for money, of course) to both the living and the dead. The accursed Judas, or pope, sells the merits of Christ together with the superabundant merits of all the saints and the entire church, etc. All of this is not to be tolerated, not only because it is without God’s Word, not necessary, and not commanded, but because it is contrary to the first article. Christ’s merit is not acquired through our work or pennies, but through faith by grace, without any money and merit—not by the authority of the pope, but rather by preaching a sermon, that is, God’s Word.

21

22

23

24

Concerning the Invocation of Saints The invocation of saints is also one of the abuses of the Antichrist that is in conflict with the first, chief article and that destroys the knowledge of Christ.

25

It is neither commanded nor recommended, has no precedent in the Scripture,

and—even if it were a precious possession, which it is not—we have everything a thousand times better in Christ. Although the angels in heaven pray for us (as Christ himself also does), and in the same way also the saints on earth and perhaps those in heaven pray for us, it does not follow from this that we ought to invoke angels and saints; pray

to them; keep fasts and hold festivals for them; celebrate Masses, make sacrifices, establish churches, altars, or worship services for them; serve them in still

other ways; and consider them as helpers in time of need, assign all kinds of assistance to them, and attribute a specific function to particular saints, as the

43. The Latin translation adds: “For in this way they will spontaneously perish.” 44. Since the eighth century members of certain monasteries obligated themselves to offer prayers and perform works of piety for their deceased brothers. In the late Middle Ages similar obligations were assumed by groups called fraternities, comprised of members of the clergy and/or the laity.

26

306

27

7

Smalcald Articles

papists teach and do.%® This is idolatry. Such honor belongs to God alone. As a Christian and saint on earth, you can pray for me, not only in one kind of need but in all necessities. However, on account of that, I ought not pray to you, invoke you, hold a festival, keep a fast, make a sacrifice, perform a Mass in your

28

29

honor, and put my faith in you for salvation. There are other good ways I can honor, love, and thank you in Christ. Now if such idolatrous honor is taken away from the angels and dead saints, then the honor that remains will do no harm and will indeed soon be forgotten. When physical and spiritual benefit and help are no longer expected, then the saints will be left in peace, both in the grave and in heaven. For no one will long remember, esteem, or honor them simply out of love with no hope of return.# In summary, we cannot tolerate and must condemn what the Mass is, what has

resulted from it, and what is connected to it, so that we may retain the holy

sacrament in purity and with certainty and may use and receive it with faith according to the institution of Christ. The Third Article:

That foundations?” and monasteries, established in former times with good intentions for the education of learned people and decent women, should be returned to such use so that we may have pastors, preachers, and other servants of the church, as well as other people necessary for earthly government in cities and states, and also well-trained young women to head households and manage them.*® Where they are not willing to serve in this way, it is better if they were abandoned or torn down than that they—with their blasphemous worship, devised by human beings—should be regarded as something better than everyday Christian walks of life and the offices and orders established by God. For all of this, too, is contrary to the first and chief article concerning redemption

in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, they (like all other human

inven-

tions) are also not commanded, not necessary, not useful—while causing dan-

gerous and futile effort besides. The prophets call such worship aven, which means “wasted effort.”#

45. Luther discussed this in On Translating: An Open Letter (1530) (WA 30/2: 643, 14645, 12; LW 35:198-200).

46. Par. 26-28 were drafted at the conference of theologians, held in Wittenberg at the end of

1536.

‘

47. Also called chapters. They were associations of secular priests, called canons, especially in cathedral churches. For example, prior to 1527 some members of the University of Wittenberg faculty were members of the All Saints’ Foundation. 48. See To the Councilmen . .. That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools (1524) (WA

15:27-53; LW 45:339-78).

.

49. The Hebrew word aven literally means “wickedness,” “emptiness,” “vanity,” “futility.” Luther

translated it Miihe, which properly properly means “effort,”

“trouble,” “labor,”

» &

note on P “pain.” In a marginal g

Smalcald Articles

307

The Fourth Article: That the pope is not the head of all Christendom “by divine right”>° or on the basis of God’s Word,>! because that belongs only to the one who is called Jesus Christ.*? Instead, the pope is only bishop, or pastor, of the church at Rome and

of those who willingly or through a human institution (that is, through secuJar authority) have joined themselves to him in order to be Christians along-

side him as a brother and companion but not under him as a lord—as the

ancient councils®® and the time of St. Cyprian>* demonstrate. But now, however, no bishop dares to call the pope “brother,” as at that time, but instead must address him as his “most gracious lord,” as if he were a king or emperor. We will not, should not, and cannot impose this upon our consciences. But whoever

wants to do so does it without our support. It follows from this that everything the pope has undertaken and done on

the basis of such false, offensive, blasphemous, arrogant power was and still is a purely diabolical affair and business, which corrupts the entire holy Christian

church (however much it depends on him) and negates the first, chief article on redemption by Jesus Christ. (The only exception concerns the area of polit-

ical government, where God sometimes allows much good to come to a people through a tyrant or scoundrel.)

All his bulls and books are available, in which he roars like a lion (the angel of Revelation 12 [10:3] indicates this) that Christians cannot be saved unless

they are obedient and submit to him in all things—what he wills, what he says, what he does.?® This is as much to say: “Even if you believe in Christ and have everything that is necessary for salvation in him, nevertheless it is nothing and

all in vain unless you consider me your god and are subject and obedient to

me.” Yet, it is obvious that the holy church was without a pope for over five hundred years at least,*® and even today the Greek church and many churches

Isaiah 29:20 in the German Bible, he connected Miihe with the prophet’s denunciation of “false teaching and works.” See also his Lectures on Habakkuk (3:7) (1525) (WA 13:444, 18-28; LW 19:140) and Lectures on Isaiah (29:20) (1527-30) (WA 31/2: 181, 4-7; LW 16:249).

50. Luther uses the technical term, de iure divino. 51.Tr 12.

52. Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Colossians 1:18.

53. For example, the Councils of Nicea (a.p. 325), Constantinople (a.p. 381), Ephesus (a.p. 431), and Chalcedon (a.p. 451). Canon IV of the Council of Nicea stipulates that bishops should

be elected by their own churches in the presence of one or more neighboring bishops. 54. Cf. Tr 14. Cyprian, as bishop of Carthage, addressed Pope Cornelius as his “very dear brother.” See, for example, his Epistles, XL-XLII, XLIV, XLVI, XLVIII, LIII, LIV, LVI (MPL 3:700, 703, 708, 710, 725, 731, 796, 830; CSEL 3/2: 597, 599, 605, 606, 614, 616, 666, 691; ANF 5:319-22,

324-25, 336, 338, 351). 55. An extreme medieval papal claim for such authority was expressed in the 1302 bull, Unam Sanctam, of Boniface VIII: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” 56. Luther thought that Gregory I was the last bishop of Rome prior to the rise of the papacy per se. See Tr 19.

308

Smalcald Articles

that use other languages have never been under the pope and still are not. Thus, as has often been said, it is a human fiction. It is not commanded. There is no need for it. And it is useless. The holy Christian church can survive quite well without such a head. It would have been much better off if such a head had not been raised up by the devil. The papacy is not necessary in the church,

because it exercises no Christian office, and thus the church must continue

and endure without the pope. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the pope wanted to renounce his claim; suppose that he were not the supreme head of the church “by divine right,” that is, by God’s command. Suppose instead, in order that the unity of Christendom might be better preserved against sects and heretics, that there must be a head to whom all others adhere. Now such a head would be elected by the people, and it would remain incumbent upon their power and choice whether to change or depose this head. This is virtually the way the council at Constance handled the popes, deposing three>” and electing the fourth. Now just suppose, I say, that the pope and the see of Rome relinquished their authority and accepted this view (which, of course, is impossible because he would have to suffer the overthrow and destruction of his entire government and position with all his laws and books; in short, he cannot do it).

Even if he could, Christianity would not be helped in any way, and there

would be even more sects than before, because they would not have to submit

to such a head on the basis of God’s command but rather as a matter of human good will. He would rather easily and quickly be despised, until finally he would not have even one adherent. He would also no longer have to reside in Rome or at some other set place,’® but wherever and in whatever church God

provided a man suitable for the position. Oh, that would be a complicated and disorganized state of affairs! Therefore the church cannot be better ruled and preserved than if we all live under one head, Christ, and all the bishops—equal according to the office (although they may be unequal in their gifts)>*—keep diligently together in unity of teaching, faith, sacraments, prayers, and works of love, etc. So St.

Jerome writes that the priests at Alexandria ruled the churches together in common, as the apostles also did and afterward all bishops throughout Christendom,® until the pope elevated himself over them all.

57. John XXIII was deposed at Constance on 29 May 1415. Gregory XII abdicated on 4 July 1415. Benedict XIII was deposed on 26 July 1415. Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417.

58. The papal residence had been at Avignon, France, from 1309 to 1377. 59. 1 Corinthians 12:4, 8-10; Romans 12:6-8. 60. Luther refers to two passages from Jerome, which he employs in other contexts as well (e.g.,

in The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests [1533] [WA 38:237, 22; LW 38:196}). The cita-

tions of Jerome are from his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus 1:5, 6 (MPL 26:562); and Epistle 146 (to Euangelus the Presbyter; MPL 22:1194; CSEL 66:310; NPNF, ser. 2, 6:288-89).

Smalcald Articles

309

This business shows overwhelmingly that he is the true end-times Antichrist,®! who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ, because the pope will not let Christians be saved without his authority (which

amounts to nothing, since it is not ordered or commanded by God). This is

precisely what St. Paul calls “setting oneself over God and against God.”s2 Neither the Turks nor the Tartars, despite being great enemies of the Christians, do any such thing. They allow whoever desires it to have faith in Christ, and they receive physical tribute and obedience from the Christians. The pope, however, will not allow faith, but asserts instead that anyone who

is obedient to him will be saved. We are unwilling to do this, even if we have to die in God’s name on account of it. All of this stems from his claim to be head of the Christian church® “by divine right.” Therefore he had to set himself up as equal to and even greater than Christ and let himself be praised first as the

10

11

12

13

head of the church, then as its lord, and finally as lord of the entire world and

nothing short of an earthly god—until he even dared to command the angels in heaven.% When the pope’s teaching is distinguished from that of the Holy Scriptures or compared to them, it turns out that the pope’s teaching—at its very best—

is taken from the imperial, pagan law® and teaches about secular dealings and judgments, as his Decretals’¢ show. Beyond this, it gives instruction about ceremonies involving churches, vestments, foods, personnel, along with child’s play, imaginary work, and fool’s work without limit. But in all these things, there is absolutely nothing about Christ, faith, and God’s commandments. Finally, that the pope in contradiction to God promotes his lies about Masses, purgatory, monastic life, one’s own works, and worship (which are the essence of the papacy) is nothing but the devil through and through. He damns, slays, and plagues all Christians who do not exalt and honor his abominations above all things. Therefore, as little as we can worship the devil himself as our lord or god, so we cannot allow his apostle, the pope or Antichrist,

to govern as our head or lord. His papal government is characterized by lying

and murder and the eternal ruin of body and soul, as I have demonstrated in

many books.%

61. Luther uses two terms here: Endchrist (the “Christ” who comes in the end times) and

Widerchrist (the Antichrist).

62. 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

63. Gratian, Decretum I, dist. 21, chap. 3, and dist. 22, chaps. 1-2.

64. Luther is referring to what is now generally held to be a spurious bull, Ad memoriam reducendo, ascribed to Pope Clement VI, which commanded the angels “to lead to heaven the souls of the pilgrims who might die on their way to Rome” during the jubilee year of 1350. 65. That is, Roman law. 66. Encyclical pronouncements of the popes. 67. Explanations

of the 95 Theses

(1518)

(WA

1:571,

10-22; LW

31:152); Proceedings

at

Augsburg (1518) (WA 2:19, 28-20, 35; LW 41:281); The Leipzig Debate (1519) (WA 2:161; LW

31:318); On the Papacy at Rome (1520) (WA 6:285-324; LW 39:55-104); To the Christian Nobility (1520) (WA 6:415, 19416, 16; LW 44:139-40); Concerning Rebaptism (1528) (WA 26:152, 15-153, 17; LW 40:237-39); The Keys (1530) (WA 30/2: 487, 25-492, 20; LW 40:353-59).

14

Smalcald Articles

310

15

16

These four articles will furnish them with enough to condemn at the council. They neither can nor will concede to us the tiniest fraction of these articles. Of this we may be certain, and we must rely upon the hope that Christ our Lord has attacked his enemies and will carry the day, both by his Spirit and at his return.5® Amen. At the council, we will not stand (as at Augsburg)®® before the emperor or the secular authority, which issued a most gracious summons’® and allowed the matters to be heard in a fair manner. We will stand before the pope and the devil himself, who does not intend to listen but only to damn us on the spot, to murder us, and to force us into idolatry. Therefore here we must not kiss his feet”! or say, “You are my gracious lord.” Rather, we ought to speak as the angel spoke to the devil in Zechariah [3:2], “The Lord rebuke you, O Satan!”

[11I.] The Third Part of the Articles We could discuss people or among things very much, honor, and power

the following matters or articles with learned, reasonable ourselves. The pope and his kingdom do not value these because the conscience’? means nothing to them; money, mean everything.

[1:]7* Concerning Sin Here we must confess (as St. Paul says in Rom. 5[:12]) that sin comes from that

one human being, Adam, through whose disobedience all people became sinners and subject to death and the devil. This is called the original sin,”* or the chief sin. ' The fruits of this sin are the subsequent evil works, which are forbidden in the Ten Commandments, such as unbelief, false belief, idolatry, being without

the fear of God, presumption, despair, blindness, and, in short, not knowing or honoring God. Beyond that, there is lying, swearing [falsely] by God’s name,” not praying or calling on God’s name, neglect of God’s Word, being disobedient to parents, murdering, behaving promiscuously, stealing, deceiving, etc. 68. 2 Thessalonians 2:8.

69. The imperial diet held at Augsburg in the summer of 1530 when the Augsburg Confession was presented to Emperor Charles V.

70. Charles V’s proclamation for the Diet of Augsburg, dated 21 January 1530, included these words: “to listen to, understand, and consider each belief, opinion, and viewpoint between us in

love and kindness, so that we might come to Christian truth.” See Dr. Martin Luther’s Warning to

His Dear German People (1531) (WA 30/3: 287, 6-21; 291, 20-33; LW 47:24f,, 30).

71. A required act of homage (adoratio) to the pope in the Middle Ages. See To the Christian

Nobility (1520) (WA 6:435-36; LW 44:168). 72. Luther uses a Latin word, conscientia.

73. The 1580 Book of Concord supplies numbers for the articles in Part IIL

74. German: Erbsunde, inherited sin. 75. See SC, “Ten Commandments,” 4, and the note there.

Smalcald Articles

311

This inherited sin has caused such a deep, evil corruption of nature that

reason does not comprehend it; rather, it must be believed on the basis of the

revelation in the Scriptures (Ps. 51[:5] and Rom. 5[:12]; Exod. 33[:20]; Gen. 3[:6ff.]). Therefore, the scholastic theologians

blindness against this article:

have taught pure error and

1. That after the fall of Adam the natural powers of the human being have

remained whole and uncorrupted, and that each human being possesses by nature sound reason and a good will, as the philosophers teach. 2. That the human being has a free will, either to do good and reject evil or to reject good and do evil.

3. That the human being is able, by using natural powers, to keep and carry out every command of God. 4. That human beings are able, using natural powers, to love God above all things and their neighbors as themselves.” 5. That if human beings do as much as is in their power, then God will certainly give grace to them.”’ 6. That if someone wants to go to the sacrament, it is not necessary to have

a proper intention to do good, but it is enough for that person not to have an evil intention to commit sin,’® because human nature is so completely good and the sacrament is so powerful.

7. That there is no basis in Scripture that the Holy Spirit with his grace is

necessary for performing a good work. These and many similar things have arisen from a lack of understanding and ignorance about both sin and Christ our Savior. We cannot tolerate these purely pagan teachings, because, if these teachings were right, then Christ has died in vain.”® For there would be no defect or sin in humankind for which he had to die—or else he would have died only for the body and not for the soul, because the soul would be healthy and only the body would be subject to death.

[2:] Concerning the Law Here we maintain that the law was given by God, in the first place, to curb sin by means of the threat and terror of punishment and also by means of the promise and offer of grace and favor. All of this failed because of the evil that sin worked in humankind. Some, who are enemies of the law because it pro-

hibits what they want to do and commands what they do not want to do, 76. E.g., John Duns Scotus, Commentary on the Sentences 111, d. 27, q. 1, and Gabriel Biel,

Collectorium 111, d. 27, q. 1, a. 3, dub. 2.

77. E.g., Gabriel Biel, Collectorium 111, d. 27, q. 1, a. 3, dub. 2. Here Luther paraphrases the

medieval nostrum, facere quod in se est (to do what is in one). 78. In the 1520 papal bull of excommunication, Exsurge, Domine, Luther was condemned for rejecting this. See his Defense and Explanation of All the Articles (1521) (WA 7:316, 6-329, 7; LW 32:12-19). See also SA 111, 3, 17, and the note there.

79. Galatians 2:21.

10 11

312

Smalcald Articles

became

worse because

of it. On

account

of this, insofar as they are not

restrained by punishment, they act against the law even more than before. These are the coarse, evil people who do evil whenever they have an opportunity. Others become blind and presumptuous, imagining that they can and do keep the law by their own powers (as has just been said above about the scholastic theologians).® This attitude produces hypocrites and false saints. The foremost office or power of the law is that it reveals inherited sin and its fruits. It shows human beings into what utter depths their nature has fallen and how completely corrupt it is. The law must say to them that they neither have nor respect any god or that they worship foreign gods. This is something that they would not have believed before without the law. Thus they are terrified, humbled, despondent, and despairing. They anxiously desire help but do not know where to find it; they start to become enemies of God, to murmur,?! etc. This is what is meant by Romans [4:15]: “The law brings wrath,”3? and Romans 5[:20], “Sin becomes greater through the law.”

[3:] Concerning Repentance®® The New Testament retains this office of the law and teaches it, as Paul does

and says, in Romans 1[:18]: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against

all” people. Also Romans 3[:19-20]: “So that . . . the whole world may be held accountable to God” and “no human being will be justified in his sight”; and Christ says in John 16[:8]: the Holy Spirit “will convict the world of sin.”84 Now this is the thunderbolt of God, by means of which he destroys both the open sinner and the false saint®® and allows no one to be right but drives the whole lot of them into terror and despair. This is the hammer of which Jeremiah speaks: “My word is a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces” [Jer. 23:29]. This is not “active contrition,’® a contrived remorse, but “passive contrition,”®” true affliction of the heart, suffering, and the pain of death. This is really what it means to begin true repentance. Here a person must listen to a judgment such as this: “You are all of no account—whether you appear publicly to be sinners or saints.88 You must all become something different from what you are now and act in a different way, no matter who you are . ‘;;"/?' S

80. SA 111, 1, 6-10. 81. Rom. 5:10; Exod. 16:8; Luke 15:2; 19:7. 82. Luther mistakenly refers to Romans 3. 83. The German phrase, Bufle tun (Latin: poenitentiam agere), may be translated “do penance,” “repent,” or “be penitent,” depending on the context. In this paragraph and throughout this article Luther is playing on these various meanings. Compare The Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses (1518) (WA 1:529-33; LW 31:83-38).

84. The alternate reading in the NRSV. 85. Cf. SA 111, 2, 2-3. 86. Luther uses a Latin phrase, activa contritio. 87. Luther uses a Latin phrase, passiva contritio.

88. The Latin translation adds: “in your own opinion.”

Smalcald Articles

313

now and what you do. You may be as great, wise, powerful, and holy as you could want, but here no one is righteous, etc.”% To this office of the law, however, the New Testament immediately adds the consoling promise of grace through the gospel. This we should believe. As Christ says in Mark 1[:15]: “Repent, and believe in the good news.” This is the same as, “Become and act otherwise, and believe my promise.” Even before Jesus, John the Baptizer was called a preacher of repentance—but for the pur-

pose of the forgiveness of sins. That is, John was to convict them all and turn

them into sinners, so that they would know how they stood before God and would recognize themselves as lost people. In this way they were to be prepared for the Lord® to receive grace, to await and accept from him forgiveness of sins. Jesus himself says in Luke 24[:47]: “You must preach repentance and forgiveness of sins in my name to the whole world.”*! But where the law exercises such an office alone, without the addition of the gospel, there is”? death and hell, and the human creature must despair, like Saul and Judas. As St. Paul says: “The law kills through sin.”?> Moreover, the gospel does not give consolation and forgiveness in only one way—but rather through the Word, sacraments, and the like (as we shall hear),’* so that with God there

is truly rich redemption from the great prison of sin (as Ps. 130[:7-8] says). Now we must compare the false penance of the sophists® with true repentance, in order that they both might be better understood.

Concerning the False Penance of the Papists®® It was impossible for them to teach correctly about penance, because they do not recognize what sin really is. As mentioned above,” they do not hold the correct position about original sin at all. Instead they say that the natural powers of humankind have remained whole and uncorrupted; that reason can teach correctly and the will can rightly act according to it; that God surely gives his grace if human beings do as much as is in their power, according to human free will. From this it must follow that they only do penance for actual sins, such as evil thoughts to which they consent (because evil impulses, lusts, and inclinations were not sin), evil words, and evil works (which the free will could well

have avoided). 89. 90. 91. 92. 93.

Romans 3:10-12. See also SA III, 3, 33. Cf. Mark 1:3. A paraphrase. : The Latin translation: “nothing else but.” Cf. Romans 7:10; for Saul, see 1 Samuel 28:20 and 31:4; for Judas, see Matthew 27:3-5. Cf.

Ap XIL, 8.

94. SA 111, 4.

95. Scholastic theologians.

96. Cf. Ap XII, 98-178.

97. This paragraph summarizes SA III, 1, 4-11.

10

11

314 12

13

14

15

Smalcald Articles

They divide such penance into three parts*®—contrition, confession, and

satisfaction—with this comfort and pledge: that the person who is truly contrite, goes to confession, and makes satisfaction by these actions merits forgiveness and pays for sins before God. In this way, they directed the people who come to penance to place confidence in their own works. From this came the phrase that was spoken from the pulpit when they recited the general confession on behalf of the people: “Spare my life, Lord God, until I do penance and improve my life.”®® Here there was no Christ. Nothing was mentioned about faith, but instead people hoped to overcome and blot out sin before God with their own works. We also became priests and monks with this intention: we wanted to set ourselves against sin. Contrition was handled in this way: Because no one could recall every sin (particularly those committed during an entire year),!% they resorted to the following loophole.!%! If unknown sins were remembered later, then a person was also to be contrite for them and confess them, etc. Meanwhile, they were

16

commended to God’s grace. Moreover, since no one knew how great the contrition should be in order

for it to suffice before God, this consolation was offered: Whoever could not

17

18

have contritio (contrition) should have attritio, what I might call a halfway or beginning contrition.!92 For they themselves have not understood either word, and they still know as little about what is being said as I do. Such attritio was then counted as contritio when people went to confession. And if it happened that some said they could not repent or be sorrowful for their sins (as might happen in fornication or revenge, etc.), they were asked whether they at least wished or really desired to have contrition. If they said “yes” (because who would say “no,” except the devil himself?), it was considered to be contrition, and their sins were forgiven on the basis of such a good work. Here they pointed to the example of St. Bernard.'% Here we see how blind reason gropes around in the things of God and seeks comfort in its own works, according to its own darkened opinions. It cannot

consider Christ or faith. If we look at this now in the light, then such contri-

tion is a contrived and imaginary idea. It comes from one’s own powers, without faith, without knowledge of Christ. In this state, a poor sinner who reflect98. This division of the sacrament of penance is found already in Peter Lombard, Sentences 1V, d. 16, c. 1. Luther discusses these three parts of penance in what follows (SA III, 3, 15-21).

99. This phrase, or its equivalent, dates back to at least the tenth century and was spoken by

the pastor, in behalf of the congregation, at the conclusion of the sermon. 100. At the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), it was stipulated that all who had reached the age of discretion (seven years) must confess their sins to a priest at least once a year. :

101. Luther uses an idiom, which, translated literally, is, “they mended the coat” or “patched the hide” (flickten sie den Pelz). 102. Medieval theologians often defined contrition as sorrow for sin out of love of God and attrition as sorrow for sin out of fear of punishment. 103. Treatise on Grace and Free Will 1V, 10 (MPL 182:1007).

Smalcald Articles

315

ed on this lust or revenge would at times have more likely laughed than cried— except for those truly struck down by the law or falsely plagued by the devil with a sorrowful spirit. Otherwise, such contrition was certainly pure hypocrisy and did not kill the desire to sin. They had to be contrite, but would rather have sinned more—had it been without consequences. Confession worked like this: Each person had to enumerate all of his or her sins (which is impossible). This was a great torment. Whatever the person had forgotten was forgiven only on the condition that when it was remembered it still had to be confessed. Under these circumstances people could never know whether they had confessed perfectly enough or whether confession would ever end. At the same time, people were directed to their works and told that the more perfectly they confessed and the more ashamed they were and the more they degraded themselves before the priest, the sooner and better they would make satisfaction for their sin. For such humility would certainly earn the grace of God.!0 Here, too, there was neither faith nor Christ, and the power of the absolu-

19

20

tion was not explained to them. Rather, their comfort was based on the enu-

meration of sins and humiliation. It is not possible to recount here what tor-

ments, rascality, and idolatry such confession has produced.'®® Satisfaction is truly the most intricate of the three because no one could know how much should be done for each individual sin, to say nothing of all sins. Here they came up with the following solution: they imposed a few satisfactions that a person could easily fulfill, such as saying the Lord’s Prayer five times, fasting for a day, etc. For the penance that remained people were directed

21

to purgatory.

Here, as well, there was only pure misery and destitution. Some imagined that they would never get out of purgatory because, according to the ancient canons, each mortal sin carried with it seven years of penance.'% Still, confi-

dence was placed in our work of satisfaction and, if the satisfaction could have been perfect, confidence would have been placed totally in it, and neither faith nor Christ would have been of any use. But such confidence was impossible. If they had done penance for a hundred years in this way, they would still not have known whether they had been penitent enough. This means always doing penance but never arriving at repentance. At this point, the Holy See of Rome came to the rescue of the poor church and established indulgences. With these the pope forgave and remitted the satisfaction, first for seven years in a particular case, and then for 2 hundred years, etc. He also distributed indulgences among the cardinals and bishops, so that 104. See Peter Abelard, Ethica seu scito te ipsum, chap. 24 (MPL 178:668), translated in Peter

Abelard’s Ethics, trans. D. E. Luscombe (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971}, 98-101.

105. The Latin translation inserts a reference to John Chrysostom’s “Sermon on Penance”

(MPG 48:754) and Philogonius, “Homily 6” (MPG 48:754).

106. A reference to the 47 canones poenitentiales, a collection of rules for the penitential widely used in the Middle Ages.

22

23

24

316

25

|

Smalcald Articles

one could grant a hundred years and another a hundred days. However, the pope reserved for himself alone the right to remit the entire satisfaction.'% Once this practice began to bring in money and the market in bulls became lucrative, the pope devised the jubilee year—which offered the forgiveness for all penalties and guilt'®—and attached it to Rome. The people came running, because everyone wanted to be set free from this heavy, unbearable burden.

26

27

28

This was called “finding and digging up the treasures of the earth.”!% Immediately, the popes rushed headlong and established many jubilee years, one after another. The more money he swallowed, the wider his gullet became. Therefore, through his legates he dispatched his jubilee years across the lands, until all the churches and every home were overflowing with them.!!? Finally, he stormed into purgatory among the dead—first with Masses and the establishment of vigils; after that, with indulgences and the jubilee year. In the end, souls became so cheap that one could be sprung for a nickel.!!! Even this did not help at all. For although the pope taught the people to rely on and trust in such indulgences, he himself once again made the process uncertain when he asserted in his bulls, “Whoever desires to partake of the indulgence or the jubilee year should be contrite, go to confession, and give money.’!'2 We have heard above that such contrition and confession are uncertain and hypocritical among them.!!? Similarly, no one knew which soul was in purgatory, and, of those that were supposedly there, no one knew which had been truly contrite and had confessed. Thus, the pope took the money, comforted people with his authority and indulgence, and nevertheless directed them once again to their uncertain works. Now, there were a few who did not consider themselves guilty of any actual sins of thought, word, and deeds—such as myself and others like me, who wanted to be monks and priests in monasteries and foundations. We resisted evil thoughts with fasting, keeping vigils, praying, holding Masses, using rough 107. Plenary, or full, indulgences were instituted in 1095 by Pope Urban 11 in connection with

the first Crusade. 108. Luther refers here in German to the Latin expression remissio poenae et culpae, which dates back to the mid-thirteenth century but disappears from official papal documents after the Council of Constance (1414—17). The phrase Luther uses for “jubilee year” is Guldenjahr, golden year, which the Latin renders auriferum annum (gold-producing year). 109. Cf. Daniel 11:43. In the Middle Ages, Christians used this passage to express their conviction that the devil would show the Antichrist where the concealed riches of the earth were hidden in order to deceive the people. 110. Nicholas of Cusa proclaimed the jubilee of 1450. They were held in 1300, 1390, 1425, 1450, 1475, 1500, and 1525.

111. For vigils, see above, SA II, 2, 12. The first indulgences for the dead seem to have been offered in 1476 or 1500. Luther may be referring to the infamous verse of the indulgence preachers: “When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs!” 112. By the middle of the thirteenth century, contrition and confession were regularly connected with indulgences. 113. SA 111, 3, 16-23.

Smalcald Articles

317

clothing and beds, etc. With earnestness and intensity we desired to be holy. Still, while we slept, the hereditary, inborn evil was at work according to its nature (as St. Augustine!’* and St. Jerome,!''> along with others, confess). However, each one held that some of the others were so holy, as we taught, that

they were without sin and full of good works. On this basis, we transferred and sold our good works to others, as exceeding what we needed to get into heaven.!16 This really is true, and there are seals, letters, and copies available to prove it. Such people did not need repentance. For why did they need to be contrite since they had not consented to evil thoughts? What did they need to confess,

29

since they had avoided evil words? For what did they need to make satisfaction,

since their deeds were guiltless to the point that they could sell their excess righteousness to other poor sinners? At the time of Christ the Pharisees and scribes were such saints, too.!’ At this point, the fiery angel St. John, the preacher of true repentance, comes and destroys both sides with a single thunderclap, saying, “Repent!”!!8 The one side thinks: “But we have already done penance.” The other thinks: “We do not need repentance.” John says, “All of you together repent! You here are false penitents; those over there are false saints. You all need the forgiveness of sins because you all still do not know what true sin is, let alone that you ought to repent of it or avoid it. Not one of you is any good. You are full of unbelief, stupidity, and ignorance regarding God and his will. For God is present over there, in the One from whose fullness we all must receive grace upon grace and without whom no human being can be justified before God.!!® Therefore, if you want to repent, then repent in the right way. Your penance does not do it. And you hypocrites, who think you do not need repentance, you brood of vipers, who assured you that you will escape the

wrath to come, etc.?”120

St. Paul also preaches this way in Romans 3[:10-12] and says, “No one has understanding; . . . no one is righteous; . . . no one seeks God; . . . no one shows kindness, not even one; . . . all have turned aside and become worthless.” And in Acts 17[:30]: “Now God commands all people everywhere to repent.” He says, “all people”—no single human being is excluded. This repentance teaches 114. Confessions 11, 2, and X, 30 (MPL 32:674-77, 796f.; CSEL 33:29-32, 257f.; NPNF, ser. 1, 1:55f. and 153f.). ' 115. Epistle 22 (to Julia Eustochium), 7 (MPL 22:398; NPNF, ser. 2, 6:25).

116. A reference to works of supererogation, good deeds above and beyond those necessary for a person’s salvation, especially the monastic vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, the merits of which could be given to others. 117. The Latin translation adds: “and hypocrites.” 118. Matthew 3:2. Regarding the fiery angel, see Malachi 3:1. 119. John 1:16 (which Luther reads as John the Baptizer’s statement; cf. John 1:29) and Galatians 2:16. 120. Matthew 3:7. .

30

3 32

33 34 35

318

36

Smalcald Articles

us to recognize sin: namely, that we are all lost, neither hide nor hair of us is good, and we must become absolutely new and different people. This repentance is not fragmentary or paltry—like the kind that does penance for actual sins—nor is it uncertain like that kind. It does not debate

over what is a sin or what is not a sin. Instead, it simply lumps everything together and says, “Everything is pure sin with us. What would we want to spend so much time investigating, dissecting, or distinguishing?” Therefore, here as well, contrition is not uncertain, because there remains nothing that we might consider a “good” with which to pay for sin. Rather, there is plain, certain despair concerning all that we are, think, say, or do, etc.

37 38

39

Similarly, such confession also cannot be false, uncertain, or fragmentary. All who confess that everything is pure sin with them embrace all sins, allow no exceptions, and do not forget a single one. Thus, satisfaction can never be uncertain either. For it consists not in our uncertain, sinful works but rather in the suffering and blood of the innocent “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” [John 1:29].12! About this repentance John preached and, after him, Christ in the Gospels,

and we, too. With this repentance, we topple the pope and everything that is

built upon our good works, because it is all built upon a rotten, flimsy foun-

dation: good works or law. In fact, there are no good works but exclusively evil

works, and no one keeps the law (as Christ says in John 7[:19]), but all trans-

40

gress it. Therefore the whole edifice is nothing but deceitful lies and hypocrisy, especially where it is at its holiest and most beautiful. This repentance endures among Christians until death because it struggles with the sin that remains in the flesh throughout life. As St. Paul bears witness

in Romans 7[:23], he wars with the law in his members, etc.—not by using his

41 42 .

R

"‘A

i

own powers but with the gift of the Holy Spirit which follows from the forgiveness of sins.!?? This same gift daily cleanses and sweeps away the sins that remain and works to make people truly pure and holy.!?? The pope, theologians, lawyers, and all human beings know nothing about this. Rather, it is a teaching from heaven, revealed through the gospel, which must be called heresy among the godless saints. Then again, some fanatical spirits might arise—perhaps some already are

present, just as I saw for myself at the time of the disturbance'?*—who maintain

that all who once have received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sin or have become believers, should they sin after that, would still remain in the faith, and such sin would not harm them. They shout, “Do what you will! If you believe, then nothing else matters. Faith blots out all sin,” etc. They say, in addition, that if someone sins after receiving faith and the Spirit, then that person never really had the Spirit 121. See also SA 11, 1, 2. 122. Romans 8:2. 123. Cf. SC, “Baptism,” 12.

124. A reference to the Peasants’ War of 1525. Luther often linked “fanatical spirits” to his encounters with the likes of Thomas Miintzer and other leaders of the rebellion.

Smalcald Articles

319

and faith. I have encountered many such foolish people, and I am concerned that such a devil is still present in some. Therefore it is necessary to know and teach that when holy people—aside from the fact that they still have and feel original sin and also daily repent of it and struggle against it—somehow fall into a public sin (such as David, who fell into adultery, murder, and blasphemy against God), at that point faith and the Spirit have departed. The Holy Spirit does not allow sin to rule and gain the upper hand so that it is brought to completion, but the Spirit controls and resists so that sin is

43

44

not able to do whatever it wants. However, when sin does whatever it wants, then

the Holy Spirit and faith are not there. As St. John says (1 John 3:9): “Those who have been born of God do not sin . . . and cannot sin.” Nevertheless, this is also the truth (as the same St. John writes [1:8]): “If we say we have no sin, we deceive our-

selves, and the truth of God'? is not in us.”*?

[4:] Concerning the Gospel'?Z We now want to return to the gospel, which gives guidance and help against sin in more than one way, because God is extravagantly rich in his grace: first, through the spoken word, in which the forgiveness of sins is preached to the whole world (which is the proper function of the gospel); second, through baptism; third, through the holy Sacrament of the Altar; fourth, through the power of the keys and also through the mutual conversation and consolation of brothers and sisters.!28 Matthew 18[:20]: “Where two or three are gathered . . 1%

[5:] Concerning Baptism Baptism is nothing other than God’s Word in the water, commanded by God’s institution, or, as Paul says, “washing by the Word.”!3® Moreover, Augustine

125. Luther adds the words “of God.” 126. SA 11, 3, 4245 was added to the text by Luther as he prepared the document for publication in 1538. The emphasis here would seem to be directed against John Agricola and the “antinomians,” who taught that the law did not apply to Christians. There was a heated controversy over this issue among the Wittenberg theologians in the middle and late 1530s. These paragraphs were not part of the document to which Agricola subscribed in December 1536. 127. From this point forward, because of an apparent heart attack, Luther was forced to dicrest of SA. Caspar Cruciger Sr. recorded SA 11, 4-9 and 13-15, and another, unknown secthe tate retary recorded SA III, 10-12. 128. Luther uses a Latin phrase (per mutuum colloquium et consolationem fratrum), which may have originated in the monastic practice of mutual confession, as a way of referring to absolution

by a neighbor or friend. See Sermons on Matthew 18-24 (1537-40) (WA 47:297-305) and The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520) (WA 6:546, 11-547, 35; LW 36:86-88).

129. Luther cites the text in Latin as “Where two are gathered . . . ,” conflating this text with Matthew 18:19. 130. Luther quotes Ephesians 5:26 according to the Latin Vulgate.

45

320

Smalcald Articles

says, “Let the Word be added to the element, and a sacrament results.”!’! Therefore we do not agree with Thomas!3? and the Dominicans who forget the Word (God’s institution) and say that God has placed a spiritual power in the water which, through the water, washes away sin. We also disagree with Scotus and the Franciscans,!3? who teach that baptism washes away sin through the assistance of the divine will, that is, that this washing takes place only through God’s will and not at all through the Word and the water. Concerning Infant Baptism We maintain that we should baptize children because they also belong to the promised redemption that was brought about by Christ.!** The church ought to extend it'® to them.

[6:] Concerning the Sacrament of the Altar We maintain that the bread and the wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ!36 and that they are not only offered to and received by upright Christians but also by evil ones.!?” And we maintain that no one should distribute only one kind in the sacrament. Nor do we need the lofty learning which teaches us that there is as much under one kind as under both. This is how the sophists and the Council of Constance teach.!?8 Even if it were true that there is as much under one kind as under both, one kind is still not the complete order and institution as established and commanded by Christ. Especially do we condemn and curse in God’s name those who not only allow distribution of both kinds to be omitted 131. Luther cites from memory the Latin of Augustine’s Tractates on the Gospel of St. John 80, 3, on John 15:3 (MPL 35:1840; NPNF, ser. 1, 7:344). Augustine’s actual words were, “The Word is

added to the element, and a sacrament results.” Luther referred to this statement in other contexts: LC, “Baptism,” 18, and LC, “Lord’s Supper,” 10. 132. Thomas Aquinas, STh I1I, q. 62, a. 4. 133. John Duns Scotus, Commentary on the Sentences IV, d. 1, q. 2. He was followed by Franciscans like William of Occam, Sentences IV, q. 1. 134. Matthew 19:14. 135. The Latin translation of the SA refers this ambiguous pronoun to both baptism and redemption. 136. In Luther’s rough draft of his original manuscript, he had first written “under the bread and the wine” The Wittenberg Concord, an agreement between the South German Protestants (especially Martin Bucer and other Strasbourg preachers) and the Wittenberg theologians signed in 1536, reads, “with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, exhibited and received. .. ” Cf. CA X, 1.

‘

137. The Wittenberg Concord reads, “As Paul says that the unworthy also eat, so they [the sign-

ers] hold that, where the words and institution Qf_ Christ are retained, the body and blood of the

Lord are truly offered also to the unworthy, and that the unworthy receive.”

138. The 15 June 1415 decree stated that “the entire body and blood of Christ is in truth con-

tained both under the form of the bread and under the form of the wine.”

Smalcald Articles

321

but also dictatorially prohibit, condemn, and slander the distribution of both kinds as heresy. Thereby they set themselves against and above Christ, our Lord and God, etc. Concerning transubstantiation, we have absolutely no regard for the subtle sophistry!3 of those who teach that bread and wine surrender or lose their natural substances and that only the form and color of the bread remain, but it is no longer real bread. For it is in closest agreement with Scripture to say that bread is and remains there, as St. Paul himself indicates [1 Cor. 10:16; 11:28]:

“The bread that we break .. ” and “Eat of the bread.”

[7:] Concerning the Keys The keys are an office and authority given to the church by Christ'*® to bind and loose sins—not only the crude and notorious sins but also the subtle,

secret ones that only God knows. As it is written [Ps. 19:12], “But who can detect their errors?” And Paul himself complains in Romans 7[:23] that with

his flesh he served the “law of sin.” For it is not in our power but in God’s alone to judge which, how great, and how many sins there are. As it is written [Ps. 143:2]: “Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you.” And Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 4[:4]: “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted.”

[8:] Concerning Confession Because absolution or the power of the keys is also a comfort and help against sin and a bad conscience and was instituted by Christ in the gospel,'*! confes-

sion, or absolution, should by no means be allowed to fall into disuse in the

church—especially for the sake of weak consciences and for the wild young people, so that they may be examined and instructed in Christian teaching. However, the enumeration of sins ought to be a matter of choice for each individual: each person should be able to determine what and what not to enumerate. As long as we are in the flesh we will not lie if we say, “I am a poor person, full of sin.”142 Romans 7[:23] states: “I see in my members another law. ...

Because private absolution'*? is derived from the office of the keys, we should not neglect it but value it highly, just as all the other offices of the Christian church. '

139. In To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520) (WA 6:456, 36; LW 44:199),

Luther called transubstantiation an “illusion [German: Wah#; cf. LW: “opinion”] of St. Thomas and the pope.” 140. Matthew 16:19, 18:18; and John 20:23.

141. See above, n. 140. 142. 2 Esdras 7:68. This is a reference to the general confession. See SC, “Baptism,” 22. 143. Luther uses a Latin phrase, absolutio privata, rather than the customary confessio privata (private confession). See LC, “Confession,” 15-17.

322

Smalcald Articles

In these matters, which concern the spoken, external Word, it must be firmly maintained that God gives no one his Spirit or grace apart from the external Word

which goes before. We say this to protect ourselves from the enthusiasts,'4 that is,

the “spirits,” who boast that they have the Spirit apart from and before contact

with the Word. On this basis, they judge, interpret, and twist the Scripture or oral

Word according to their pleasure. Miintzer did this, and there are still many doing this today, who set themselves up as shrewd judges between the spirit and the letter without knowing what they say or teach.\*> The papacy is also purely religious raving'#® in that the pope boasts that “all laws are in the shrine of his heart™4 and that what he decides and commands in his churches is supposed to be Spirit and law—even when it is above or contrary to the Scriptures or the spoken Word.'4® This is all the old devil and old snake, who also turned Adam and Eve into enthusiasts and led them from the external Word of God to “spirituality” and their own presumption—although he even accomplished this by means of other, external words. In the same way, our enthusiasts also condemn the external Word,

and yet they themselves do not keep silent. Instead, they fill the world with their chattering and scribbling—as if the Spirit could not come through the Scriptures or the spoken word of the apostles, but the Spirit must come through their own writings and words. Why do they not abstain from their preaching and writing until the Spirit himself comes into the people apart from and in advance of their writings? After all, they boast that the Spirit has come into them without the preaching of the Scriptures. There is no time here to debate these matters more extensively. We have dealt with them sufficiently elsewhere,'4

For both those who believe prior to baptism and those who become believers in

baptism have everything through the external Word that comes first. For example, adults who have reached the age of reason must have previously heard, “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved” [Mark 16:16], even though they were at first without faith and only after ten years received the Spirit and baptism. In

Acts 10[:1ff.] Cornelius had long since heard from

the Jews about a future

Messiah, through whom he would be justified before God. His prayers and alms

were acceptable in such faith (so Luke calls him “righteous and God-fearing” [Acts 10:2, 22]). Without such a preceding Word or hearing he could neither believe nor

O

;}’ ~

be righteous. However, St. Peter had to reveal to him that the Messiah now had come. (Up until then he had believed in him as the one who was to come.) His

144. As was his custom, Luther uses the German form of a technical Greek and Latin term for a person in whom the god dwells (en-theou), that is, a “spiritist”.or spiritualist. It also became a general epithet for a heretic. In other writings he uses the German word Schwéirmer, that is, a fanatic, one who raves (cf. the English cognate, “swarm”). 145. CA V, 4. Cf. 2 Corinthians 3:6. 146. German: Enthusiasmus, a Greek loan word meaning possessed by the god within oneself. 147. Corpus juris canonici, Liber Sextus 1, 2, c. 1.

148. Tr 6.

‘

149. See, for example, Against the Heavenly Prophets (1525) (WA 18:136-39; LW 40:146—49) and Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15 (1532) (WA 36:491, 498-507; LW 28:67, 75-82).

Smalcald Articles

323

faith in the future Messiah did not hold him captive along with the hardened, unbelieving Jews, but he knew that now he had to be saved by the present Messiah and not, in consort with the Jews, deny or persecute him. In short: enthusiasm clings to Adam and his children from the beginning to the end of the world—fed and spread'> among them as poison by the old dragon. It is the source, power, and might of all the heresies, even that of the papacy and Mohammed.'>! Therefore we should and must insist that God does not want to deal with us human beings, except by means of his external Word and sacrament. Everything that boasts of being from the Spirit apart from such a Word and sacrament is of the devil. For God even desired to appear to Moses first in the burning bush and by means of the spoken word;'5? no prophet—not even Elijah or Elisha—received the Spirit outside of or without the Ten Commandments; John

the Baptist was not conceived without Gabriel’s preceding Word, > nor did he leap in his mother’s womb without Mary’s voice;'>* and St. Peter says: the prophets did not prophesy “by human will” but “by the Holy Spirit,” indeed, as “holy people of God.”'>> However, without the external Word, they were not holy—much less would the Holy Spirit have moved them to speak while they were still unholy. Peter says they were holy because the Holy Spirit speaks through them.!>6

[9:] Concerning Excommunication We maintain that the “great” excommunication, as the pope calls it, is a purely secular penalty and does not concern us who serve the church. However, the “small” (that is, the truly Christian) excommunication is that public, obstinate sinners should not be admitted to the sacrament or other fellowship in the church until they improve their behavior and avoid sin. The preachers should not mix civil punishments together with this spiritual penalty or excommunication.'>’

[10:] Concerning Ordination and Vocation!$ If the bishops wanted to be true bishops and to attend to the church and the gospel, then a person might—for the sake of love and unity but not out of 150. German: gestiftet und gegiftet. 151. Luther, like most Christians of his day, viewed Mohammed as guilty of a christological heresy. 152. Exodus 3:2ff. 153. Luke 1:13-20. 154. Luke 1:41-44.

155. 2 Peter 1:21 according to the alternate reading in the NRSV.

156. SA 111, 8, 3—13 is only found in printed versions of the SA.

157. The excommunicatio major excluded a person from both the church and political communities, while the excommunicatio minor restricted a person only from the sacrament. 158. Luther uses a latinized German word, Vokation, which refers to an ecclesiastical vocation

or call.

i

10

11

12

13

324

Smalcald Articles

necessity—give them leave to ordain and confirm us and our preachers, provided all the pretense and fraud of unchristian ceremony and pomp were set aside. However, they are not now and do not want to be true bishops. Rather, they are political lords and princes who do not want to preach, teach, baptize, commune, or perform any proper work or office of the church. In addition, they persecute and condemn those who do take up a call to such an office. Despite this, the church must not remain without servants on their account.

Therefore, as the ancient examples of the church and the Fathers teach us, we should and will ordain suitable persons to this office ourselves.!>® They may not forbid or prevent us, even according to their own laws, because their laws

say that those who are ordained even by heretics should also be regarded as ordained and remain ordained.!® Similarly, St. Jerome writes about the church at Alexandria that it had originally been ruled by the priests and preachers together, without bishops.!6!

[11:] Concerning the Marriage of Priests They had neither the authority nor the right to forbid marriage and burden the divine estate of priests with perpetual celibacy. Instead, they acted like antiChristian, tyrannical, wicked scoundrels and thereby gave occasion for all kinds of horrible, abominable, and countless sins of unchastity, in which they are still mired. Now, as little as the power has been given to them or to us to

make a female out of a male or a male out of a female—or to abolish sexual distinctions altogether—so little did they have the power to separate such creatures of God or to forbid them from living together honestly in marriage. Therefore we are unwilling to consent to their miserable celibacy, nor will we tolerate it. We want marriage to be free, as God ordered and instituted it. We do not want to disrupt or inhibit God’s work, for St. Paul says that would be “a teaching of demons.”162

[12:] Concerning the Church T

B AT

We do not concede to them that they are the church, and frankly they are not the church. We do not want to hear what they command or forbid in the name of the church, because, God be praised, a seven-year-old child!%* knows what the church is: holy believers and “the little sheep who hear the voice of their 159. The first ordination conducted by the Wittenberg reformers in Wittenberg took place on 20 October 1535. 160. Gratian, Decretum 1, dist. 68, chap. 1; II, dist. 4, chap. 107. 161. For the references see SA 11, 4, 9. 162. 1 Timothy 4:1. 163. This was the age by which a child had learned the Apostles’ Creed, what Luther sometimes called the Children’s Creed (see WA 50:624; LW 41:143). It has nothing to do with the age of discernment.

Smalcald Articles

325

shepherd”16¢ This is why children pray in this way, “I believe in one holy Christian church.”165 This holiness does not consist of surplices, tonsures, long albs, or other ceremonies of theirs that they have invented over and above the

Holy Scriptures. Its holiness exists in the Word of God and true faith.

[13:] How a Person Is Justified and Concerning Good Works I cannot change at all what I have consistently taught about this until now,

namely, that “through faith” (as St. Peter says)!®® we receive a different, new,

clean heart and that, for the sake of Christ our mediator, God will and does regard us as completely righteous and holy. Although sin in the flesh is still not completely gone or dead, God will nevertheless not count it or consider it. Good works follow such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sin, and whatever in these works is still sinful or imperfect should not even be counted as sin or imperfection, precisely for the sake of this same Christ. Instead, the human creature should be called and should be completely righteous and holy— according to both the person and his or her works—by the pure grace and mercy that have been poured and spread over us in Christ. Therefore we cannot boast about the great merit of our works, where they are viewed apart from grace and mercy. Rather, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the

Lord” [1 Cor. 1:31; 2 Cor. 10:17]. That is, if one has a gracious God, then everything is good. Furthermore, we also say that if good works do not follow, then faith is false and not true.

[14:] Concerning Monastic Vows Because monastic vows are in direct conflict with the first and chief article,'¢”

they should simply be done away with. It is about these that Christ spoke in Matthew 24[:5] (“‘Tam Christ.

.. ”). For those who vow to live a monastic life

believe that they lead a better life than the ordinary Christian, and through their works they intend to help not only themselves but others get to heaven. This is known as denying Christ, etc. They boast, on the basis of their St. Thomas, that monastic vows are equal to baptism.!6® This is blasphemy against God.'®

164. Cf. John 10:3.

165. Luther quotes from a German translation of the Creed that had been in use in Germany since the fifteenth century. See also SC, “Creed,” 3, and LC, “Creed,” 3. 166. In Acts 15:9.

167.SA 11, 1. 168. Thomas Aquinas, STh 11, 2, q. 189, a. 3, ad 3, and CA XXVI. 169. The last sentence of SA III, 14, was written into the text of the original manuscript by Luther himself.

326

Smalcald Articles

[15:] Concerning Human Regulations That the papists say human regulations help attain the forgiveness of sins or merit salvation is unchristian and damnable. As Christ says [Matt. 15:9], “In

vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.” Also, the Letter to Titus [1:14] mentions “those who reject the truth.” Furthermore, it is also not right when they say that it is a mortal sin to break such regulations. These are the articles on which I must stand and on which I intend to stand, God willing, until my death. I can neither change nor concede anything in them. If anyone desires to do so, it is on that person’s conscience.!7? Finally, there still remains the papal bag of tricks, filled with foolish, childish articles such as the consecration of churches, baptizing bells, baptizing altar stones, and inviting to the rites the “godparents” who give money for these things. This baptizing mocks and ridicules Holy Baptism and ought not be tolerated. Moreover, there is the consecration of candles, palms, spices, oats, cakes,

etc.!7! In fact, these cannot be called consecration, nor are they. Rather, they are pure mockery and deception. As far as these innumerable magic tricks go— which we suggest their god and they themselves adore until they become tired of them—we do not wish to bother with these things. Subscriptions to the Smalcald Articles DRr. MARTIN LUTHER subscribes

DRr. JusTus JoNas, rector, subscribes with his own hand Dr. Joun BuGeNHAGEN of Pomerania subscribes

Dr. CasparR CRUCIGER subscribes Nicaoras AMsDORF of Magdeburg subscribes GEORGE SPALATIN of Altenburg subscribes I, PHiLip MELANTHON, also regard the above articles as true and Christian. However, concerning the pope I maintain that if he would allow the gospel, we, too, may (for the sake of peace and general unity among those Christians who are now under him and might be in the future) grant to him his superiority over the bishops which he has “by human right.””2

170. SA 111, 15, 3-5 forms a conclusion of sorts to the entire document. Both the original publication of 1538 and the Book of Concord begin this paragraph with a separate ornamental initial. 171. On Holy Saturday the “old fire” was extinguished in the church, and the “new fire” was lit and sprinkled with holy water. At the Easter Vigil the Easter candle was consecrated and lit from this “new fire.” On Candlemas (2 February), candles were consecrated. On Palm Sunday, palms were consecrated. On the Assumption of Mary (15 August), herbs, flowers, ears of corn, honey, grapevines, etc., were consecrated. On St. Stephen’s Day (26 December), oats were consecrated. On Easter Sunday, unleavened Easter cakes were consecrated. 172. Melanchthon began using “Melanthon” in 1531. The phrase “by human right” is in Latin (iure humano). Cf. CA XXVIII, 29.

Smalcald Articles

327

JouN AGricoLa of Eisleben subscribes!”?

GABRIEL ZWILLING subscribes!’4 I, Dr. UrBAN RHEGIUS, superintendent of the churches in the duchy of Liineburg, subscribe for myself and in the name of my brothers and in the name of the church of Hanover

I, STEPHEN AGRICOLA, as minister in Hof, subscribe

And I, Joun DRACONTITES, professor and minister of Marburg, subscribe I, CoNraD FIGENBOTZ, subscribe to the glory of God that I have believed and now preach and believe firmly as above I, ANDREW OSIANDER, minister of Nuremberg, subscribe Master VEIT DIETRICH, minister of Nuremberg I, ERHARD SCHNEPF, preacher of Stuttgart, subscribe CoNrAD OETTINGER of Pforzheim, preacher of Duke Ulrich [of Wiirttemberg) S1MON SCHNEEWEISS, pastor of the church in Crailsheim I, JOHN SCHLAGENHAUEEN, pastor of the church of Kéthen, subscribe

Master Master Master I, JouN

GeorGe HEerr of Forchheim ApaM [Kraret] of Fulda, preacher of Hesse ANTON CORVINUS BUGENHAGEN, subscribe again in the name of Master John Brenz, who,

when leaving Smalcald, directed me both orally and in a letter, which was shown to these brothers who have subscribed, to do so!”® I, DENNIS MELANDER, subscribe to the Augsburg Confession, the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, and the Wittenberg Concord on the subject of the Eucharist PauL RHODE, superintendent of Stettin

GERHARD OEMCKEN, superintendent of the church of Minden I, Brixrus NORTHANUS, minister of the church of Christ in Soest, subscribe to the articles of the Reverend Father Martin Luther and confess that until now I have believed and taught this and, by the Spirit of Christ, will in like manner believe and teach MicHAEL CoELIUS, preacher of Mansfeld, subscribes Master PETER GELTNER, preacher in Frankfurt [am Main], subscribes WENDELL FABER, pastor of Seeburg in Mansfeld

173. These first eight subscriptions to SA were obtained at a gathering of theologians at Wittenberg in December 1536. 174. Zwilling signed the SA in January 1537. 175. Brenz’s note to Bugenhagen, dated 23 February 1537, reads in part: “I have read and reread again and again the Confession and Apology presented at Augsburg . . . the Formula of Concord concerning the sacrament, made at Wittenberg with Dr. Bucer and others . . . the articles written at the Assembly at Smalcald in the German language by Dr. Martin Luther . .. and the tract concerning the Papacy and the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops. . .. I judge that all these agree with Holy Scripture, and with the belief of the true and pure catholic church. ... Taskyou...Dr. John Bugenhagen . . . that your excellency add my name, if it be necessary, to all the others. .. .”

328

Smalcald Articles

I, Joun AEpINUS, subscribe!7® Likewise, I, JouN [TiMANN from] Amsterdam of Bremen

I, FREDERICK MYCONTUS, pastor of the church of Gotha in Thuringia, subscribe for myself and in the name of Justus Menius of Eisenach

I, John Lang, doctor and preacher of the church in Erfurt, in my name and on

behalf of my coworkers in the gospel, namely,!”? The Rev. Licentiate Louis Platz of Melsungen The Rev. Master Sigmund Kirchner The Rev. Wolfgang Kiswetter The Rev. Melchior Weittmann The Rev. John Thall

The Rev. John Kilian

The Rev. Nicholas Faber I, The Rev. Andrew Menser, subscribe in my own hand And I, Egidius Melcher, have subscribed with my own hand

176. Aepinus had originally subscribed to SA thus: “John Aepinus of Hamburg subscribes; concerning the superiority of the pontiff, he agrees with all the representatives from Hamburg to the opinions of Reverend Philip, which were added at the end.” He then crossed this out and signed without reservation. o 177. The final ten subscriptions were obtained in March 1537, when Luther and his entourage stopped in Erfurt on their way back to Wittenberg from Smalcald.

'

Treatise on the Power

and Primacy of the Pope Editors’ Introduction to the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope On 2 June 1536, Pope Paul III published a papal bull in which he convoked a church council to be opened on 23 May 1537 in Mantua. Because the preface to the Augsburg Confession itself had called for a council, the Evangelical princes, who had formed the Smalcald League, needed to respond. One part of that response was the Smalcald Articles. When representatives of the Smalcald League gathered in Smalcald on 10 February 1537 with their theologians, it soon became clear that Luther’s confession of faith would not find general acceptance, especially because of its statements on the Lord’s Supper. As a result, theologians instead subscribed to the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. In addition, the princes asked them to produce an expansion of the Augsburg Confession on the question of the primacy and authority of the pope. This was a particularly important topic given the impending papal council. It was noted at Smalcald that the Augsburg Confession had omitted a statement regarding papal authority to avoid offending the emperor and thereby ending all discussions of religion there. Now the princes wished to reject out of * hand any council convened by a pope because of false claims to authority by the bishop of Rome. Luther himself was recovering from a severe kidney stone attack and thus was unable to be a part of the deliberations. The initial request for such a document came on Monday, 12 February. On the following Saturday, the completed text was read and approved by the theologians. A week later, on 24 February, they officially subscribed to it as well as to the Augsburg Confession and its Apology.! At the close of the assembly on 6 March, the official summa-

ry of the princes’ meeting noted with approval the work of the theologians. Thus, the Treatise became an official confessional document of the Evangelical churches at this time. Philip Melanchthon, the author of the Treatise and of the note that prefaced the theologians’ subscription, reported in a letter to Justus Jonas, dated 23 February 1537, that he had used somewhat sharper language than was his custom. This does not mean that he was distancing himself from the document’s

1. This subscription is included at the end of the Treatise. It does not include Luther’s name because of his illness. 220

330

Treatise on the Power and Primacy

content. Rather, he understood that the polemical situation demanded a strong rejection of the papal usurpation of authority. ' The Treatise was first published in Strasbourg in 1540, but as a small portion of a larger work (A Godly and Knowledgeable Defense of the Marriage of Priests Sent to the King of England) with no signatories. Within a year, a German translation by Veit Dietrich appeared in Nuremberg. By the time it was included in the German version of the Book of Concord, the priority of the Latin version, Melanchthon’s authorship, and its relation to the Augsburg Confession had been forgotten. The compilers considered it an appendix to Luther’s Smalcald Articles, which it clearly had never been except in some later printings. Only the official Latin version of the Book of Concord from 1584 established the priority of the Latin text.? No version, however, attributed the Treatise to its legitimate author, Philip Melanchthon.

Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope The bishop of Rome claims to be superior by divine right to all bishops and pastors.! In addition, he claims to possess by divine right the power of both swords, that is, the authority to confer and transfer royal authority.? Third, he states that it is necessary for salvation to believe these things. For these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself the vicar of Christ on earth.> We hold and publicly declare that these three articles of faith are false, impious, tyrannical, and

ruinous to the church. In order that our assertion may be understood, we will first clarify what our opponents mean by the claim of superiority by divine right over all bishops. They take the pope to be the universal or, as they say, ecumenical bishop, that is, the one from whom all bishops and pastors throughout the world are bound to seek ordination and confirmation because he has the right to choose, ordain, confirm, and depose any bishop.* Moreover, he claims the authority to make laws concerning worship, alterations in the sacraments, and teaching. He wants his decrees and laws to be regarded as articles of faith or commandments of God and thus as binding on the conscience of the believer.5 Because he claims to exercise this power by divine right, he means it to 2. The unofficial Latin translation of the Book of Concord (1580) by Nicholas Selnecker had

translated the German version of Dietrich back into Latin. Even Melanchthon’s own collected theological works, published in the 1560s by his son-in-law, Caspar Peucer, omitted the Treatise. 1. See Gratian, Decretum I, dist. 21, chap. 3; dist. 22, chap.1, 2: Gregory IX, Decretalium V, 33, c. 23,

2. See in particular the bull Unam Sanctam (1301) of Pope Boniface VIII. 3. This title was first used by the popes from the time of Pope Innocent III. See Martin Luther on the three walls which the papacy had built to protect itself, Letter to the German Nobility (1520) (WA 6:406-15; LW 44:126-39).

L

4. The claim is made on the basis of papal “plenitude of power.” See Gratian, Decretum I, dist. 21, chap. 1, 8. 5. See Gratian Decretum 1, dist. 15, chap. 2; dist. 19, chap. 2, 6; dist. 20, chap. 1.

331

take precedence even over God’s commandments. And then, what is even more atrocious, he adds that it is necessary for salvation to believe all this. 1. First of all, therefore, let us show from the gospel that the Roman bishop is not superior by divine right to other bishops and pastors. In Luke 22{:24-27] Christ expressly forbids lordship among the apostles, for the question of who would be in charge and become, as it were, the vicar of the absent Christ was the very thing about which they were arguing when Christ spoke of his passion. Christ rebuked the apostles for this error and taught that there would be neither lordship nor superiority among them but that the apostles would be sent as equals to carry out the ministry of the gospel in common. For that reason

~

Treatise on the Power and Primacy

he said, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, but it is not so

with you. Rather whoever wants to be great among you will be your servant.” The contrast here shows that lordship is rejected. So does the parable in which, during a similar dispute about authority, Christ sets a little boy in their midst to show that just as the child neither assumes nor desires the chief place, so among his servants there will be no preeminence [Matt. 18:1-4]. 2. According to John 20[:21], Christ commissions the apostles as equals,

without distinction, when he says: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” He sends forth each one individually in the same way as he himself was sent, he says, and therefore he bestows upon no one any privilege or lordship over the rest. 3.In Galatians 2[:2, 6] Paul clearly asserts that he was neither ordained nor confirmed by Peter, nor does he acknowledge Peter as one from whom such confirmation had to be sought. He expressly argues that his call did not depend on the authority of Peter, yet he should have acknowledged Peter as his superior, if Peter were such by divine right. Paul says, however, that he began preaching the gospel immediately without consulting Peter [Gal. 1:15-24]. He also states, “And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partial-

10

ity)—those leaders contributed nothing to me” [Gal. 2:6]. Therefore, since Paul

makes it clear that he had no desire to ask for Peter’s confirmation, even when

he had come to him, he teaches that the authority of the ministry depends

upon the Word of God, that Peter was not superior to other apostles, and that ordination or confirmation was not to be sought from Peter alone. 4. In 1 Corinthians 3[:4-8, 21-22] Paul regards all ministers as equals and teaches that the church is superior to its ministers. Thus he grants neither preeminence nor lordship over the church or the other ministers to Peter. For he says, “All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas” [1 Cor. 3:21-22], which is to say, neither Peter nor the other ministers may assume lordship or preeminence over the church or burden the church with traditions or allow the authority of any person to count for more than the Word. Nor may they pit the authority of Cephas against that of the other apostles, asserting, as was done at that time, “Cephas, who is the greater apostle, observes this; therefore Paul and

the others ought to also.” Paul deprives Peter of this as a pretext and denies that

11

332

Treatfse on the Power and Primacy

his authority takes precedence over that of others or of the church. 1 Peter 5[:3]: “Not as domineering over the clergy .. .” Historical Evidence 12

5. The Council of Nicea determined that the bishop of Alexandria would preside over the churches in the East and that the bishop of Rome would have charge of the “suburban” churches, that is, those in the Roman provinces in the West.” Thus, in the beginning the authority of the Roman bishop grew out of a conciliar decision, that is, by human right, for if the Roman bishop had pos-

13 14

15

sessed his superiority by divine right, it would not have been proper for the council to withdraw any jurisdiction from him and to transfer it to the see of Alexandria. On the contrary, all the Eastern bishops would have been obliged forever to seek ordination and confirmation from Rome. 6. Again, the Council of Nicea established that bishops are to be elected by their own churches with one or more neighboring bishops present.® As Cyprian® and Augustine!? testify, this same practice was observed in the West and in the Latin churches. Cyprian states that in his fourth letter to Cornelius:*! “Therefore, according to divine tradition and apostolic usage, one should carefully follow and safeguard the practice maintained by us and in almost all the provinces. For the proper celebration of ordinations, other neighboring bishops of the same province should assemble with the people for whom a leader is to be ordained. A bishop is to be chosen in the presence of people who are fully acquainted with the life of each candidate. This was the case among you with the ordination of our colleague Sabinus: that by the vote of the whole body and the decision of the bishops gathered in their presence, the episcopal office was entrusted to him with the laying on of hands.” Cyprian calls this practice a divine tradition and apostolic usage and declares that it was observed in almost all the provinces. Therefore, since in most of the world, in both Greek and Latin churches, ordination and confir-

mation were not sought from the Roman bishop, it is clear enough that the churches at that time did not attribute preeminence and lordship to the Roman bishop. 16

7. Such preeminence is impossible, for it is impossible for one bishop to be

the overseer of all the churches in the world or for churches located in remote places to seek ordination from one bishop only. It is certain that the kingdom 6. Translation from the Vulgate.

7. Canon 6 of the Nicene Council (325). The term “suburban” in this canon referred to the ten

provinces of Italy. 8. Canon 4 of the Nicene Council (325).

9. Cyprian, Epistle 67:4-5, to Presbyter Felix and Deacon Aelius (CSEL 3/2: 739, 7-18; ANF 5:370-71). In older editions this was appended to the letter to Cornelius cited below. 10. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 11, 2 (MPL 43:428; NPNF, ser. 1, 4:426). 11. Cyprian, Epistle 67. See n. 9.

Treatise on the Power and Primacy

333

of Christ is scattered throughout the world and that presently in the East there are many churches that seek neither ordination nor confirmation from the Roman bishop. Therefore, because such preeminence is impossible and has never been established practice and because churches in most parts of the world do not acknowledge it, clearly it was not instituted [by Christ].!2 8. Many ancient councils were called and held at which the bishop of Rome did not preside, such as Nicea and most others. This also testifies to the fact that the church at that time did not recognize the primacy or superiority of the Roman bishop. 9. Jerome says: “If it is authority one is after, the world is greater than the city.!3 Wherever there is a bishop, whether in Rome, Eugubium,!* Constantinople, Rhegium, or Alexandria, he has the same worth and priestly dignity. It is the power of riches and the humility of poverty that exalts or lowers him.”1> 10. Writing to the patriarch of Alexandria, Gregory objects to being addressed as universal bishop.!® Also, he states in the records that primacy was offered to the Roman bishop at the Council of Chalcedon but that he did not accept it.!” 11. Finally, how can the pope be superior by divine right to the whole church when the church elects him and when gradually the custom came to prevail that emperors confirmed the Roman bishops in office?’® Moreover, after the bishops of Rome and Constantinople had struggled for a long time over primacy, the emperor Phocas finally determined that it should be given to Rome.!? Yet if the ancient church had acknowledged the primacy of the Roman pontiff, this controversy could not have occurred, nor would an imperial decree have been necessary. But certain verses are cited in objection to our position, namely: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” [Matt. 16:18]. Also: “I will give you the keys” [Matt. 16:19]; “Feed my sheep” [John 21:17]; and certain others.2° However, because this whole controversy has been treated fully and 12. German: “was not instituted by Christ and does not derive from divine right.” 13. German: “that is, the world is greater than the city of Rome.” 14. Modern Gubbio, in Italy. 15. Jerome, Epistle 146 to Evangelus (MPL 22:1194; NPNF, ser. 2, 6:289). 16. Gregory I, Epistles, bk. VIII, no. 30, to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria (MPL 77:933; NPNF, ser. 2, 12:241).

:

17. Epistles, bk. V, no. 43, to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, and Anastasius, bishop of Antioch

(MPL 77:771; NPNF, ser. 2, 12:178-80).

18. The Byzantine emperor mer’s rule over Italy (until 781). by Emperors Lothair I and Otto 19. In 607, Pope Boniface III the Byzantine Emperor Phocas. 20. See Gratian, Decretum 1,

confirmed the newly elected pope during the period of the forAgreements providing for similar confirmation were concluded I with the pope in 824 and 962, respectively. obtained recognition of Rome as “head of all the churches” from dist. 19, chap. 7; dist. 21, chap. 2, 3; dist. 22, chap. 2; II, chap. 24,

q. 1, c. 18; also the works of John Eck, Jerome Emser, Silvester Prierias, and Augustine Alveld in

defense of papal primacy.

17

18

19

20 21

22

334

23

Treatise on the Power and Primacy

accurately elsewhere in the books of our theologians?! and it is not possible to rehearse the details here, we refer to those writings and wish to underscore their arguments. Nevertheless, we shall respond briefly by way of interpretation. In all these sayings Peter represents the whole company of apostles, as is apparent from the text itself. For Christ did not question Peter only but asked, “Who do you (plural) say that I am?” [Matt. 16:15]. What is said here in the

singular—*I will give you the keys” and “Whatever you bind . . ”—is said elsewhere in the plural: “Whatever you (plural) bind .. .” [Matt. 18:18] and, in John

[20:23], “if you (plural) forgive the sins of any ...” These words show that the

24

25

26

27 28

keys were entrusted equally to-all the apostles and that all the apostles were commissioned in like manner. Moreover, it must be acknowledged that the keys do not belong to one particular person but to the church, as many clear and irrefutable arguments show. For having spoken of the keys in Matthew 18[:18], Christ goes on to say: “Wherever two or three agree on earth ...” [Matt. 18:19-20]. Thus, he grants the power of the keys principally and without mediation to the church, and for the same reason the church has primary possession of the right to call ministers. One must, then, see Peter as representing the whole company of apostles in these sayings, which consequently do not attribute to him any special prerogative, preeminence, or lordship. Granted that it is said, “On this rock I will build my church” [Matt. 16:18],

certainly the church is not built upon the authority of a human being but upon the ministry of that confession Peter made, in which he proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God. For that reason Christ addresses him as a minister: “On this rock,” that is, on this ministry. Furthermore, the ministry of the New Testament is not bound to places or persons like the Levitical ministry, but is scattered throughout the whole world and exists wherever God gives God’s gifts: apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers [cf. Eph. 4:11]. That ministry is not valid because of the authority of any person but because of the Word handed down by Christ. Most of the holy Fathers (Origen,?? Ambrose,?® Cyprian,** Hilary,2> Bede)?¢ interpret the statement “On this rock . . .” in the same way, that is, as not applying to the person or superiority of Peter. Thus Chrysostom declares: “Christ says ‘on this rock, not ‘on Peter’ For truly he has built his church not upon the man but upon Peter’s faith. But what was that faith? You

21. See, for example, Luther’s interpretation of these passages in Proceedings at Augsburg (1518) (WA 2:19-20; LW 31:280-82); On the Papacy in Rome (1530) (WA 6:309-11, 314-21; LW 39:86-89, 92-101); Sermon Preached in Leipzig (1519) (WA 2:248-49; LW 51:59-60). For Luther’s later interpretation, see Against the Roman Papacy (1545) (WA 54:231, 239-53, 273-83; LW 41:293-94, 303-20, 344-56). 22. Origen, Commentary on Matthew X1, 11 (MPG 13:1000; ANF 10:456). 23. Here Ambrosiaster, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians II, 20 (MPL 17:380).

24. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church 4 (CSEL 3/1: 213, 2-5; ANF 5:422).

25. Hilary, On the Trinity VI, 36-37 (MPL 10:186~87; NPNF, ser. 2, 9:111-12).

26. Bede, Exposition of the Gospel of Matthew 111, 16 (MPL 92:73-79).

Treatise on the Power and Primacy

335

are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”?” And this from Hilary: “The Father revealed this to Peter so that he might declare: ‘You are the Son of the living God. Upon this rock of confession, therefore, the church is built. This faith is the foundation of the church.”2® As to the passages “Feed my sheep” [John 21:17] and “Do you love me more than these?” [John 21:15], they do not support the conclusion that a special superiority has been given to Peter. Christ orders him to feed the flock, that is, to preach the Word or govern the church by the Word—something Peter holds in common with other apostles. The second article? is even clearer than the first, for Christ gave to his apostles only spiritual authority, that is, the command to preach the gospel, to proclaim the forgiveness of sins, to administer the sacraments, and to excommunicate the ungodly without the use of physical force. He did not give them the power of the sword or the right to establish, take possession, or dispose of the kingdoms of the world. Indeed, Christ said, “Go, . . . teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you” [Matt. 28:19-20]. Again, “As the Father

29

30

31

has sent me, so I send you” [John 20:21]. It is certain that Christ was not sent

to wield the sword or to possess worldly authority, for as he himself said, “My kingdom is not from this world” [John 18:36]. Also, Paul says, “I do not mean to imply that we lord it over your faith” [2 Cor. 1:24], and again, “for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human” [2 Cor. 10:4]. Thus, the fact that during his passion Christ was crowned with thorns and led forth to be mocked in royal purple signified that there would come a time when, his spiritual kingdom having been rejected and the gospel overthrown, another worldly realm would be established on the pretext of ecclesiastical power. For this reason

the constitution

of Boniface VIII,*® Distinction

33

22 of the chapter

“Omnes,”?! and other similar statements, which contend that the pope is lord of the kingdoms of the world by divine right, are false and impious. This conviction brought horrible darkness upon the church and afterward precipitated great tumult in Europe. For the ministry of the gospel was neglected. Knowledge of faith and of the spiritual realm was destroyed. Christian righteousness was equated with that external government which the pope had created. Then the popes began grabbing an empire for themselves.>? They 27. The exact citation cannot be determined; see, however, Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 54,3 (MPG 58:534; NPNF, ser. 1, 10:333). See also Theophylact, Exposition of the Gospel of Matthew (MPG 123:219).

28. See n. 25 above. 29. The reference is to the second of the three papal claims listed above in par. 2. 30. The bull Unam Sanctam (1301). It reads in part: “However, spiritual power ought to excel the earthly ever so much in dignity and ability. . . . For the truth witnesses that the spiritual power has the earthly power to establish and to judge the earthly if it has not been good. .. ” 31. Gratian, Decretum 1, dist. 22, chap. 1.

32

32. The roots of the papal state go back to the early Middle Ages, but a new stage in the consolidation of its power was accomplished shortly before the Reformation by Pope Alexander VI, his son Cesare Borgia, and Pope Julius II. Key among the documents used over the centuries to legit-

34

35

336

36

37

38

Treatise on the Power and Primacy

transferred kingships.3?> They harassed the rulers of almost all the nations of Europe, but especially the emperors of Germany, with unjust excommunications3* and wars:3> sometimes to occupy Italian cities’® and other times to bring the German bishops into subjection and to deprive the emperors of the right to appoint bishops.’” Indeed, it is even written in the Clementines: “When the imperial office falls vacant, the pope is the legitimate successor.”>® Thus, the pope, contrary to the command of Christ,® has not only violated sovereignty but even exalted himself tyrannically over all rulers. In this matter the act itself is not as despicable as the fact that he uses the authority of Christ as a pretext, that he transfers the keys [cf. Matt. 16:19] to worldly dominion, and that he binds salvation to these impious and heinous opinions, claiming it is necessary for salvation that people believe this tyranny belongs to the pope by divine right. Because these monstrous errors obscure faith and the reign of Christ, under no circumstances can they be ignored. Truly the results show what great plagues they have been in the church. Concerning the third article,*° this must be added: Even if the Roman bishop possessed primacy and superiority by divine right, one would still not owe obedience to those pontiffs who defend ungodly forms of worship, idolatry, and teaching inimical to the gospel. On the contrary, one should regard such pontiffs and such rule as anathema. So Paul clearly teaches: “If . . . an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed” [Gal. 1:8]. Again, in Acts [5:29]: “We must

obey God rather than any human authority.” The canons also clearly teach that a heretical pope is not to be obeyed.*! The Levitical high priest was supreme by

imate the pope’s claims to territory was the spurious Donation of Constantine, the authenticity of which some humanist scholars and the reformers had already questioned. 33, Between 1077 and 1346 the papacy set up four German counter-kings. 34. Among German kings and emperors: Henry IV, excommunicated and deposed by Gregory VII (1076, 1080) and excommunicated by Urban II (1094); Henry V, excommunicated by Gelasius II (1118); Frederick I, excommunicated by Alexander III (1160); Philip of Swabia and Otto IV,

excommunicated by Innocent III (1201 and 1210, respectively); Frederick II, excommunicated by Gregory IX (1227, 1239) and excommunicated and deposed by Innocent IV (1245); Konradin, excommunicated by Clement IV (1267); Ludwig of Bavaria, excommunicated and deposed by

i

o

John XXII (1324, 1327) and Clement VI (1346). Also, John the Landless of England, excommunicated by Innocent III (1208) and deposed (1212); Boniface VIIU's unsuccessful attempt to excommunicate and depose Philip IV of France (1303).

35. 1495-96 against Charles VIII of France; 1511-13 against against Emperor Charles V. 36. There was especially intense conflict over the possessiofl between the papacy and the Hohenstaufen emperors in the twelfth 37. The reference is to the Investiture Controversy, which ended (1122). 38. Corpus juris canonici Clementinae 11, i, c. 2. 39, Mark 10:42, 43. T

Louis XII of France; 1526-29 of various Italian territories and thirteenth centuries. with the Concordat of Worms

40. The reference is to the third of the three papal claims listed in par. 3. 41. Gratian, Decretum 1, dist. 40, chap. 6.

Treatise on the Power and Primacy

337

divine right. Nevertheless, ungodly high priests were not to be obeyed; Jeremiah and other prophets dissented from them. The apostles dissented from Caiaphas and were not obliged to obey him. It is well known, however, that the Roman pontiffs and their minions defend ungodly doctrines and worship practices. Moreover, the marks of the Antichrist clearly fit the reign of the pope and his minions. For describing the Antichrist to the Thessalonians, Paul calls him an adversary of Christ who “exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God” [2 Thess. 2:4]. He is speaking, therefore, of someone reigning in the church, not of pagan rulers, and calls that one an adversary of Christ ~ because he will invent doctrine that conflicts with the gospel and will arrogate to himself divine authority. First of all, the pope clearly reigns in the church and has established this dominion for himself on the pretext of the authority of the church and the ministry, offering as justification the words, “I will give you the keys” [Matt. 16:19]. Next, papal teaching contradicts the gospel at numerous points, and the pope arrogates to himself divine authority in three ways. First, he assumes the right to alter Christ’s teaching and the worship instituted by God, and he wants his own doctrine and worship regarded as divine. Second, he claims not only the power to loose and bind in this life but also authority over souls after this life.#? Third, the pope is not willing to be judged by the church or by anyone else and places his authority above the judgment of councils and of the whole church.** To refuse to be judged by the church or by anyone is to make himself God. Finally, he defends these dreadful errors and this wickedness with the greatest savagery, killing those who dissent.** This being the situation, all Christians must beware lest they become participants in the ungodly teachings, blasphemies, and unjust cruelty of the pope. Indeed, they ought to abandon and curse the pope and his minions as the realm of the Antichrist, just as Christ commanded: “Beware of false prophets”

39

40

41

[Matt. 7:15]. Paul also commanded that ungodly teachers are to be shunned

and denounced as accursed,®> and in 2 Corinthians 6[:14] he says: “Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what fellowship is there . . . between light and darkness?” To dissent from the consensus of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a grave matter. However, divine authority commands all people not to be accomplices and defenders of ungodliness and unjust cruelty. Thus, our 42. Cf. SA 11, 3, 26.

43, See Gratian, Decretum I, dist. 40, chap. 6; I1, chap. 9, q. 3, c. 13; Leo X’s bull Pastor aeternus (1516). Already by the end of the fifth century Pope Gelasius (d. 496) had asserted, “The pope is to be judged by no one.” 44. The first Protestant martyrs were two Augustinians from Antwerp, Henry Vos and John van den Esschen, executed in Brussels, 1 July 1523. See Luther’s hymn of commemoration from that time (WA 35:411-15; LW 53:211-16).

45, Titus 3:10 and Galatians 1:8-9.

42

338

43

44

45

46

47 48

49

Treatise on the Power and Primacy

consciences are sufficiently absolved. For the errors of papal rule are manifest, and the Scriptures cry out with one voice that those errors are the teaching of demons and of the Antichrist.*6 Idolatry is evident in the desecration of Masses, which, in addition to other vices, are shamelessly used for completely disgraceful profit. The doctrine of repentance has been utterly corrupted by the pope and his minions, for they teach that sins are forgiven on account of the worth of our works. Then they command us to doubt whether forgiveness has occurred. Nowhere do they teach that sins are pardoned freely for Christ’s sake and that by this faith we obtain the remission of sins. Thus they obscure the glory of Christ, rob consciences of sure consolation, and destroy true worship, that is, the exercise of faith wrestling with despair.*’ They have obscured the doctrine of sin and fashioned a tradition regarding the enumeration of transgressions which has spawned many errors and much despair. To this they joined satisfactions, with which they also have obscured the benefit of Christ.4® From these came indulgences—unadulterated lies concocted for profit. And then the invocation of saints; how many abuses and what horrible idolatry has it caused? How many shameful acts have arisen from the tradition of celibacy? With what darkness has the teaching about vows eclipsed the gospel! They have pretended that a vow constitutes righteousness before God and merits forgiveness of sins. Thus they have transferred the benefit of Christ to human traditions and have completely destroyed the doctrine of faith. Utterly worthless traditions they have passed off as worship of God and the way of perfection and given them preference over the work of the vocations that God does require and has ordained. These errors are not to be taken lightly. Truly they do harm to the glory of Christ and bring souls to ruin. They cannot be ignored. One must then add two enormous sins to these errors. The first is that the pope defends them with oppressive cruelty and punishments. The other is that the pope wrests the power of judging from the church and does not allow ecclesiastical controversies to be properly decided. Indeed, he maintains that he is superior to a council and can rescind conciliar decrees, as now and then the canons impudently state.®® That the pontiffs did this in even more impudent fashion is attested by many examples.>® The ninth question of the third canon states: “No one shall judge the principal see, for the judge is judged neither by the emperor, nor by all the clergy, nor by kings, nor by the people.”>! Thus the 46. 1 Timothy 4:1 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4. 47. German: “the exercise of faith which fights against unbelief and despair over the promise of the gospel.” The issue was raised already in 1518 by Cardinal Cajetan during the proceedings at Augsburg (WA 2:13-16; LW 31:270-74). 48. On the traditional division of the sacrament of penance into contrition, confession, and satisfaction, see SA I1J, 3, 21.

49, See Gratian, Decretum I, dist. 16, 17, 19, 21; Gregory IX, Decretalium 1X, 1, 6 . 4. 50. See the bull Execrabilis of Pius II (1460), in which appeals to a future council are con-

demned.

51. Gratian, Decretum 11, chap. 9, q. 3, ¢. 13.

Treatise on the Power and Primacy

339

pope exercises a double tyranny: he defends his errors with violence and murder, and he forbids judicial inquiry. The latter does more harm than any cruel act. For when the church has been deprived of valid judicial process, it is not possible to remove ungodly teachings and impious forms of worship, and they destroy countless souls generation upon generation. Therefore, godly persons should consider such great errors and the tyranny of the pope’s rule, and they should know first of all that they are to reject these errors and to embrace true doctrine for the sake of the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Then let them also ponder how grave a sin it is to abet unjust cruelty in murdering the saints, whose blood God will surely avenge. It is especially necessary for the most eminent members of the church, the kings and princes, to attend to the church and take care that errors are removed and consciences restored to health, just as God expressly exhorts them: “Now

52

53 54

therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth” [Ps. 2:10]. The

first concern of kings should be to promote the glory of God. It would, therefore, be most shameful for them to use their authority and power to encourage idolatry and countless other disgraceful acts and to slaughter the saints. Even if the pope held councils, how can the church be restored to health if the pope permits nothing to be decreed against his will, if he grants no one the right to express an opinion—except his minions, whom he has bound by terrible oaths®2 and curses to defend his tyranny and ungodliness, the Word of God notwithstanding? Since, however, judgments of the councils are judgments of the church, not of the pontiffs, it is wholly appropriate that rulers restrain the wantonness of the pontiffs and ensure that the power to examine and to make judgments according to the Word of God is not snatched away from the church. And as other Christians are obliged to censure the rest of the pope’s errors, so must they rebuke him when he avoids and obstructs the church’s inquiry and true judgment. Therefore, even if the Roman bishop did possess primacy by divine right, obedience is still not owed him when he defends ungodly worship and teaching contrary to the gospel. Indeed, it is necessary to oppose him as the Antichrist. The errors of the pope are blatant, and they are not trivial. The cruelty that he inflicts on godly persons is also manifest. And the command of God is certain that we should flee idolatry, ungodly teaching, and unjust violence. Therefore, all the godly have good, compelling, and clear reasons not to submit

55

56

57

58

to the pope. These reasons console them in the face of all the reproaches for

causing scandal, schism, and discord, with which they are regularly taunted. Truly, those who agree with the pope and defend his teaching and worship practices defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, make themselves guilty of the blood of the godly whom the pope persecutes, offend

52. The reference is to the oath of allegiance to the pope that was eventually required of all bishops.

59

340

Treatise on the Power and Primacy

the glory of God, and undermine the well-being of the church because they confirm errors and other disgraces for all posterity. The Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops 60

61 62

In the Augsburg Confession and Apology®® we have set forth in general what needs to be said about ecclesiastical power. The gospel bestows upon those who preside over the churches the commission to proclaim the gospel, forgive sins, and administer the sacraments. In addition, it bestows legal authority, that is, the charge to excommunicate those whose crimes are public knowledge and to absolve those who repent. It is universally acknowledged, even by our opponents, that this power is shared by divine right by all who preside in the churches, whether they are called pastors, presbyters, or bishops. For that reason Jerome® plainly teaches that in the apostolic letters all who preside over churches are both bishops and presbyters. He quotes Titus [1:5-6]: “I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should . .. appoint presbyters®® in every town,” which then continues, “It is necessary fora bishop to be the husband of one wife” [v. 6]. Again, Peter and John call themselves presbyters.>® Jerome goes on to say: “One person was chosen thereafter to oversee the rest as a remedy for schism, lest some individuals draw a following around themselves and divide the church of Christ. For in Alexandria, from the time of Mark the evangelist until that of bishops Esdras®” and Dionysius, the presbyters always chose one of their number, elevated him to a higher status, and called him

bishop. Moreover, in the same way that an army provides a commander for itself, the deacons may choose one of their own, whom they know to be diligent, and name him archdeacon. What, after all, does a bishop do, with the exception of ordaining, that a presbyter does not?”>8 63

64 65

66 67

Jerome, then, teaches that the distinctions of degree between bishop and

presbyter or pastor are established by human authority. That is clear from the

way it works, for, as I stated above, the power is the same. One thing subse-

quently created a distinction between bishops and pastors, and that was ordination, for it was arranged that one bishop would ordain the ministers in a number of churches. However, since the distinction of rank between bishop and pastor is not by divine right, it is clear that an ordination performed by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine right. As a result, when the regular bishops become enemies of the gospel or are unwilling to ordain, the churches retain their right to do so. For wherever the 53. CA XXVIII

and Ap XXVIIIL.

54, Jerome, Epistle 146 (to Evangelus the Presbyter; MPL 22:1193-94; NPNF, ser. 2, 6:288-89). 55. NRSV: “elders.” 56. 1 Peter 5:1 (NRSV: “elder”); 2 John 1; 3 John 1 (NRSV: “elder”). 57. Melanchthon uses the text as cited in Gratian, Decretum I, dist. 93, chap. 24, which in numerous editions read “Esdras” instead of the correct “Heracles.”

58. Epistle to Evangelus.

Treatise on the Power and Primacy

341

church exists, there also is the right to administer the gospel. Therefore, it is necessary for the church to retain the right to call, choose, and ordain ministers.

This right is a gift bestowed exclusively on the church, and no human authority can take it away from the church, as Paul testifies to the Ephesians [4:8, 11, 12] when he says: “When he ascended on high . . . he gave gifts to his people.” Among those gifts belonging to the church he lists pastors and teachers and adds that such are given for serving and building up the body of Christ. Therefore, where the true church is, there must also be the right of choosing and ordaining ministers, just as in an emergency even a layperson grants absolution and becomes the minister or pastor of another. So Augustine tells the story of two Christians in a boat, one of whom baptized the other (a catechumen) and then the latter, having been baptized, absolved the former.> Pertinent here are the words of Christ that assert that the keys were given to the church, not just to particular persons: “For where two or three are gathered in

68

my name . ..” [Matt. 18:20].

Finally this is also confirmed by Peter’s declaration [1 Peter 2:9]: “You are a . . . royal priesthood.” These words apply to the true church, which, since it alone possesses the priesthood, certainly has the right of choosing and ordaining ministers. The most common practice of the church also testifies to this, for in times past the people chose pastors and bishops. Then the bishop of either that church or a neighboring one came and confirmed the candidate by the laying on of hands. Ordination was nothing other than such confirmation. Later, new ceremonies were added, many of which Dionysius®® describes, but he is a recent and fictitious author, whoever he is, just as the writings of Clement are counterfeit.®! Then more recent authors added, “I give to you the power to sacrifice for the living and the dead,”®? which is not even found in Dionysius. All this evidence makes clear that the church retains the right to choose and ordain ministers. Consequently, when bishops either become heretical or are unwilling to ordain, the churches are compelled by divine right to ordain pastors and ministers for themselves. Moreover, the cause of this schism and dissension is to be found in the ungodliness and tyranny of the bishops, for Paul warns that bishops who teach and defend false doctrine and impious forms of worship are to be considered accursed.® 59. Gratian, Decretum 111, dist. 4, chap. 36, cited there as a letter from Augustine to Fortunatus.

60. The reference is to the late-fifth-century Syrian work, The Celestial Hierarchy, attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, chap. 5. The humanist scholars Lorenzo Valla and Desiderius Erasmus had attacked its authenticity. 61. The Recognitions, attributed to Clement of Rome (d. ca. 100), but dating at the earliest to the end of the second century. 62. A paraphrase of the formula in the ordination rite whereby the bishop conveys to the priest the power to celebrate the sacrificial Mass. 63. Galatians 1:7-9,

69 70

71

72

342 73

Treatise on the Power and Primacy We have spoken of ordination, which is the one thing, as Jerome states, that

distinguishes bishops from the rest of the presbyters. There is no need, there-

fore, to discuss the other duties of bishops. Nor, to be sure, is there any need to

74

75

76

77

78

speak of confirmation®* or the blessing of bells, which are practically the only functions they have retained. However, something must be said about legal jurisdiction. It is certain that the common legal authority to excommunicate those guilty of manifest crimes belongs to all pastors. In tyrannical fashion, the bishops have transferred this solely to themselves and used it for profit. It is evident that the so-called bureaucrats®® have acted with intolerable license and, out of greed or other lusts, have harassed and excommunicated people without any proper judicial process. What kind of tyranny is this that these bureaucrats have the power to excommunicate people arbitrarily without a proper trial? And in what kinds of matters have they abused this power? Not in punishing real offenses but in violations of fasts or festivals and similar nonsense. Now and then they punished cases of adultery, but in such matters they often harassed innocent and honest people. Moreover, because this is a very serious charge, certainly no one should be condemned without due process. Since, therefore, the bishops have tyrannically reserved this jurisdiction for themselves and have shamefully abused it, there is no need to obey them as far as it is concerned. On the contrary, since we have just cause for not submitting, it is right to restore this jurisdiction to godly pastors and to take care that it be exercised legitimately for the amendment of morals and the glory of God. Still to be considered is the administration of justice in those cases that,

according to canon law, belong to what they call ecclesiastical courts, especially marital cases. This jurisdiction the bishops also possess by human right, and they have not had it very long, for it appears from the Codex and Novellae of Justinian®® that formerly the adjudication of marital matters belonged to the magistrates. Moreover, secular authorities are compelled by divine law to exercise this authority if the bishops are negligent. The canons concede as much.®’ Therefore, it is not necessary to obey the bishops with regard to this jurisdiction either. Indeed, since they have made certain unjust laws concerning marriage and apply them in their courts, the establishment of other judicial processes is required on these grounds as well. For the traditions concerning

spiritual relationship are unjust,% as is the tradition that prohibits remarriage

64. Here the reference is to the Roman sacrament of confirmation. 65. Administrative officers in episcopal chancelleries who were responsible for the administration of justice, particularly in marital and disciplinary cases. 66. Justinian Code, the codification of imperial Roman law by Emperor Justinian, V, 1-27.

67. Gregory IX, Decretalium V, 26 c. 2. " 68. German: “the prohibition of marriage between baptismal sponsors is unjust.” See Gregory IX, Decretalium 1V, 11.

Treatise on the Power and Primacy

343

of an innocent party after divorce.®® Unjust, too, is the law that in general approves all secret and deceitful betrothals in violation of the rights of parents.”® The law requiring celibacy of priests is also unjust. These ecclesiastical laws hold more snares for consciences, but there is no need to recite them all here. It is enough to have made it clear that there are many unjust papal laws concerning marriage and that on this account the magistrates must establish other courts.

Whereas the bishops, who are beholden to the pope, defend ungodly doctrine and ungodly worship and do not ordain godly teachers but abet the pope’s violence instead; whereas, moreover, they have taken jurisdiction away from pastors and in tyrannical fashion exercise it alone; whereas, finally, in marital matters they enforce many unjust laws: therefore, these constitute many sufficient and necessary causes why the churches should not acknowledge them as bishops. They themselves ought to remember that wealth has been given to bishops as alms for the administration and benefit of the churches, as the rule states, “The benefice is given for the office.””! Thus, they cannot possess these alms with a good conscience. Meanwhile, they are defrauding the church, which has need of these resources to support ministers, education, and poor relief and to establish courts, especially for marital cases. So great are the variety and number of marital controversies that they need a special forum, the creation of which requires the church’s wealth.”? Peter [2 Peter 2:13-15] fore-

told the appearance of future ungodly bishops who would squander the churches’ alms on luxury and neglect the ministry. Therefore, let those who defraud the church know that God will exact punishment for their sin. List of the Doctors and Preachers Who Subscribed

to the Confession and Apology, 1537

By the command of the most illustrious princes and of the estates and cities confessing the Evangelical teaching, we have reread the articles of the Confession presented to the emperor at the Diet of Augsburg and, by the grace of God, all those present at this assembly in Smalcald unanimously declare that in their churches they believe and teach in accordance with the articles of the Confession and Apology. They also declare that they approve the article concerning the primacy of the pope and his authority and the power and jurisdiction of bishops, which was presented to the princes at this assembly in Smalcald. Accordingly, they sign their names. 69. The church Fathers based their position forbidding remarriage after divorce on Matthew 5:32; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18. See Gratian, Decretum II, chap. 32, q. 7, ¢. 1-8, 10. 70. Gratian, Decretum II, chap. 30, q. 5, c. 1-3. See, for example, Luther’s 1530 tract On Marriage Matters (WA 30/3: 205-48; LW 46:259-320). 71. Corpus juris canonici, bk. VI, 1, 3, ¢. 15.

72. Such a court was established in Wittenberg in 1539.

79

80

81 82

344

Treatise on the Power and Primacy

I, Dr. JouN BUGENHAGEN, of Pomerania, sign the articles of the Augsburg

Confession, the Apology, and the article concerning the papacy presented to the princes at Smalcald I, Dr. UrBaNUS RHEGIUS, superintendent of the churches in the duchy of Lueneburg, also sign NicHoLAS VON AMSDORF, of Magdeburg, signed GEORGE SPALATIN, of Altenburg, signed I, ANDREW OSIANDER, sign

MasTER VEIT DIETRICH, of Nuremberg, signs STEPHEN AGRICOLA, preacher in Hof, signed with his own hand

Joun DracoNITES, of Marburg, signed

ConraD FIGENBOTZ subscribes to all herein

MARTIN BUCER I, ERHARD SCHNEPF, sign

I, PAuL voN RHODE, preacher in Stettin GerHARD OEMCKEN, minister of the church in Minden Brixius NORTHANUS, preacher in Soest SIMON SCHNEEWEISS, parish pastor in Crailsheim I, Pomeranus [JoHN BUGENHAGEN], sign again in the name of Master John Brenz, as he charged me PuiLIP MELANCHTHON signs with his own hand ANTHONY RABE signs with his own hand both in his name and in the name of Adam [Krafft] of Fulda JOHN SCHLAGENHAUFEN signs with his own hand

GeoraGe HELr of Forchheim

MicHAEL CAELIUS, preacher in Mansfeld

PETER GELTNER, preacher in the church in Frankfurt DENNIS MELANDER signed PauL Fagrius of Strasbourg WENDELL FABER, parish pastor of Seeburg in Mansfeld ConraD OeTTINGER of Pforzheim, preacher to Duke Ulrich of Wiirttemberg BoNI1FACE WOLFART, minister of the Word in the church in Augsburg JouN AEPINUS, superintendent in Hamburg, etc., signed with his own hand e

Joun [TiMANN] of Amsterdam, [pastor] in Bremen, did the same Joun FonTaNus, superintendent of Lower Hesse, signed

FREDERICK Mycon1us signed for himself and for Justus Menius

AMBROSE BLARER

The Small Catechism Editors’ Introduction to the Small Catechism The origins of Luther’s Small Catechism stretch back to the earliest days of the Christian church. The Greek word katecho, to sound again or from above, was

already used by Paul (Gal. 6:6) to denote Christian instruction. By the second century, it had come to designate the pre-baptismal instruction of catechumens.

A loan word in ecclesiastical Latin, Augustine first used the noun catechismus to

denote basic Christian instruction. In the Middle Ages the church often narrowed this instruction to the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. Luther used the word in this way throughout his life. In the late Middle Ages booklets written for catechetical instruction focused on the sacrament of penance: the preparatory works of faith and contrition, the thoroughness of confession, the succeeding works of satisfaction (especially prayers, fasting, almsgiving), and finally preparation for a good death. Already before the Reformation, as part of his duties as preacher at St. Mary’s, Wittenberg’s city church, Luther delivered sermons on the various parts of the catechism.! First published separately, in 1522 they appeared as a collection in his Personal Prayer Book.? Although this booklet was not a catechism per se, in the preface to his 1526 revision of the liturgy, the Deutsche Messe, Luther appealed to his fellow pastors and preachers to write instruction booklets and suggested they use his Personal Prayer Book as the basis of their work.? Unlike the order found in many medieval catechisms, this prayer booklet began with an exposition of the commandments and then moved first to the Creed and finally to prayer.* Already in 1525 pressure on the Wittenberg theologians to produce aids for basic Christian instruction was mounting, led by the pastor in Zwickau, Nicholas Hausmann, who appealed both to Luther and to the Saxon court for

help. When the original team in Wittenberg assembled to work on the project, John Agricola and Justus Jonas, could not bring it to completion because of Agricola’s move to Eisleben, Luther promised to work on the project himself. When Luther did not immediately fulfill his promise, others stepped into the breach. One such publication, probably prepared by Stephen Roth (later city clerk in Zwickau), appeared in late 1525 and contained excerpts from Luther’s Personal Prayer Book. Its introduction included a so-called lay Bible, consist1. See the introduction to the Large Catechism in this volume. 2. WA 10/2: 375-406; LW 43:5-45. 3. WA 19:77, 12; LW 53:66. 4. See WA 10/2: 376, 12-377, 13 (LW 43:13-14) for Luther’s explanation of this structure.

5. See Booklet for the Laity and Children.

AAR

346

The Small Catechism

ing of the three traditional parts of the catechism but also Bible verses for holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the first time all five “chief parts” appeared together. Other preachers and teachers, including John Agricola, rector of the Latin school in Eisleben, also prepared catechisms that more or less reflected the Evangelical teaching of Wittenberg.6 In 1528, with John Bugenhagen, Wittenberg’s chief pastor, away helping to reform the city of Braunschweig, Luther again took over the catechetical preaching. In these sermons, in addition to lengthy explanations, he often tried to reduce the meaning of a particular part of the catechism to a single sentence. Spurred on by the questionable theology and pedagogy in other catechisms and moved by his own brief experience as an official visitor in Saxony’s rural churches, he began to write the Small Catechism in late 1528 or early 1529. The first three parts were published on separate broadsheets in January 1529, each addressed to the heads of the household. After a serious illness curtailed his activities, he completed the project in the spring with explanations of the sacraments and brief orders for household prayers. Within no time these original sheets also appeared in booklet form, with Luther providing for the Wittenberg edition a preface addressed to the simple pastors and preachers. All subsequent printings in Wittenberg were illustrated with woodcuts and references to the Bible and contained two appendices: German versions of the marriage and baptismal services with Luther’s introductions. They also included various household prayers and a chart of Bible passages for the household (sometimes called the “Table of Duties”). In 1531 Luther revised the Small Catechism slightly by appending to the fourth question on holy baptism a brief discussion of confession of sins with an order for private confession and by adding an explanation of the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer. Luther’s Small Catechism poses one simple question, Was ist das? (What is this?), and only occasionally poses other questions (How does this happen? What does this mean? What does this signify?). The simple paraphrase of catechetical texts elicited by that question is matched by its insistence on moving from law (Ten Commandments) to gospel (Creed and Lord’s Prayer) and by an expansion of material found in traditional catechisms to include explanations of holy baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Its prayers for mealtimes, morning, and

bedtime come from traditional sources. The list of Bible passages for the household reflects Luther’s belief that relations of daily life constitute the Christian life and not some self-chosen spirituality. In the Book of Concord produced in Dresden in 1580, the Small Catechism included all the sections described above. However, several princes, including Ludwig VI of the Palatinate, and their theologians objected to Luther’s baptismal 6. See John Agricola’s One Hundred Thirty Questions for the Girl’s School in Eisleben. Agricola abandoned the order of law and gospel in the catechism and de-emphasized the law in line with his own developing “antinomian” theology.

The Small Catechism

347

service with its references to exorcism. As a result, despite pleas from Jakob Andreae, both appendices were removed from editions simultaneously produced elsewhere and from subsequent versions printed in Dresden. This excision was part of a lengthy dispute over the nature of baptism among Lutherans, especially led by those who, under the influence of some Reformed theologians, worried that Lutherans might understand baptism as effective without faith by the mere performance of the act. Included here are both appendices as well as simple descriptions of the original illustrations that accompanied almost every edition produced in Wittenberg during Luther’s lifetime.

Handbook' The Small Catechism

[of Dr. Martin Luther]

for Ordinary Pastors and Preachers [The Preface of Dr. Martin Luther] MARTIN LUTHER,>

To all faithful and upright pastors and preachers. Grace, mercy, and peace in Jesus Christ our Lord.*

The deplorable, wretched deprivation that I recently encountered while I wasa visitorS has constrained and compelled me to prepare this catechism, or Christian instruction,® in such a brief, plain, and simple version. Dear God, what misery I beheld! The ordinary person, especially in the villages, knows absolutely nothing about the Christian faith, and unfortunately many pastors are completely unskilled and incompetent teachers. Yet supposedly they all bear the name Christian, are baptized, and receive the holy sacrament, even though they do not know the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, or the Ten Commandments!” As 1. Enchiridion. 2. Luther addressed both types of German clergy: pastors (Pfarrherr), who bore the major responsibility for pastoral care and worship in congregations, and preachers (Prediger). 3. This preface is found in almost all editions of the Small Catechism except the original broadsheets. 4, Cf. 1 Timothy 1:2 and 2 Timothy 1:2. 5. Luther made official visitations of congregations in electoral Saxony and Meissen from 22 October 1528 through 9 January 1529. He described his experiences in a letter to Nicholas von Amsdorf dated 11 November 1528 (WABr 4:597; LW 49:213-14). 6. See LC, “Short Preface,” 1-2.

7. In Luther’s day the word “catechism” denoted these three parts, cited here in an order sometimes found in late-medieval manuals.

1 2 3

348

10

11

The Small Catechism

a result they live like simple cattle or irrational pigs and, despite the fact that the gospel has returned, have mastered the fine art of misusing all their freedom. O you bishops! How are you going to answer to Christ, now that you have so shamefully neglected the people and have not exercised your office for even a single second? May you escape punishment for this! You forbid the cup [to the laity] in the Lord’s Supper and insist on observance of your human laws, while never even bothering to ask whether the people know the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, or a single section of God’s Word. Shame on you forever!® Therefore, my dear sirs and brothers, who are either pastors or preachers, I beg all of you for God’s sake to take up your office boldly, to have pity on your people who are entrusted to you, and to help us bring the catechism to the people, especially to the young. Moreover, I ask that those unable to do any better take up these charts and versions® and read them to the people word for word in the following manner: In the first place, the preacher should above all take care to avoid changes or variations in the text and version of the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, the sacraments, etc., but instead adopt a single version, stick with it, and always use the same one year after year. For the young and the unlettered people must be taught with a single, fixed text and version. Otherwise, if someone teaches one way now and another way next year—even for the sake of making improvements—the people become quite easily confused, and all the time and effort will go for naught. The dear church Fathers also understood this well. They used one form for the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments. Therefore, we, too, should teach these parts to the young and to people who cannot read in such a way that we neither change a single syllable nor present or recite it differently from one year to the next. Therefore, choose for yourself whatever version you want and stick with it for good. To be sure, when you preach to educated and intelligent people, then you may demonstrate your erudition and discuss these parts with as much complexity and from as many different angles as you can. But with the young people, stick with a fixed, unchanging version and form. To begin with, teach them these parts: the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, etc., following the text word for word, so that they can also repeat it back to you and learn it by heart. Those who do not want to learn these things—who must be told how they deny Christ and are not Christians—should also not be admitted to the sacrament, should not be sponsors for children at baptism, and should not exercise any aspect of Christian freedom,!? but instead should simply be sent back 8. Cf. Luther’s criticism of the bishops in the Instruction of the Visitors (1528) (WA 26:195, 4-201, 7; LW 40:269-73). 9. Literally, tables (Tafeln) and forms (Forme). The word Tafel refers to booklets whose con-

tents had originally been printed as broadsheets. 10. See also LC, “Short Preface,” 1-5.

Preface

349

home to the pope and his officials!! and, along with them, to the devil himself. Moreover, their parents and employers ought to deny them food and drink and advise them that the prince is disposed to drive such coarse people out of the country. Although no one can or should force another person to believe,'? nevertheless one should insist upon and hold the masses to this: that they know what is right and wrong among those with whom they wish to reside, eat, and earn a living.!? For example, if people want to live in a particular city, they ought to know and abide by the laws of the city whose protection they enjoy, no matter whether they believe or are at heart scoundrels and villains. In the second place, once the people have learned the text well, then teach them to understand it, too, so that they know what it means. Take up again the form offered in these charts or some other short form that you may prefer. Then adhere to it without changing a single syllable, just as was stated above regarding the text. Moreover, allow yourself ample time for it, because you need not take up all the parts at once but may instead handle them one at a

12

13

14 15 16

time. After the people understand the First Commandment well, then take up

the Second, and so on. Otherwise they will be so overwhelmed that they will hardly remember a single thing. In the third place, after you have taught the people a short catechism like this one, then take up a longer catechism!* and impart to them a richer and fuller understanding. Using such a catechism, explain each individual com-

17

mandment, petition, or part with its various works, benefits, and blessings,

harm and danger, as you find treated at length in so many booklets. In particular, put the greatest stress on that commandment or part where your people experience the greatest need. For example, you must strongly emphasize the Seventh Commandment, dealing with stealing, to artisans and shopkeepers and even to farmers and household workers, because rampant among such people are all kinds of dishonesty and thievery.!> Likewise, you must empha-

size the Fourth Commandment to children and the common people, so that

they are orderly, faithful, obedient, and peaceful.!® Always adduce many examples from the Scriptures where God either punished or blessed such people.

11. Diocesan judges who decided administrative, disciplinary, and marriage cases. 12. A letter to Nicholas Hausmann dated 17 March 1522 (WABr 2:474-75; LW 48:399-402); preface to Instruction for the Visitors (1528) (WA 26:200, 21-201, 7; LW 40:273); and Luther’s announcement for catechetical sermons in December 1528 (WA 30/1: 157, 14-28; LW 51:136). 13. A letter to Thomas Loscher dated 26 August 1529 (WABr 5:137; LW 49:232-34) and LC, “Short Preface,” 2.

14. Luther had in mind not only his own Deutsch Katechismus, which others came to call the Large Catechism, but also other catechetical books. 15. See LC, “Ten Commandments,” 225-26. 16. See LC, “Ten Commandments,” 105-66.

18

350

19

20

The Small Catechism

In particular, at this point!” also urge governing authorities and parents to rule well and to send their children to school. Point out how they are obliged to do so and what a damnable sin they commit if they do not, for thereby, as the worst enemies of God and humanity, they overthrow and lay waste both the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world. Explain very clearly what kind of horrible damage they do when they do not help to train children as pastors, preachers, civil servants,'® etc., and tell them that God will punish

them dreadfully for this. For in our day and age it is necessary to preach about these things. The extent to which parents and governing authorities are now sinning in these matters defies description. The devil, too, intends to do some-

21

thing horrible in all this.!® Finally,?® because the tyranny of the pope has been abolished, people no longer want to receive the sacrament, and they treat it with contempt. This, too,

needs to be stressed, while keeping in mind that we should not compel anyone to believe or to receive the sacrament and should not fix any law or time or 22

place for it. Instead, we should preach in such a way that the people make

themselves come without our law and just plain compel us pastors to administer the sacrament to them. This can be done by telling them: You have to

worry that whoever does not desire or receive the sacrament at the very least

around four times a year despises the sacrament and is no Christian, just as anyone who does not listen to or believe the gospel is no Christian. For Christ did not say, “Omit this,” or “Despise this,” but instead [1 Cor. 11:25], “Do this,

23

as often as you drink it. . . .” He really wants it to be done and not completely omitted or despised. “Do this,” he says. Those?! who do not hold the sacrament in high esteem indicate that they

have no sin, no flesh, no devil, no world, no death, no dangers, no hell. That is,

they believe they have none of these things, although they are up to their neck in them and belong to the devil twice over. On the other hand, they indicate

that they need no grace, no life, no paradise, no heaven, no Christ, no God, nor

any other good thing. For if they believed that they had so much evil and need-

ed so much good, they would not neglect the sacrament, in which help against

such evil is provided and in which so much good is given. It would not be nec-

essary to compel them with any law to receive the sacrament. Instead, they

T

N

17. This paragraph continues Luther’s exposition of the fourth commandment. See LC, “Ten Commandments,” 44:85-100).

167-78,

and

Treatise on

Good

Works

(1520)

(WA

6:253,

32-258,

13; LW :

18. Schreiber: literally, notaries or clerks. 19. See the LC, “Ten Commandments,” 174~77; To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany

That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools (1524) (WA 15:27-53; LW 45:339-78); and A

Sermon 20. echesis. 21.

on Keeping Children in School (1530) (WA 30/2: 517-88; LW 46:207-58). This introduces a final example of how to apply the catechism and not a fourth step in catSee LC, “Lord’s Supper,” 39-87. The German text uses the third-person singular.

The Ten Commandments

351

would come on their own, rushing and running to it; they would compel themselves to come and would insist that you give them the sacrament.

For these reasons you do not have to make any law concerning this, as the

pope did.?? Only emphasize clearly the benefit and the harm, the need and the blessing, the danger and the salvation in this sacrament. Then they will doubtless come on their own without any compulsion. If they do not come, give up on them and tell them that those who do not pay attention to or feel their great need and God’s gracious help belong to the devil. However, if you either do not urge such participation or make it into a law or poison, then it is your fault if they despise the sacrament. How can they help but neglect it, if you sleep and remain silent? Therefore, pastors and preachers, take note! Our office has now become a completely different one than it was under the pope. It has now become serious and salutary. Thus, it now involves much toil and work, many dangers and attacks,?® and in addition little reward or gratitude in the world. But Christ himself will be our reward, so long as we labor faithfully. May the Father of all grace grant it, to whom be praise and thanks in eternity through Christ, our Lord. Amen. The Ten Commandments: In a simple way in which the head of a house is to present them to the household** The First®® [Commandment]26 You are to have no other gods.?’ What is this? Answer: We are to fear, love, and trust God above all things. 22. In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council stipulated that every Christian had to receive the Lord’s Supper between Easter and Corpus Christi day. See Receiving Both Kinds in the Sacrament

(1522) (WA 10/2: 24, 14-27; LW 36:249).

23. Anfechtung. 24. The titles for each section of the Small Catechism stem from the broadsheets of 1529 and were retained in subsequent editions. The Latin translation of 1529 addresses schoolteachers and students. : 25. In the printings of the Small Catechism during Luther’s lifetime, each commandment, article of the Creed, petition of the Lord’s Prayer, and sacrament was accompanied by a woodcut and references to the Bible. Woodcuts similar to those used in the Small Catechism are included in the critical edition of the Large Catechism (WA 30/1: 133-210). The woodcut here: Moses receiving

the Ten Commandments and the Israelites dancing around the golden calf. Caption (here and throughout from the 1536 edition): “This figure is taken from Exodus 32 26. This word, lacking in the editions of 1529-35, is present in all other editions of the Small Catechism and in the Book of Concord of 1580. 27. Luther uses a common form of the Decalogue that does not always correspond to the texts of either Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5 in the Luther Bible. As a result, some later editions, includ-

24

25

26

27

352

The Small Catechism

The Second?® [Commandment] You are not to misuse the name of your What is this? Answer: We are to fear and love3® God, so that®! magic, lie, or deceive using God’s name, but time of need to call on, pray to, praise, and

God.? we do not curse, swear,>? practice instead use that very name in every give thanks to God.

The Third?? [Commandment] You are to hallow the day of rest.>* What is this? Answer: We are to fear and love God, so that we do not despise preaching or God’s Word, but instead keep that Word holy and gladly hear and learn it. The Fourth? [Commandment] You are to honor your father and your mother. What is this? Answer: We are to fear and love God, so that we neither despise nor anger our parents and others in authority,3 but instead honor, serve, obey, love, and respect them. The Fifth?” [Commandment] 10

You are not to kill. What is this? Answer: We are to fear and love God, so that we neither endanger nor harm the lives of our neighbors,3 but instead help and support them in all of life’s needs. ing the Nuremberg editions of 1531 and 1558, correct the text here and elsewhere according to the biblical text. 28. Woodcut: The blasphemy of Shelomith’s son. Caption: “This figure is recorded in Leviticus

24[:10-16}”

s ;;1‘

29. The editions of 1529-35 have “you are not to take the name of your God in vain.” The Nuremberg editions of 1531 and 1558 read, “You are not to take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold that one guiltless who takes his name in vain.”

30. For the use of these two verbs, see Instruction of the Visitors (1528) (WA 26:203, 17-37; LW 40:276-77) and LC, “Ten Commandments,” 321-27.

31. daf. This may be rendered either modally (“ . . by not doing . . ”) or consequentially

(“ .. with the result that we do not .. ).

32. schweren, here used in the sense of false oaths. See the LC, “Ten Commandments,” 66. 33. Woodcut: Preacher with congregation in foreground; someone gathering wood in the background. Caption: “The figure is taken from Numbers 15[:32-36] 34, Feiertag; literally, “day of rest” (like the Hebrew word sabbath), but generaily for Sunday. 35, Woodcut: The drunkenness of Noah. Caption: “The figure is taken from Genesis 9(:20-27]” 36. Herrn;, literally, “lords,” but often used in German to denote those in authority, e.g., Landesherrn (princes) or Pfarrherrn (pastors). 37. Woodcut: Cain slaying Abel. Caption: “The figure is taken from Genesis 4[:1-16].” 38. Here and in the following explanations, the word “neighbor” is singular in the German.

The Ten Commandments

353

The Sixth* [Commandment] You are not to commit adultery. What is this? Answer: We are to fear and love God, so that we lead pure and decent lives in word and deed, and each of us loves and honors his or her spouse. The Seventh* [Commandment] You are not to steal.

11

12

13

What is this? Answer: We are to fear and love God, so that we neither take our neighbors’ money or property nor acquire them by using shoddy merchandise or crooked deals, but instead help them to improve and protect their property and income.

14

The Eighth?*! [Commandment)

15

You are not to bear false witness against your neighbor.

What is this? Answer:

16

We are to fear and love God, so that we do not tell lies about our neighbors, betray or slander them, or destroy their reputations. Instead we are to come to their defense, speak well of them, and interpret everything they do in the best possible light. The Ninth# [Commandment] You are not to covet your neighbor’s house. What is this? Answer: We are to fear and love God, so that we do not try to trick our neighbors out of their inheritance or property or try to get it for ourselves by claiming to have a legal right to it and the like, but instead be of help and service to them in keeping what is theirs. The Tenth®? [Commandment] You are not to covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female servant, cattle, or whatever is his. What is this? Answer:

39. Woodcut: David and Bathsheba. Caption: “This figure is recorded in 2 Samuel 11.” 40. Woodcut: The theft of Achan. Caption: “This figure is recorded in Joshua 7.” 41. Woodcut: The story of Susanna. Caption: “The figure is taken from the prophet Daniel, chapter 13, and also stands in the Apocrypha, in the part belonging to Daniel.” In fact chapter 13 is the apocryphal part of Daniel. 42. Woodcut: Jacob with Laban’s sheep. Caption: “This figure is taken from Genesis 30[:2543)” 43, Woodcut: Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. Caption: “This figure is taken from Genesis 39.”

17 18

19 20

354

The Small Catechism

We are to fear and love God, so that we do not entice, force, or steal away

from

our neighbors

their spouses,*

household

workers, or livestock, but

instead urge them to stay and fulfill their responsibilities to our neighbors. 21

22

What then does God say about all these commandments? Answer: God says the following: “I, the Lorp your God, am a jealous God. Against those who hate me I visit the sin of the fathers on the children up to the third and fourth generation. But I do good to those who love me and keep my commandments to the thousandth generation.”# What is this? Answer: God threatens to punish all who break these commandments. Therefore we are to fear his wrath and not disobey these commandments. However, God promises grace and every good thing to all those who keep these commandments. Therefore we also are to love and trust him and gladly act according to his commands. The Creed: In a very simple way in which the head of a house is to present it to the household The First* Article: On Creation

I believe in God, the Father almighty, CREATOR of heaven and earth. What is this? Answer: I believe that God has created me together with all that exists. God has given me and still preserves my body and soul: eyes, ears, and all limbs and senses; reason and all mental faculties. In addition, God daily and abundantly provides shoes and clothing, food and drink, house and farm, spouse*” and children, fields, livestock, and all property—along with all the necessities and nourishment for this body and life.*® God protects me against all danger and shields and preserves me from all evil. And all this is done out of pure, fatherly, and divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness of mine at "5 P ¥

44, Literally: “his wife.” 45, This text does not follow Exodus 20:5-6 or Deuteronomy 5:9-10 as translated in the Luther Bible. 46. Woodcut: God depicted as a bearded man giving a blessing, surrounded by animals and encircled by clouds and the four winds. No caption. 47, Literally, “wife.” 48. Many modern commentators and translators connect “shoes . . . property” to the preceding sentence. However, the Latin translations of 1529, the capitalization of “In addition” (Dazu) in the original text, and the placement of verbs at the end of each sentence throughout this explanation argue for its inclusion with what follows.

The Creed

355

all! For all of this I owe® it to God to thank and praise, serve and obey him. This is most certainly true.>

The Second?! Article: On Redemption And>?

[I believe] in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lorp, who was con-

ceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended into hell. On the third day he rose [again]; he ascended into heaven, seated at the right hand of God,

the almighty Father, from where he will come to judge the living and the dead. What is this? Answer: I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father in eternity, and also a true human being, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lorp. He has redeemed me, a lost and condemned human being. He has purchased and freed me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with

gold or silver but with his holy, precious blood and with his innocent® suffering and death. He has done all this in order that I may belong to him, live under him in his kingdom, and serve him in eternal righteousness, innocence,>* and blessedness, just as he is risen from the dead and lives and rules eternally. This is most certainly true.

The Third>® Article: On Being Made Holy* I believe in the Holy Spirit, one holy Christian church, the community of the saints,3’ forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life. Amen. What is this? Answer: I believe that by my own understanding or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my Lorp or come to him, but instead the Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, made me holy and kept me in the true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and makes holy the whole Christian church?® on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one common,

49. schiildig. 50. See SC, “Lord’s Prayer,” 21, and “Holy Baptism,” 9, where the phrase is used to translate Titus 3:8. 51. Woodcut: Christ on the cross, surrounded by clouds and cherubs. No caption. 52. The text corresponds to that used in the 1529 Small Catechism. 53. Unschiildigen: literally, “not owed” or “not guilty.” 54. Unschuld: literally, “something not owed.” 55. Woodcut: The twelve apostles, beneath a dove in a flaming gloriole and billowing clouds, receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost with the tongues of fire coming out of their mouths. No caption. See Acts 2 and Revelation 11:5. 56. The English word “sanctification” does not preserve the linguistic connection between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit’s activity. See LC, “Creed,” 35. 57. Literally, “holy ones.” 58. Christenheit. German versions of the Creed predating Luther often use this word to translate ecclesia. .

356

The Small Catechism

true faith. Daily in this Christian church the Holy Spirit abundantly forgives all sins—mine and those of all believers. On the Last Day the Holy Spirit will raise me and all the dead and will give to me and all believers in Christ eternal life. This is most certainly true.

The Lord’s Prayer: In a very simple way in which the head of a house is to present it to the household Our Father, you who are in heaven.>

OWhat is this? Answer: With these words God wants to entice us, so that we come to believe he is truly our Father and we are truly his children, in order that we may ask®' him boldly

and with complete confidence, just as loving children ask their loving father. The First%? Petition®3

May your name be hallowed.%* What is this? Answer: It is true that God’s name is holy in itself, but we ask in this prayer that it may also become holy in and among us. How does this come about? Answer: Whenever the Word of God is taught clearly and purely and we, as God’s children, also live holy lives according to it. To this end help us, dear Father in heaven! However, whoever teaches and lives otherwise than the Word of God teaches profanes the name of God among us. Preserve us from this, heavenly Father! The Second$’ Petition May your kingdom come.

‘_2-;‘7\ A

g

What is this? Answer: In fact, God’s kingdom comes on its own without our prayer, but we ask in this prayer that it may also come to us. How does this come about? Answer: 59. Woodcut: Preacher delivering sermon from pulpit to a diverse audience. The text of the Lord’s Prayer follows the common form used in Wittenberg and not the version in the Luther

Bible.

19].»

"

60. Luther first added this italicized explanation to the introduction in the edition of 1531. 61. Bitten means both ask and pray. 62. Woodcut: Same as the preceding. Caption: “This figure is taken from Exodus 20[:8-11,

63. 64. 65. in Acts

Bitte, literally, “request.” . Geheiliget: literally, “made holy” or “sanctified.” Woodcut: The same as for the third article of the Creed. Caption: “This figure is recorded 2”7

The Lord’s Prayer

357

Whenever our heavenly Father gives us his Holy Spirit, so that through his grace we believe his Holy Word and live godly lives here in time and hereafter in eternity. The Third® Petition

May your will come about on earth as in heaven. What is this? Answer: In fact, God’s good and gracious will comes about without our prayer, but we ask in this prayer that it may also come about in and among us. How does this come about? Answer: Whenever God breaks and hinders every evil scheme and will—as are present in the will of the devil, the world, and our flesh—that would not allow us to hallow God’s name and would prevent the coming of his kingdom, and instead whenever God strengthens us and keeps us steadfast in his Word and in faith until the end of our lives. This is his gracious and good will. The Fourth®’ Petition

Give us today our daily bread. What is this? Answer: In fact, God gives daily bread without our prayer, even to all evil people, but we ask in this prayer that God cause us to recognize what our daily bread is and to receive it with thanksgiving. What then does “daily bread” mean? Answer: Everything included in the necessities and nourishment for our bodies,® such as food, drink, clothing, shoes, house, farm, fields, livestock, money, prop-

erty, an upright®® spouse, upright children, upright members of the household,”® upright and faithful rulers, good government, good weather, peace, health, decency, honor, good friends, faithful neighbors, and the like.

66. Woodcut: Christ falling under the cross and being beaten by soldiers. Caption: “This figure is taken from the New Testament, Matthew 27[:31f.].”

67. Woodcut: Jesus with the little boy feeding the five thousand. Caption: “This figure is

recorded in the New Testament, John 6[:1-15].

68. Cf. SC, “Apostles’ Creed,” 2. 69. frumm. In the sixteenth century this word meant upright, honest, competent, capable, well-behaved, sensible, but not, as in modern usage, pious or godly. 70. Gesinde: the house servants and workers. In Luther’s day the household was the center of economic activity.

10

11

12

13

14

358

The Small Catechism

The Fifth”! Petition

15 16

And remit our debts,’? as we remit what our debtors owe. What is this? Answer: We ask in this prayer that our heavenly Father would not regard our sins nor deny these petitions on their account, for we are worthy of nothing for which we ask, nor have we earned it. Instead we ask that God would give us all things by grace, for we daily sin much and indeed deserve only punishment. So, on the other hand, we, too, truly want to forgive heartily and to do good gladly to those who sin against us. The Sixth73 Petition

17 18

And lead us not into temptation. What is this? Answer: It is true that God tempts no one, but we ask in this prayer that God would preserve and keep us, so that the devil, the world, and our flesh may not deceive us or mislead us into false belief, despair, and other great shame and vice, and that, although we may be attacked by them,”* we may finally prevail and gain the victory. The Seventh’> Petition

19 20

21

o ‘1:),";1* 4

But deliver us from evil. What is this? Answer: We ask in this prayer, as in a summary, that our Father in heaven may deliver us from all kinds of evil—affecting body or soul, property or reputation— and at last, when our final hour comes, may grant us a blessed end and take us by grace from this valley of tears to himself in heaven. Amen.”® What is this? Answer: That I should be certain that such petitions are acceptable to and heard by our Father in heaven, for he himself commanded us to pray like this and has promised to hear us. “Amen, amen” means “Yes, yes, it is going to come about just like this.” 71. Woodcut: The parable of the unforgiving servant. Caption: “This is taken from the New Testament, Matthew 18{:23-35].”

72. Schulde. ; 73. Woodcut: The temptation of Christ, pictured with his sheep, by the devil, pictured with a

wolf. Caption: “This figure is taken from the New Testament, Matthew 4[:1-1 1]

74. angefochten, the verbal form of Anfechtung. 75. Woodcut: Christ with his disciples as they are confronted by the syrophoenician woman and her daughter. Caption: “This figure is taken from the New Testament, Matthew 15[:21-28}. 76. Some later editions of the catechism, printed after Luther’s death, add the doxology. Although found in Erasmus’s editions of the Greek New Testament and in Luther’s translation into German, Luther himself consistently followed the medieval usage in catechesis and omitted it.

Sacraments

359

The Sacrament of Holy Baptism: In a simple way in which the head of a house is to present it to the household First” 1-2

What is baptism? Answer:

Baptism is not simply plain water. Instead it is water enclosed in God’s command and connected with God’s Word. What then is this Word of God? Answer: Where our Lorp Christ says in Matthew 28[:19], “Go into all the world,

teach all nations,”® and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

3

4

Second

What gifts or benefits does baptism grant? Answer: It brings about forgiveness of sins, redeems from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe it, as the words and promise of God declare. What are these words and promise of God? Answer: Where our Lorp Christ says in Mark

16[:16], “Whoever believes and is

5-6

7-8

baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be damned.” Third

How can water do such great things? Answer: Clearly the water does not do it, but the Word of God, which is with and alongside the water, and faith, which trusts this Word of God in the water. For

without the Word of God the water is plain water and not a baptism, but with

the Word of God it is a baptism, that is, a grace-filled water of life and a “bath of the new birth in the Holy Spirit,” as St. Paul says to Titus in chapter 3[:5-8], “through the bath of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit, which he richly poured out over us through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that through that very grace we may be righteous and’® heirs in hope of eternal life. This is surely® most certainly true.”

77. Woodcut: The baptism of an infant. The pastor holds the naked infant face down over the water of a large font with one hand and scoops water with the other. A deacon holds an open book for him to read and three lay people pray. The Holy Spirit, depicted as a dove, hovers over the scene. Caption: “The figure: Matthew 28(:16-20].” 78. Heiden: or, heathen. 79. “Righteous and” is parallel to Luther’s Bible. Versions before 1536 read “justified.” 80. “Surely” is lacking before 1536.

9-10

360

|

Fourth

11 12

13 14

15 16

17 18

19 20

21

The Small Catechism

What then is the significance of such a baptism with water? Answer: It signifies that the old creature®! in us with all sins and evil desires is to be drowned and die through daily contrition and repentance,® and on the other hand that daily a new person is to come forth and rise up to live before God in righteousness and purity forever. Where is this written? Answer: St. Paul says in Romans 6[:4], “We were buried with Christ through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we, too, are to walk in a new life.” How simple people are to be taught to confess> What is confession? Answer: Confession consists of two parts. One is that we confess our sins. The other is that we receive the absolution, that is, forgiveness, from the confessor as from God himself and by no means doubt but firmly believe that our sins are thereby forgiven before God in heaven. Which sins is a person to confess? Before God one is to acknowledge the guilt for all sins, even those of which we are not aware, as we do in the Lord’s Prayer. However, before the confessor we are to confess only those sins of which we have knowledge and which trouble us. Which sins are these? Here reflect on your walk of life®* in light of the Ten Commandments: whether you are father, mother, son, daughter, master, mistress, servant; whether you have been disobedient, unfaithful, lazy,®> whether you have harmed anyone by word or deed; whether you have stolen, neglected, wasted, or injured anything. Please provide me with a brief form of confession! Answer:8¢ You are to say to the confessor: “Honorable, dear sir, I ask you®” to listen to my confession and declare to me forgiveness for God’s sake.”

81. Literally, the Old Adam. 82. CA X11, 3.

83.In 1531 par. 15-29 replaced the earlier Short Order of Confession (1529) (WA 30/1: 343—45; LW 53:116~18), which was found in one Latin version of the Small Catechism from 1529 in this

spot and in one German version of the Small Catechism from 1529, following the Baptismal Booklet. In 1532 Luther defended this addition and the use of private confession among Evangelicals in a letter to the town council and congregation in Frankfurt, in “An Open Letter to

Those in Frankfurt on the Main, 1533,” trans. John D. Vieker, Concordia Journal 16 (1990): 333-51 (= WA 30/3: 565-71).

84. Stand. 85. The Book of Concord (1580) and the Wittenberg editions of 1535 and following omit “illtempered, unruly, quarrelsome” after “lazy” I 86. Much of this form builds on medieval practice. 87. Luther uses here and throughout the formal form of address.

Sacraments

361

“Proceed.” “I, a poor sinner, confess before God that I am guilty of all my sins.®® In par- 22 ticular I confess in your presence that although I am a manservant, maidservant, etc., I unfortunately serve my master unfaithfully, for in this and that instance I did not do what they told me; 1 made them angry and caused them to curse; I neglected to do my duty and allowed harm to occur. I have also spoken and acted impudently. I have quarreled with my equals; I have grumbled about and sworn at my mistress, etc. I am sorry for all this and ask for grace. I want to do better.” A master or mistress may say the following: 23 “In particular I confess to you that I have not faithfully cared for my child, the members of my household, my spouse®® to the glory of God. I have cursed, set a bad example with indecent words and deeds, done harm to my neighbors,* spoken evil of them, overcharged them, and sold them inferior goods and shortchanged them,” and whatever else he or she has done against the commands of God and their walk of life, etc. However, if some individuals®® do not find themselves burdened by these or 24 greater sins, they are not to worry, nor are they to search for or invent further sins and thereby turn confession into torture.9 Instead mention one or two that you are aware of in the following way: “In particular I confess that I cursed once, likewise that one time I was inconsiderate in my speech, one time I neglected this or that, etc.” Let that be enough. If you are aware of no sins at all (which is really quite unlikely), then do not 25 mention any in particular, but instead receive forgiveness on the basis of the general confession,®® which you make to God in the presence of the confessor. 26 Thereupon the confessor is to say: “God be gracious to you and strengthen your faith. Amen.” Let the confessor say [further]: 27 “Do you also believe that my forgiveness is God’s forgiveness?” [Answer:] “Yes, dear sit.”

Thereupon he may say: ““Let it be done for you according to your faith’** And I by the command of

88. This is the general confession referred to below in par. 25. It prefaces the particular confession here and is the implied beginning of the confessions in par. 23 and 24. In other cases the “general confession” refers to words spoken at the conclusion of the sermon in worship. Cf. SATIL, 3,13.

89. German: “wife.” 90. German: singular.

91. German: singular.

92. See A Discussion on How Confession Should Be Made (1520) (WA 6:157-69; LW 39:27-47) and CA XXV, 7-12.

93, See above, n. 88. Luther could have in mind expanding this with the words of the fuller version of general public confession spoken after the sermon by the preacher. 94. Matthew 8:13.

28

362

29

The Small Catechism

our LoRD Jesus Christ®> forgive you your sin in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Go in peace.”® A confessor, by using additional passages of Scripture, will in fact be able to comfort and encourage to faith those whose consciences are heavily burdened or who are distressed and under attack.’” This is only to be an ordinary form of con' fession for simple people. The Sacrament of the Altar: In a simple way in which the head of a house is to present it to the household®® What is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ himself for us Christians to eat and to drink. Where is this written? Answer: The holy evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and St. Paul write thus: “Our Lorp Jesus Christ, on the night in which he was betrayed, took the bread, gave thanks, and broke it and gave it to his disciples and said, “Take; eat; this is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’ “In the same way he also took the cup after the supper, gave thanks, and gave it to them and said, “Take, and drink of it, all of you. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. 7% What is the benefit of such eating and drinking? Answer: The words “given for you” and “shed for you!® for the forgiveness of sins” show us that forgiveness of sin,!?! life, and salvation are given to us in the sacrament through these words, because where there is forgiveness of sin, there is also life and salvation. How can bodily eating and drinking do such a great thing?'®? Answer: 95. Matthew 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23.

.“.";'ZZP.""

o

96. Mark 5:34; Luke 7:50; 8:48. 97. angefochten. 98. Woodcut: The distribution of the Lord’s Supper. Supper with Christ communing Judas. A pastor wearing man and an assistant the cup to a kneeling woman. On to receive the elements. Caption: “This figure is recorded

Above the altar is a depiction of the Last a chasuble offers the bread to a kneeling either side of the altar others are waiting in Matthew 26/:26-28].”

99. A conflation of texts from 1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke

22:19f. Cf. LC, “Sacrament of the Altar,” 3. This text conforms neither to the Words of Institution found in The German Mass and Order of Service (1526) (WA 19:97, 12-99, 4; LW 53:80-81) nor to the LC, “Shorter Preface,” 23.

100. apply to 101. 102.

In this and the succeeding questions the words “for you,” stated only once in the German, both phrases. Beginning with the 1536 edition of the SC and in the Book of Concord, “sins.” Beginning with the 1540 edition of the SC and in the Book of Concord, “great things.”

Sacraments

363

Eating and drinking certainly do not do it, but rather the words that are recorded: “given for you” and “shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” These words, when accompanied by the physical eating and drinking, are the essential thing in the sacrament, and whoever believes these very words has what they declare and state, namely, “forgiveness of sins.” Who, then, receives this sacrament worthily? Answer:

Fasting and bodily preparation are in fact a fine external discipline, but a person who has faith in these words, “given for you” and “shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,” is really worthy and well prepared. However, a person who does not believe these words or doubts them is unworthy and unprepared, because the words “for you” require truly believing hearts.

9-10

How the head of the house is to teach the members of the household to say morning and evening blessings'®?

[The Morning Blessing] In the morning, as soon as you get out of bed, you are to make the sign of the holy cross and say: “God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit watch over me. Amen.” Then, kneeling or standing, say the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. If you wish, you may in addition recite this little prayer as well: “I give thanks to you, my heavenly Father through Jesus Christ your dear Son, that you have protected me this night from all harm and danger, and I ask you that you would also protect me today from sin and all evil, so that my life and actions may please you completely. For into your hands I commend myself: my body, my soul, and all that is mine. Let your holy angel be with me, so that the wicked foe may have no power over me. Amen.” After singing a hymn perhaps (for example, one on the Ten Commandments)!% or whatever else may serve your devotion, you are to go to your work joyfully.

[The Evening Blessing] In the evening, when you go to bed, you are cross and say: “God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit watch Then, kneeling or standing, say the Apostles’ If you wish, you may in addition recite this little

to make the sign of the holy over me. Amen.” Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. prayer as well:

103. Luther adapted this material from the Roman Breviary. The expression “say blessings” (sich segenen) meant in Luther’s day to “make the sign of the cross.”

104. See LC, “Short Preface,” 25, and Luther’s own hymns on the Decalogue (WA 35:426-28;

LW 53:277-81).

1

364

The Small Catechism

“I give thanks to you, my heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ your dear Son, that you have graciously protected me today, and I ask you to forgive me

all my sins, where I have done wrong, and graciously to protect me tonight. For

into your hands I commend myself: my body, my soul, and all that is mine. Let your holy angel be with me, so that the wicked foe may have no power over me. Amen.”

Then you are to go to sleep quickly and cheerfully. How the head of the house is to teach members of the household to offer blessing and thanksgiving at meals'%

[The table blessing] 1% The children and the members of the household are to come devoutly to the table, fold their hands, and recite: “The eyes of all wait upon you, O Lorp, and you give them their food at the proper time. You open your hand and satisfy all living things with delight1%7 Comment: “Delight” means that all animals receive enough to eat to make them joyful and of good cheer, because worry and greed prevent such delight. Then they are to recite the Lord’s Prayer and the following prayer: “Lorp God, heavenly Father, bless us and these your gifts, which we receive from your bountiful goodness through Jesus Christ our Lorp. Amen.” 10

11

w- ;}L,

Thanksgiving!% Similarly, after eating they should in the same manner fold their hands and recite devoutly: “O give thanks to the Lorp, for he is gracious and his goodness endures forever. He gives food to all flesh. He gives food to the cattle and to the young ravens that cry to him. He takes no pleasure in the power of the horse, nor is he pleased with human strength. The Lorp takes pleasure in those who fear him and wait for his goodness.”1% Then recite the Lord’s Prayer and the following prayer: “We give thanks to you, Lorp God our Father, through Jesus Christ our Lorb for all your benefits, you who live and reign forever. Amen.”

s

105. The material in this section was adapted from the Roman Breviary already in the 1525 Wittenberg catechism, Das Buchlin fiir die Leyen und Kinder (Booklet for the laity and children). Luther simply adds instructions regarding the children’s demeanor and the gloss on the word delight. 106. This title occurs only in the Latin: Benedictio mensae. 107. Psalm 145:15,16. The gloss that follows matches Luther’s comments in the Luther Bible about the word pleasure (Wohlgefallen) connected with this text and Luke 2:14. 108. Luther, following the Wittenberg catechism of 1525, uses the Latin term Gratias. 109. Psalms 106:1; 136:1, 26; 147:9~11. The text follows the translations in the Luther Bible.

Bible Passages

365

The Household Chart!® of Some Bible Passages for all kinds of holy orders''! and walks of life, through which they may be admonished, as through lessons particularly pertinent to their office and duty. For Bishops, Pastors, and Preachers

“A bishop is to be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, virtuous, moderate, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not vicious, not involved in dishonorable work,11? but gentle, not quarrelsome, not stingy, one who manages his own household well, who has obedient and honest children,

not a recent convert, who holds to the Word that is certain and can teach, so that he may be strong enough to admonish with saving teaching and to refute those who contradict it.”'13 From 1 Timothy 3[:2-4, 6a].!14

Concerning Governing Authorities “Let everyone be subject to the governing authority. For wherever the governing authority is, it is ordered by God. But whoever resists the governing authority, resists God’s order, and whoever resists will incur judgment, for that authority does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s handmaid who executes

punishment against those who do evil.” From Romans 13[:1-2, 4b).115

110. Die Haustafel. Sometimes translated “table of duties” (a meaning of the term derived from its use here), this section may have been suggested to Luther by John Gerson’s Tractatus de modo vivendi omnium fidelium. Translation of the Bible passages here is based on Luther’s own rendering of the texts. 111. Luther is both playing on the common use of this term for the monastic life and referring to the three estates: ordo ecclesiasticus, politicus, and oeconomicus (church, government, and household). See SA, “Preface,” 14, and the Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:503, 17/35-505, 28; LW 37:363-65).

112. Using a later edition of Luther’s German Bible, the 1536 edition of the Small Catechism and the Book of Concord have replaced “greedy for shameless profit” with the italicized text. 113. The italicized text was added to the 1540 edition of the Small Catechism and to the Book of Concord, using a passage from Titus 1:9. Earlier editions simply ended with the word “etc.” 114. The 1540 edition of the Small Catechism adds a section entitled “What Christians ought to do for their teachers and pastors [Seelsorger]” and includes texts from Luke 10:7; 1 Corinthians 9:14; Galatians 6:6-7; 1 Timothy 5:17-18; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; and Hebrews 13:17. This mate-

rial is neither in earlier editions of the Small Catechism nor in the Book of Concord. An abbreviated form, which omits passages from Luke and 1 Thessalonians, is found in Latin translations from 1529, in all likelihood added without Luther’s knowledge or consent. 115. The 1542 edition of the Small Catechism adds a section entitled “What subjects ought to do for the governing authority” and includes texts from Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1, 5-7; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; Titus 3:1; and 1 Peter 2:13-14. This material is neither in earlier editions of the Small Catechism nor in the Book of Concord. An expanded form, which includes a reference to, but no text, of Matthew 17:24-27, is found in Latin translations from 1529, in all likelihood added without Luther’s knowledge or consent.

366

The Small Catechism

For Husbands

“You husbands, live reasonably with your wives and, as co-heirs of the grace

of life, give honor to wives as to the [weakest]!!® instrument, so that your

prayers may not be hindered.” From 1 Peter 3[:7]. “And do not be harsh with them.” From Colossians 3[:19].

For Wives

“Let wives be subjected to their husbands as to the Lorb, as Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord. And you have become her daughters, when you do right and are not so fearful.”!\7 From 1 Peter 3[:1, 6].11 For Parents

“You fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, lest they become fearful. Instead, bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lorp.” From Ephesians 6[:4].

For Children “You children, be obedient to your parents in the Lorp, for this is right. ‘Honor your father and mother’ This is the first commandment that has a promise, namely: ‘that it may go well for you and that you may live long on earth.” From Ephesians 6[:1-3]. 10

For Male and Female Servants, Day Laborers, Workers, etc. “You servants,!!® be obedient to your bodily lords with fear and trembling, with singleness of heart, as to Christ himself; not with service meant only for the eyes, done to please people, but rather as servants of Christ, so that you do the will of God from the heart [with a good will].!?° Imagine to yourselves that you are serving the Lorp and not people, and know that whatever good anyone does, the same will that person receive, whether servant or free.”12!

116. Before 1536: “weak.” . 117. The italicized text was first added to the 1536 edition of the Small Catechism. Earlier editions read “afraid of any terrifying thing” See WA 12:341, 11-345, 27 (LW 30:87-91) for Luther’s sermon from 1522 on this text. ‘ 118. The words “as to the LORD” come from Ephesians 5:22. 119. Knecht: the male servant in the German household.

120. Before 1536, following earlier editions of the Wittenberg translation of the Bible, the Small Catechism read: “with compliance.” 121. Ephesians 6:5-8.

Marriage Booklet

367 For Masters and Mistresses!??

11

“You lords, do the same to them, and refrain from making threats, and

know that you also have a lord in heaven, and there is no partiality with him.” Ephesians 6[:9].

For Young People in General

12

“You young people, be subject to your elders and in this way show humility. For ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble’ Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you in his time.” From 1 Peter 5[:5-6].

For Widows

13

“She who is a real widow and is left all alone sets her hope on God and remains in prayer day and night; whereas she who lives self-indulgently is dead while alive.” From 1 Timothy 5[:5-6].

For All in the Community!?

14

“Love your neighbor as yourself. In this all the commandments are sum-

marized.” From Romans

13[:9]. “And entreat [God] with prayers for all peo-

ple” From 1 Timothy 2[:1].1%4

Let all their lessons learn with care,

So that the household well may fare.!?>

A Marriage Booklet for Simple Pastors!2 Martin Luther “So many lands, so many customs,” says the common proverb. For this reason, because weddings and the married estate are worldly affairs, it behooves those of us who are “spirituals”!?’ or ministers of the church in no way to order or

122. Hausherrn und Hausfrauen: the heads of households. The words lord and master are the same in German. 123. Gemeine: this word may be translated “the congregation,” “the community,” or “all in common.” Cf. Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:506, 30-507, 6; LW 37:367-68). 124. A loose paraphrase. 125. This is most likely Luther’s own rhyme. See WA 35:580. 126. This text, also printed as a separate pamphlet in 1529, was included in most editions of the Small Catechism printed during Luther’s lifetime, starting in 1529, and in at least one version of the Book of Concord printed in 1580. A translation into English, on which this translation is based, is found in LW 53:110-15 (WA 30/3: 74-80).

127. Geistliche: Luther uses a common term for clergy and monks.

15

368

The Small Catechism

direct anything regarding marriage, but instead to allow every city and land to continue their own customs that are now in use. Some bring the bride to the church twice, in both the evening and the morning,

o

g

some

only once. Some

announce it publicly and publish the banns from the pulpit two or three weeks in advance. All these and similar things I leave to the prince and town council to create and arrange as they want. It is no concern of mine. However, when people request of us to bless them in front of the church or in the church, to pray over them, or even to marry them, we are obligated to do this. Therefore I wanted to offer these words of advice and this order for those who do not know anything better, in case they are inclined to use this common order with us. Others, who can do better (that is, who can do nothing at all and who nevertheless think they know it all), do not need this service of mine, unless they might greatly improve on it and masterfully correct it. They certainly ought to take great care not to follow the same practice as others. A person might think that they had learned something from someone else! Wouldn’t that be a shame? Because up to now people have made such a big display at the consecrations of monks and nuns (even though their estate!?® and existence is an ungodly, human invention without any basis in the Bible), how much more should we honor this godly estate of marriage and bless it, pray for it, and adorn it in an even more glorious manner. For, although it is a worldly estate, nevertheless it has God’s Word on its side and is not a human invention or institution, like the estate of monks and nuns.!?° Therefore it should easily be reckoned a hundred times more spiritual than the monastic estate, which certainly ought to be considered the most worldly and fleshly of all, because it was invented and instituted by flesh and blood and completely out of worldly understanding and reason. We must also do this in order that the young people may learn to take this estate seriously, to hold it in high esteem as a divine work and command, and not to ridicule it in such outrageous ways with laughing, jeering, and similar levity. This has been common until now, as if it were a joke or child’s play to get married or to have a wedding. Those who first instituted the custom of bringing a bride and bridegroom to church surely did not view it as a joke but as a very serious matter.!3? For there is no doubt that they wanted to receive God’s blessing and the community’s prayers!3! and not to put on a comedy or a pagan farce.

128. Here and throughout this tract: Stand, meaning “walk of life.” 129. For a similar criticism, see also The Estate of Marriage (1522) (WA 10/2: 275-304; LW 45:17-49)

and

44:245-400).

The Judgment of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows (1521)

|

(WA

8:573-669; LW

130. Cf. “Sermon at Marriage of Sigismund von Lindenau” (1545) (WA 49:802, 11-22; LW

51:363f.).

131. Luther is thinking of the general prayers made by the community in worship.

Marriage Booklet

369

The ceremony itself makes this clear. For all who desire prayer and blessing from the pastor or bishop!*? indicate thereby—whether or not they say so expressly—to what danger and need they are exposing themselves and how much they need God’s blessing and the community’s prayers for the estate into which they are entering. For we experience every day how much unhappiness

5

the devil causes in the married estate through adultery, unfaithfulness, discord,

and all kinds of misery. Therefore we want to deal in the following way with the bride and bridegroom (when they desire and demand it). First, publish the banns!*? from the pulpit with the following words: “John N. and Mary N.!** wish to enter the holy estate of matrimony according to God’s ordinance and desire the prayers of the Christian congregation on their behalf so that they may begin it in God’s name and have it turn out well. Now should anyone have anything to say against this, let him or her speak at this time or hereafter remain silent. God grant them his blessing. Amen.” Exchange vows!% in front of the church with the following words: “John, do you desire to have Mary as your wedded wife?” Let him answer: “Yes.” “Mary, do you desire to have John as your wedded husband?” Let her answer: “Yes.” Here let them exchange wedding rings and join their right hands together, and say to them: “What God joins together, no human being ought to separate.”!* Then let the pastor declare to all who are present: “Therefore because John N. and Mary N. desire each other in marriage and confess the same here publicly in the presence of God and the world, in testimony of which they have given each other their hands and wedding rings, I pronounce them joined in marriage, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” In front of the altar!®” let the pastor read God’s word from Genesis

21-24] over the bride and groom.

2[:18,

132. Luther called the chief pastor in a town its bishop. For example, see Lectures on 1 Timothy (1528) (WA 26:49, 5-51, 9; LW 28:281-84); Answer to the Hyperchristian . . . Book (1521) (WA 7:630, 10-632, 19; LW 39:154-56); and Instruction of the Visitors (1528) (WA 26:196, 1-197, 10; LW 40:269-71), as well as the SC, “Preface,” 1, and “Household Chart,” 2. 133. For Luther’s opinion of betrothals, see On Marriage Matters (1530) (WA 30/3: 224,

32-225,29; LW 46:290f.). 134. The text reads Hans und Greta, common names for a couple, but also the names of Luther’s own parents. 135. Luther believed that marriage should follow soon after betrothal. Because the exchange of vows was considered a matter of civil law, it took place at the door of the church. 136. Matthew 19:6. 137. This marks the beginning of the worship service.

10

370

11

12

13

The Small Catechism

“Then the Lorp God said, ‘It is not good that the human being should be alone; I will make him a helper who will stand by his side.’*3® So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the human being, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the Lord God built a woman out of the rib that he had taken from the human being, and he brought her to him. Then the human being said: “This is truly bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. This one will be called woman, because she is taken out of man. Therefore a man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they will be one flesh.” Then let the pastor turn to both and address them thus: “Because you both have entered into the married estate in God’s name, hear first of all God’s commandment concerning this estate. Thus says St. Paul:!* ““Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church!*® and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy, and has cleansed her through the washing of water in the Word, in order to prepare for himself a church that will be glorious,'4! that has neither spot nor wrinkle nor anything of the kind, but instead that she may be holy and blameless. So also husbands ought to love their wives like their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but instead he nourishes it and takes care of i, just as the Lorp does for the church. ““Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lorp. For the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is also the head of the church, and he is the savior of his body. But as now the church is subject to Christ, so also the women

14

are subject to their husbands in all things’ “Second, hear also the cross that God has placed upon woman God said: ““ I will create much distress for you in childbirth. You dren in distress, and you shall cringe before your husband, lord” “‘And to the man God said: “““Because you have listened to the voice of your wife

this estate.'* “To the shall bear your chiland he shall be your and have eaten from

the tree, about which I commanded you and said, ‘You shall not eat from it,

cursed is the ground because of you. In distress you shall nourish yourself your

v

LS n o

whole life long. The ground shall bring forth thorns and thistles for you, and

you shall eat the grass of the field. By the sweat of your face shall you eat your bread, until you return again to the earth from which you were taken. For you are earth and shall return to earth.”’

138. With the 1536 edition of the Small Catechism, the text follows the complete edition of the Luther Bible from 1534. Earlier texts read: “who will be his companion.” 139. Ephesians 5:25-29 and 5:22-24. i 140. Throughout this passage the German is Gemeine, literally, “congregation.” 141. Before 1536: “present for himself a glorious church.” 142. Genesis 3:16-19.

Baptismal Booklet

371

“Third, this is your comfort, that you know and believe how your estate is pleasing and blessed in God’s eyes. For it is written:!43 “‘God created the human being in his image, in the image of God he created them. He created them a male and a female, and God blessed them and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish in the sea and over the birds in the air and over all ani-

15

mals that crawl on the earth.” And God saw all that he had made, and look, it

was all very good. “Therefore Solomon also says,'** “Whoever finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains a blessing from the Lord.”” At this point let the pastor spread his hands over them and pray:!4° Lord God, who have created man and woman and have ordained them for the married estate, have blessed them also with the fruit of the womb, and have

therein signified the sacrament of your dear Son Jesus Christ and the church,4¢ his bride: We beseech your never-ending goodness that you would not permit this your creation, ordinance, and blessing to be removed or destroyed, but graciously preserve it among us through Jesus Christ our Lorb.

Amen.

The Baptismal Booklet: Translated

into German and Newly Revised!#’ Martin Luther To all Christian readers: Grace and Peace in Christ our Lord.

Because daily I see and hear with what carelessness and lack of solemnity—to say nothing of out-and-out levity—people treat the high, holy, and comforting sacrament of baptism for infants, in part caused, I believe, by the fact that those present understand nothing of what is being said and done, I have decided that 143. Genesis 1:27f. and 1:31. 144. A paraphrase of Proverbs 18:22. Before 1536 the text reads, “Whoever gets a wife gets a good thing and will obtain delight from the Lorp.” 145. The following prayer is an adaptation of a traditional prayer used at nuptial Masses in Luther’s day. 146. Here: Kirchen. Luther did not view marriage as a sacrament, but uses the word here as found in the traditional prayer to refer to Ephesians 5:32, where the Vulgate translates the Greek mysterion with sacramentum. See WA 6:550, 22-552, 27 (LW 36:92-95).

147. The Baptismal Booklet, based on medieval baptismal rites, was originally published in

1523 (WA 12:42-48; LW 53:95-103). In 1526 a second edition was prepared (WA 19:537-41; LW 53:106—9 with 101-3), which is the basis of the text here. It was included in the second edition of

the Small Catechism published in 1529, in all subsequent editions published in Wittenberg during

Luther’s lifetime, and in some 1580 editions of the Book of Concord. This translation is based on

LW 53.

16

372

The Small Catechism

it is not only helpful but also necessary to conduct the service in the German language. For this reason I have translated those portions that used to be said in Latin*® in order to begin baptizing in German, so that the sponsors and others present may be all the more aroused to faith and earnest devotion and so that the priests who baptize have to show more diligence for the sake of the listeners. ' Out of a sense of Christian commitment, [ appeal to all those who baptize, sponsor infants,'4® or witness a baptism to take to heart the tremendous work and great solemnity present here. For here in the words of these prayers you

hear how plaintively and earnestly the Christian church brings the infant to God, confesses before him with such unchanging, undoubting words that the infant is possessed by the devil and a child of sin and wrath, and so diligently asks for help and grace through baptism, that the infant may become a child of God. Therefore, you have to realize that it is no joke at all to take action against the devil and not only to drive him away from the little child but also to hang around the child’s neck such a mighty, lifelong enemy. Thus it is extremely necessary to stand by the poor child with all your heart and with a strong faith and to plead with great devotion that God, in accordance with these prayers, would not only free the child from the devil’s power but also strengthen the child, so that the child might resist him valiantly in life and in death. I fear that people turn out so badly after baptism because we have dealt with them in such a cold and casual way and have prayed for them at their baptism without any zeal at all. Bear in mind, too, that in baptism the external ceremonies are least important, such as blowing under the eyes, making the sign of the cross, putting salt in the mouth or spit and clay in the ears and nose, anointing the breast and shoulders with oil, smearing the head with chrism, putting on the christening robe, placing a burning candle in the child’s hand, and whatever else has been added by humans to embellish baptism. For certainly a baptism can occur without any of these things, and they are not the actual devices from which the devil shrinks or flees. He sneers at even greater things than these! Here things must get really serious. - Instead, see to it that you are present there in true faith, that you listen to

God’s Word, and that you pray along earnestly. For wherever the priest says, “Let us pray,” he is exhorting you to pray with him. Moreover, all sponsors and the others present ought to speak along with him the words of his prayer in their hearts to God. For this reason, the priest should speak these prayers very 148. The italicized text is only found in the 1523 version and in the Book of Concord. The editions of the Small Catechism have simply “these things.” In the Roman rite only the questions to the sponsors and their responses were not in Latin. 149. Kinder heben: literally, to draw children out of the font. See the order of service below. The sponsors are to hold the child over the font while the priest puts on the christening robe.

Baptismal Booklet

373

clearly and slowly, so that the sponsors can hear and understand them and can also pray with the priest with one mind in their hearts, carrying before God the need of the little child with all earnestness, on the child’s behalf setting themselves against the devil with all their strength, and demonstrating that they take seriously what is no joke to the devil. For this reason it is right and proper not to allow drunken and boorish priests to baptize nor to select good-for-nothings as godparents. Instead fine, moral, serious, upright priests and godparents ought to be chosen, who can be expected to treat the matter with seriousness and true faith, lest this high sacrament be abandoned to the devil’s mockery and dishonor God, who in this sacrament showers upon us the vast and boundless riches of his grace. He himself calls it a “new birth,”1%0 through which we, being freed from the devil’s tyranny and loosed from sin, death, and hell, become children of life, heirs of all God’s possessions, God’s own children, and brothers and sisters of Christ.!*! Ah, dear Christians, let us not value or treat this unspeakable gift so halfheartedly. For baptism is our only comfort and the doorway to all of God’s possessions and to the communion of all the saints. To this end may God help us. Amen.

The baptizer shall say:!>2 “Depart, you unclean spirit, and make room for the Holy Spirit.” Then he shall make the sign of the cross on both the forehead and the breast and say: ‘ “Receive the sign of the holy cross upon the forehead and the breast. “Let us pray. “O almighty and eternal God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, I call to you on behalf of this, your servant, N., who asks for the gift of your baptism and desires your eternal grace through spiritual rebirth. Receive him,!>* Lorp, and as you have said, ‘Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be open for you,1> so give now the blessing to him who asks and open the door to him who knocks on it, so that he may obtain the eternal blessing of this heavenly bath!5> and receive the promised kingdom you give through Christ our Lorp. Amen. “Let us pray: “Almighty, eternal God, who according to your strict judgment condemned the unbelieving world through the flood and according to your great mercy preserved believing Noah and the seven members of his family, and who drowned Pharaoh with his army in the Red Sea and led your people Israel 150. John 3:3, 5. 151. Literally: “brethren.” 152. In the Small Catechism this section is accompanied by the same woodcut used before “The Sacrament of Holy Baptism.” 153. Luther throughout uses the masculine pronoun for the one being baptized. 154. Matthew 7:7. 155, Titus 3:5.

.

11

12

13

14

374

|

The Small Catechism

through the same sea on dry ground, thereby prefiguring this bath of your Holy Baptism, and who through the baptism of your dear child, our Lorp

Jesus Christ, hallowed and set apart the Jordan and all water to be a blessed

15

16

flood and a rich washing away of sins: we ask for the sake of this very same boundless mercy of yours that you would look graciously upon N. and bless him with true faith in the Holy Spirit so that through this same saving flood all that has been born in him from Adam and whatever he has added thereto may be drowned in him and sink, and that he, separated from the number of the unbelieving, may be preserved dry and secure in the holy ark of the Christian church and may at all times fervent in spirit and joyful in hope serve your name, so that with all believers in your promise he may become worthy to attain eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lorp. Amen. “I adjure you, you unclean spirit, in the name of the Father (+) and of the

Son (+) and of the Holy Spirit (+), that you come out of and depart from this servant of Jesus Christ,°° N. Amen.

“Let us hear the holy Gospel of St. Mark:!>” “‘And they brought little children to him that he might touch them. But the

disciples threatened!® those who brought them. But when Jesus saw this, he

17

18

19 20

became indignant with them and said to them, “Let the little children come to me and do not prevent them. For of such is the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will not enter into it” And he hugged them and laid his hands on them and blessed them.” Then the priest shall lay his hands upon the child’s head and pray the Lord’s Prayer along with the kneeling sponsors: “Our Father, you who are in heaven, hallowed be your name, may your kingdom come, may your will come about on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.” After this the little child shall be brought to the baptismal font!>® and the priest shall say: “The Lorp preserve your coming in and your going out from now and for evermore.”169 Then the priest shall let the child, through his sponsors, renounce the devil and say: “N., do you renounce the devil?” 156. The sign of the cross was made three times over the child. 157. Mark 10:13-16. With the edition of 1536 the text matches the Luther Bible for the first time. Until then the text in the Small Catechism is a free rendering, perhaps based on the Latin Vulgate. 158. The Book of Concord and the 1536 edition read: “led away.” 159. According to the medieval rite, the exorcisms would take place at the door of the church and the rest of the service at the baptismal font. 160. Psalm 121:8.

Baptismal Booklet

375

Answer: “Yes.” “And all his works?” Answer: “Yes.” “And all his ways?” Answer: “Yes.” Then he shall ask: “Do you believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth?” Answer: “Yes.” “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord, who was born and suffered?” Answer: “Yes.” “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, one holy Christian church, the community of saints,'®! forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body, and after death an eternal life?” Answer: “Yes.” “Do you want to be baptized?” Answer: “Yes.” At this point he shall take the child and immerse it in the baptismal font and say: “And I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Then the sponsors shall hold the little child over the font, and the priest, while putting the christening robe on the child, shall say: “The almighty God and Father of our Lorp Jesus Christ, who has given birth to you for a second time through water and the Holy Spirit and has forgiven you all your sins, strengthen you with his grace to eternal life. Amen. “Peace be with you.” Answer: “Amen.”162

161. Literally: “the holy ones.” 162. Various editions of the Small Catechism also add other material. Editions published in Wittenberg during Luther’s lifetime included in 1529: The German Litany (WA 30/3: 29-36; LW 53:163—69); in 1536, 1537, and 1539: the German Te Deum and the Magnificat (WA 35:458-59; LW 53:171-79); in 1543: A Prayer against the Turks (WA 51:608, 6/24-610, 15/34; LW 43:232-33).

21

22

23

25

26 27 28

29 30

31

The Large Catechism Editors’ Introduction to the Large Catechism The material in the Large Catechism originated as sermons by Martin Luther on the basic texts of Christian teaching. Already in the Middle Ages, some regional synods in Germany had called for regular preaching on the “catechism” (usually defined as the Ten Commandments, Apostles’ Creed, Lord’s Prayer and, sometimes, the Ave Maria). The Ember Days, four times of fasting spread throughout the church year, were often designated for this purpose. Even before the Reformation, Wittenberg’s city church, St. Mary’s, also seems to have followed this practice. Luther himself preached on various portions of the catechism as early as 1518.1 In the 1520s, John Bugenhagen, the chief pastor at St. Mary’s, doubtless carried on this practice. In 1528, with Bugenhagen temporarily away reforming the city of Braunschweig, Luther, the assistant preacher, assumed all of his colleague’s duties, including the catechetical preaching. Listeners’ notes on three series of afternoon sermons (from 18 May to 30 May, from 14 September to 25 September, and from 30 November to 18 December) survive.? They demonstrate a remarkable coincidence between Luther’s preaching and the text of the Large Catechism and help explain its personal, homiletical style. Publication of the Large Catechism or, as the printers titled the early editions, the German Catechism, arose out of the need for instruction of the sim-

ple, often poorly trained clergy in the basics of the faith. In the summer of 1527, the elector of Saxony authorized an official visitation of churches in his territories. The team of visitors, which consisted of two representatives from the court and two from the university (one from the law school and one theologian), was charged with overseeing the financial and physical needs of the parishes and clergy and with investigating the state of instruction there. Philip Melanchthon, who served as the first representative from the theological faculty, drew up guidelines in Latin for the examination of pastors’ and preachers’ theology, called the Visitation Articles. A team of theologians, including Melanchthon, Luther, and Bugenhagen, translated the document into German and refined it, publishing it in early 1528 as Instructions by the Visitors of Parish Pastors in Electoral Saxony.? 1. See, for example, An Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for Simple Laymen (1519) (WA 2:80-130; LW 42:15-81), and A Personal Prayer Book (1522), which included sermonic material from 1519

on the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer (WA 10/2: 375-406; LW

43:5-45).

2. WA 30/1: 2-122. For a translation of the third series, see LW 51:135-93. 3. WA 26:195-240; LW 40:265-320, correcting the translation of the title in LW.

377

378

The Large Catechism

While this document served as an important synopsis of Reformation teaching and practice, it was not without its detractors. Already in 1527, John Agricola, a student of Luther serving as rector of the Latin school in Eisleben, - attacked the Latin version and its author, Melanchthon. Agricola insisted that true repentance could not arise from fear of punishment but only from love of God (a position that placed the gospel before the law). Luther provided compromise language which pointed out both that repentance could arise from

both fear and love and that, while a general faith in God might be said to precede repentance, it was best to view faith as following repentance. Agricola had also authored three popular catechisms that reflected many of his views. Philip Melanchthon, urged on by George Spalatin at the Saxon court, started to write an exposition of the chief parts of the catechism in response. He broke off his work at the third commandment, probably because Luther himself had begun to write his own catechisms in late 1528. The amount of space Luther devoted to the Ten Commandments and his discussion of faith, fear, and love indicates his position in this early controversy involving Agricola and Melanchthon. The Large Catechism also provided an additional means of instructing the clergy. Luther began writing the Large Catechism shortly after completing the second series of catechetical sermons in September 1528. In December, after completing his third series of sermons, he revised what he had written about the second and third commandments based on these later sermons. Because the material on the first commandment and the “conclusion” of the commandments had already been printed, he added new comments on these texts at the end of the section on the commandments.* By January, work on the Large Catechism had progressed through the Lord’s Prayer. At that point, Luther became ill, and he stopped working until the end of March. The resumption of his work on the Large Catechism coincided with his preaching for Holy Week, 1529 (21-27 March). His sermons on Confession and the Lord’s Supper during that week strongly influenced the material in the Large Catechism on those themes.’ Luther’s German Catechism appeared by mid-April 1529. He immediately set about revising his work, adding the section on confession (based upon the aforementioned Holy Week sermons) and expanding the introductory material on the Lord’s Prayer.® The printer, George Rhau, added a series of woodcuts from the workshop of Lucas Cranach Sr.” The 1530 edition contained for the first time Luther’s longer preface, which he probably composed while at the Coburg Castle during the Diet of Augsburg.® The edition of 1538 was the last to be published during Luther’s lifetime that contained minor corrections by 4. Compare LC, “Ten Commandments,” 1-48 (especially 30—48), with 311-33. 5. WA 29:132-381. For a translation of these sermons, see The 1529 Holy Week and Easter Sermons of Dr. Martin Luther, trans. Irving S. Sandberg (St. Louis: Concordia, 1999), 29-79.

6. See LC, “Lord’s Prayer,” 10-11.

o

7. For a description of these woodcuts, see the notes to the Small Catechism. 8. See below, pp. 379-83.

Preface

379

him. The Latin translation by Vincent Obsopoeus appeared in 1529. The translator created a showpiece in Latin style by adding classical citations and allusions to ancient history. It influenced, among other things, the first edition of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. The Book of Concord from 1580, by including the catechisms of Luther, followed the example of several corpora doctrinae (standard bodies of doctrine)

from the time. The catechisms represented a Bible for the laity because they dealt with material necessary for each Christian to know.” The Book of Concord used as its source the Jena edition of Luther’s Works, which had reversed the order of the two prefaces and omitted the section on private confession. In contrast, the present translation follows the text of the second, revised and expanded version of 1529.

The Large [German] Catechism of Dr. Martin Luther Martin Luther’s Preface! It is not for trivial reasons that we constantly treat the catechism?® and exhort and implore others to do the same, for we see that unfortunately many preachers and pastors® are very negligent in doing so and thus despise both their office and this teaching. Some do it out of their great learnedness, while others do so out of pure laziness and concern for their bellies. They approach the task as if they were pastors and preachers for their stomachs’ sake and had nothing to do but live off the fat of the land, as they were used to doing under the papacy. Everything that they are to teach and preach is now so very clearly and easily presented in so many salutary books, which truly deliver what the other manuals promised in their titles: “Sermons That Preach Themselves,” “Sleep Soundly,” “Be Prepared,” and “Thesaurus.” Yet, they are not upright and honest enough to buy such books, or, if they have them already, to consult or read them. Oh, these shameful gluttons and servants of their bellies® are better suited to be swineherds and keepers of dogs than guardians of souls and pastors. 9. See Ep, Rule and Norm, 5, and SD, Rule and Norm, 8. 1. In the Book of Concord, this longer preface (from 1530), which is addressed to preachers and pastors, followed the shorter one (from 1529) in accordance with the order in the fourth German volume of the Jena edition of Luther’s works (1556), which was the text printed in the German Book of Concord (1580).

2. Luther uses the word “catechism” not as the title of a book, but as a description of what was to be imparted in religious instruction. 3. Preachers (Prediger) were appointed to the preaching office; pastors (Pfarrherren), in addition, were entitled to perform other pastoral acts and exercised the full ministerial office. 4. Titles of widely distributed medieval sermon books. 5. This pejorative term, which was widely used in the Reformation, is derived from Romans 16:18.

’

380

The Large Catechism

Now that they are free from the useless, bothersome babbling of the seven hours,5 it would be much better if morning, noon, and night they would instead read a page or two from the catechism, the Prayer Book,” the New Testament, or some other passage from the Bible, and would pray the Lord’s Prayer for themselves and their parishioners. In this way they would once again show honor and respect to the gospel, through which they have been delivered from so many burdens and troubles, and they might feel a little shame that, like pigs and dogs, they are remembering no more of the gospel than this rotten, pernicious, shameful, carnal liberty. As it is, the common people take the gospel altogether too lightly, and we accomplish but little, despite all our hard work. What, then, can we expect if we are slothful and lazy, as we used to be under the papacy? Besides, along comes this horrible vice and secret, evil plague of security and boredom. Many regard the catechism as a simple, trifling teaching, which they can absorb and master at one reading and then toss the book into a corner as if they are ashamed to read it again. Indeed, among the nobility there are also some louts and skinflints who declare that they can do without pastors and preachers now because we now have everything in books and can learn it all by ourselves. So they blithely let parishes fall into decay and brazenly allow both pastors and preachers to suffer distress and hunger.® This is what one can expect of crazy Germans. We Germans have such disgraceful people among us and have to put up with them. But this I say for myself: I am also a doctor and a preacher, just as learned and experienced as all of them who are so high and mighty. Nevertheless, each morning, and whenever else I have time, I do as a child who is being taught the catechism and I read and recite word for word the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Psalms, etc. I must still read and study the catechism daily, and yet I cannot master it as I wish, but must remain a child and pupil of the catechism—and I also do so gladly.® These fussy, fastidious fellows would like quickly, with one reading, to be doctors above all doctors, to know it all and to need nothing more. Well this, too, is a sure sign that they despise both their office and the people’s souls, yes, even God and his Word. They do not need to fall, 6. The seven canonical hours, daily prayers prescribed in the medieval breviary. 7. Luther published a Personal Prayer Book in 1522 to supplant the Roman Catholic prayer and l"";‘fé."]'

devotional books (WA 10/2: 375-501; LW 43:3—45). 8. Luther wrote in Against Hanswurst (1541) (WA 51:486, 27-33; LW 41:198-99): “Indeed, we do not just fast, but (with St. Paul [1 Cor. 4:11]) we suffer hunger. We see it daily in our poor min-

isters, their wives and children, and in many other poor people, whose hunger stares at you out of their eyes. They scarcely have bread and water, they go about naked as a jaybird, and they have nothing of their own. The farmer and the burgher give them nothing, and the nobility take, so that there are only a few of us who have something, and we cannot help everyone.” 9. This longer preface to the Large Catechism was presumably written by Luther at the Coburg in 1530 while his associates were attending the Diet of Augsburg. He wrote in his commentary on Psalm 117 (WA 31/1: 227, 13-22; LW 14:8), which was also composed there: “I confess this freely

as an example to anyone; for here am I, an old doctor of theology and a must become a child; and early each day I recite aloud to myself the Commandments, the Creed, and whatever lovely psalms and verses [ may and train children to do. . . . I study them daily and remain a pupil of the

preacher. . . . Yet even I Lord’s Prayer, the Ten choose, just as we teach Catechism.”

Preface

381

for they have already fallen all too horribly. What they need, however, is to become children and begin to learn the ABCs, which they think they have long since outgrown.? Therefore, I beg such lazy bellies and presumptuous saints, for God’s sake, to let themselves be convinced and believe that they are not really and truly such learned and exalted doctors as they think. I implore them not ever to imagine that they have learned these parts of the catechism perfectly, or that they know them sufficiently, even though they think they know them ever so well. Even if their knowledge of the catechism were perfect (although that is impossible in this life), yet it is highly profitable and fruitful to read it daily and to make it the subject of meditation and conversation. In such reading, conversation, and meditation the Holy Spirit is present and bestows ever new and greater light and devotion, so that it tastes better and better and is digested, as Christ also promises in Matthew 18[:20], “Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.”

Nothing is so powerfully effective against the devil, the world, the flesh, and all evil thoughts as to occupy one’s self with God’s Word, to speak about it and med-

10

itate upon it, in the way that Psalm 1[:2] calls those blessed who “meditate on

God’s law day and night” Without doubt, you will offer up no more powerful incense or savor against the devil than to occupy yourself with God’s commandments and words and to speak, sing, or think about them. Indeed, this is the true holy water and sign that drives away the devil and puts him to flight.! For this reason alone you should gladly read, recite, ponder, and practice the catechism, even if the only advantage and benefit you obtain from it is to drive away the devil and evil thoughts. For he cannot bear to hear God’s Word. And God’s Word is not like some idle tale, such as about Dietrich of Bern,'? but, as St. Paul says in Romans 1[:16], it is “the power of God,” indeed, the power of God that burns the devil’s house down'3 and gives us immeasurable strength, comfort, and help. Why should I waste words? If I were to tell all the benefits and advantages that God’s Word accomplishes, where would I find enough paper and time? The devil is called a master of a thousand arts. What then can we call God’s Word that routs and destroys such a master of a thousand arts along with all his cunning and power? Indeed, it must be master of more than a hundred thousand arts. And should we so flippantly despise such might, benefits, power, and fruit—especially we who want to be pastors and preachers? If so, we deserve not only to be given no food to eat, but also to have the dogs set upon us and to be pelted with horse manure. For not only do we daily need God’s Word just as we do our daily bread; 10. Literally, “they have split their shoes,” a proverbial expression. 11. Holy water was believed to drive away evil spirits and was used in the rite of exorcism. 12. Luther frequently cited the legend of Dietrich of Bern as an example of lies and fables. Dietrich of Bern is the name popularly applied in medieval Teutonic legends to Theodoric the Great, king of the Ostrogoths. 13. An expression often used by Luther. The original meaning is “to cause damage to someone by means of arson.”

11

12

13

382

14

15

16

17

18

19

The Large Catechism

we also must have it every day in order to stand against the daily and incessant attacks and ambushes of the devil with his thousand arts. If this were not enough to admonish us to read the catechism daily, God’s command should suffice to compel us. For God solemnly enjoins us in Deuteronomy 6[:7-8] that we should meditate on his precepts while sitting, walking, standing, lying down, and rising, and should keep them as an ever-present emblem and sign before our eyes and on our hands. God certainly does not require and command this so solemnly without reason. He knows our danger and need; he knows the constant and furious attacks and assaults of the devil. Therefore, he wishes to warn, equip, and protect us against them with good “armor” against their “flaming arrows,”** and with a good antidote against their evil infection and poison. Oh, what mad, senseless fools we are! We must ever live and dwell in the midst of such mighty enemies like the devils, and yet we would despise our weapons and armor, too lazy to examine them or give them a thought! And what else are these bored, presumptuous saints doing—people who will not read and study the catechism daily and have no desire to—except thinking that they are more learned than God himself and all his holy angels, prophets, apostles, and all Christians? God himself is not ashamed to teach it daily, for he knows of nothing better to teach, and he always keeps on teaching this one thing without proposing anything new or different. And all the saints know of nothing better or different to learn, although they cannot learn it to perfection. Are we not the most marvelous fellows, therefore, who allow ourselves to imagine that, after reading and hearing it once, we know everything and need not read and study it anymore? We think we can learn in an hour what God himself cannot finish teaching, though he were to teach it from the beginning of the world until the end! All the prophets and all the saints have had to learn it, but they have always remained its pupils, and they must continue to be so. This much is certain: those who know the Ten Commandments perfectly know the entire Scriptures and in all affairs and circumstances are able to counsel, help, comfort, judge, and make decisions in both spiritual and temporal matters. They are qualified to be a judge over all doctrines, walks of life,'> spirits, legal matters, and everything else in the world. Moreover, what is the whole Psalter but meditation and exercises based on the First Commandment? Now, I know beyond a doubt that such lazy bellies and presumptuous spirits understand not even a single psalm, let alone the whole Scriptures, but they pretend they know and despise the catechism, which is a brief digest and summary of the entire Holy Scriptures. Therefore, I appeal once more to all Christians, especially the pastors and preachers, that they not try to become doctors too soon and imagine that they know everything. (Vain imaginations, like new cloth, suffer shrinkage!)'® Let all 14. Ephesians 6:11, 16.

15. For Luther, Stiinde (“estates,” “stations,” or “walks of life”) were the different orders of soci-

ety, the domestic, the political, the ecclesiastical. Each walk of life had its own particular task and responsibility before God. 16. A proverbial expression.

383

Preface

Christians drill themselves in the catechism daily, and constantly put it into practice, guarding themselves with the greatest care and diligence against the poisonous infection of such security or arrogance. Let them constantly read and teach, learn and meditate and ponder. Let them never stop until they have proved by experience and are certain that they have taught the devil to death and have become more learned than God himself and all his saints. If they show such diligence, then I promise them—and their experience will bear me out—that they will gain much fruit and God will make excellent people out of them. Then in due time they will make the noble confession that the longer they work with the catechism, the less they know of it, and the more they have to learn. Only then, hungry and thirsty, will they for the first time truly taste what now they cannot bear to smell because they are so bloated and surfeited. To this end may God grant his grace! Amen.

Preface?” This sermon has been designed and undertaken for the instruction of children

and the uneducated. Hence from ancient times it has been called, in Greek, a “catechism”—that is, instruction for children.!® It contains what every

Christian should know. Anyone who does not know it should not be numbered among Christians nor admitted to any sacrament,'? just as artisans who do not know the rules and practices of their craft are rejected and considered incompetent. For this reason young people should be thoroughly taught the parts of the catechism (that is, instruction for children) and diligently drilled in their practice. Therefore, it is the duty of every head of a household at least once a week

to examine the children and servants one after the other and ascertain what they know or have learned of it, and, if they do not know it, to keep them faithfully at it. I well remember the time when we found ignorant, old, elderly people who knew nothing of these things—in fact, even now we find them daily— yet they still go to baptism and the sacrament®® and exercise all the rights of Christians, although those who come to the sacrament certainly should know more and have a deeper understanding of all Christian teaching than children and beginners in school. As for the common people, however, we should be sat-

17. This was the original brief preface of 1529, based on a sermon of 18 May 1528. 18. The Greek noun katechismos is derived from the verb katechein, “to sound again,” hence “to instruct” Originally the term was applied to the oral instruction in the Christian faith, usually in question-and-answer form, that was required of catechumens before baptism. Only later did it come to refer to a book containing such instruction. 19. This was not only a proposal of Luther, but also a medieval prescription. 20. Luther, following medieval practice, regularly refers to the Lord’s Supper simply as “the sacrament.”

’

20

384

The Large Catechism

isfied if they learned the three parts?! that have been in Christendom from ancient days (although they were rarely taught and treated correctly), so that all who wish to be Christians in fact as well as in name, both young and old, may be well trained in them and familiar with them. They are as follows:?2

o

O

o

WV

AW

N

First: The Ten Commandments of God?? The first: You are to have no other gods besides me. The second: You are not to take the name of God in vain. The third: You are to hallow the day of rest.?* The fourth: You are to honor father and mother.

The The The The The

fifth: You are not to kill. sixth: You are not to commit adultery. seventh: You are not to steal. eighth: You are not to bear false witness against your neighbor. ninth: You are not to covet your neighbor’s house.

The tenth: You are not to covet his wife, male or female servants, cattle, or

whatever is his.?>

Second: The Chief Articles of Our Faith 11—12

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus

13

the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended into hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead; ascended into heaven, seated at the right hand of God, the Father almighty, from where he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy

Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of

Spirit, one holy Christian church,?¢ the communion?” of saints, the forgiveness

of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and a life everlasting. Amen.

21. Ten Commandments, Creed, Lord’s Prayer. Catechetical instruction in Wittenberg was not expanded to include baptism and the Lord’s Supper until about 1525. 22. The wording of the five parts given here does not always agree with that which appears further on in the Large Catechism. Nor does it always correspond with the wording in the Small Catechism or with Luther’s translation of the Bible. 23. Exodus 20:2-17; see Deuteronomy

5:6-21.

24. German: Feiertag; literally, “day of celebration.” . 25. In numbering the commandments, Luther follows the traditional numbering of the Vulgate, not the numbering of the Hebrew Bible followed by Ulrich Zwingli and other Reformed theologians, who used the prohibition of images (which Luther viewed as an expansion of the first commandment pertaining to the Israelites) to justify their iconoclasm and their rejection of Christ’s real presence in the Lord’s Supper. . 26. It was common in fifteenth-century German ecclesiastical use to translate the Latin ecclesia catholica by christliche Kirche, and Luther follows the customary wording. 27. German: Gemeinschaft. See below, p. 435, where the word Gemeine is used.

Preface

385

Third: The Prayer, or Our Father, Which Christ Taught Our Father, you who are in heaven, may your name be hallowed. May your kingdom come. May your will come about also on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. And remit our debt, as we remit our debtors. And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.?8

14

These are the most necessary parts that we must first learn to repeat word for word. The children should be taught the habit of reciting them daily, when they arise in the morning, when they go to their meals, and when they go to bed at night. Until they recite them they should be given nothing to eat or drink.

15

them. Under no circumstances should those people be tolerated who are so crude and unruly that they refuse to learn these things. For in these three parts everything contained in the Scriptures is comprehended in short, plain, and

18

16

Every head of a household is also obliged to do the same with the servants, male and female, and should dismiss them if they cannot or will not learn

17

simple terms. Indeed, the dear Fathers or apostles (or whoever they were)?

19

thus summed up the teaching, life, wisdom, and learning that constitute the Christian’s conversation, conduct, and concern. When these three parts have been understood, it is appropriate that one ought also to know what to say about our sacraments, which Christ himself instituted, baptism and the holy body and blood of Christ, according to the texts in which Matthew and Mark describe at the end of their Gospels how Christ said farewell to his disciples and sent them forth. Concerning Baptism

20

21

“Go and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.”*

It is enough for an ordinary person to know this much about baptism from the Scriptures. The same applies to the other sacrament, mentioning a few, simple words according to the text of St. Paul.

22

Concerning the Sacrament

23

“Our Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took the bread, gave

thanks, broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, ‘Take and eat. This is my body that is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way the cup also, after the supper, and said, “This cup is a new covenant in my blood, which

28. Matthew 6:9-13; see Luke 11:2-4. 29. Luther was not interested in refuting legends of apostolic authorship, which held that each of the twelve apostles contributed a particular phrase to the Creed. 30. Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16 (Luther’s translation).

386

The Large Catechism

is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, as often as you drink it, in

24 25

26

27

28

remembrance of me. 7! Thus we have, in all, five parts covering the whole of Christian teaching, which we should constantly teach and require recitation word for word. For you should not assume that the young people will learn and retain this teach-

ing from sermons alone. When these parts have been well learned, one may

assign them also some psalms or hymns,3? based on these subjects, to supplement and confirm their knowledge. Thus young people will be led into the Scriptures and make progress every day. However, it is not enough for them simply to learn and repeat these parts verbatim. The young people should also attend sermons, especially during the times when preaching on the catechism is prescribed,®® so that they may hear it explained and may learn the meaning of every part. Then they will also be able to repeat what they have heard and give a good, correct answer when they are questioned, so that the preaching will not be without benefit and fruit. The reason we take such care to preach on the catechism frequently is to impress it upon our young people, not in a lofty and learned manner but briefly and very simply, so that it may penetrate deeply into their minds and remain fixed in their memories. Therefore we shall now consider the above-mentioned parts one by one and in the plainest manner possible say about them as much as is necessary.

[The First Part: The Ten Commandments]34 The First Commandment

Vo

Oy

|t ;

.

“You are to have no other gods.” That is, you are to regard me alone as your God. What does this mean, and how is it to be understood? What does “to have a god” mean, or what is God? Answer: A “god” is the term for that to which we are to look for all good and in which we are to find refuge in all need. Therefore, to have a god is nothing else than to trust and believe in that one with your whole heart. As I have often said, it is the trust and faith of the heart alone that make both God and an idol. If your faith and trust are right, then your God is the true one. Conversely, where your trust is false and wrong, there you do not have the true God. For these two belong together, faith and God. Anything on which your heart relies and depends, I say, that is really your God. The intention of this commandment, therefore, is to require true faith and confidence of the heart, which fly straight to the one true God and cling to him 31. 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 (Luther’s translation).

32. Luther himself wrote six hymns based on the parts of the Catechism. 33. In Wittenberg, preaching on the Catechism was required four times a year by the Church Ordinance of 1533. 34. This heading is missing in the 1580 Book of Concord.

The Ten Commandments

387

alone. What this means is: “See to it that you let me alone be your God, and never search for another.” In other words: “Whatever good thing you lack, look to me for it and seek it from me, and whenever you suffer misfortune and dis-

tress, crawl to me and cling to me. [, I myself, will give you what you need and help you out of every danger. Only do not let your heart cling to or rest in anyone else.” So that it may be understcod and remembered, I must explain this a little more plainly by citing some everyday examples of the opposite. There are some who think that they have God and everything they need when they have money and property; they trust in them and boast in them so stubbornly and securely that they care for no one else. They, too, have a god—mammon®> by name, that is, money and property—on which they set their whole heart. This is the most common idol on earth. Those who have money and property feel secure, happy, and fearless, as if they were sitting in the midst of paradise. On the other hand, those who have nothing doubt and despair as if they knew of no god at all. We will find very few who are cheerful, who do not fret and complain, if they do not have mammon. This desire for wealth clings and sticks to our nature all the way to the grave. So, too, those who boast of great learning, wisdom, power, prestige, family, and honor and who trust in them have a god also, but not the one, true God. Notice again, how presumptuous, secure, and proud people are when they have such possessions, and how despondent they are when they lack them or when they are taken away. Therefore, I repeat, the correct interpretation of this commandment is that to have a god is to have something in which the heart trusts completely. Again, look at what we used to do in our blindness under the papacy. Anyone who had a toothache fasted and called on St. Apollonia; those who worried about their house burning down appealed to St. Laurence as their patron; if they were afraid of the plague, they made a vow to St. Sebastian or Roch.3¢ There were countless other such abominations, and everyone selected his own saint and worshiped him and invoked his help in time of need. In this category also belong those who go so far as to make a pact with the devil so that he may give them plenty of money, help them in love affairs, protect their cattle, recover lost property, etc., as magicians and sorcerers do. All of them place their heart and trust elsewhere than in the true God, from whom they neither expect nor seek any good thing.

35. See Matthew 6:24. 36. Apollonia was martyred on 9 February 248 or 249. Because the executioners pulled her teeth out, she was regarded as a help against toothache. Laurence, 2 Roman deacon, was reputed to have been martyred by being roasted on a gridiron on 10 August 258. Sebastian, 2 Roman martyr, was executed on 20 January, early in the fourth century (?), reputedly by being shot with arrows. Roch, reportedly a Franciscan monk from Montpellier, devoted himself to caring for victims of the plague in Italy. His feast day is 16 August.

10

11

12

388

13

14 15

The Large Catechism

Thus you can easily understand what and how much this commandment requires, namely, that one’s whole heart and confidence be placed in God alone, and in no one else. To have a God, as you can well imagine, does not mean to grasp him with your fingers, or to put him into a purse, or to shut him up in a box. Rather, you lay hold of God when your heart grasps him and clings to him. To cling to him with your heart is nothing else than to entrust yourself to him completely. He wishes to turn us away from everything else apart from him, and to draw us to himself, because he is the one, eternal good. It is as if he

16

17

18

19 20

21

P Ny

22

said: “What you formerly sought from the saints, or what you hoped to receive from mammon or from anything else, turn to me for all of this; look on me as the one who will help you and lavish all good things upon you richly.” Look, here you have the true honor and worship that please God, which God also commands under penalty of eternal wrath, namely, that the heart should know no other consolation or confidence than in him, nor let itself be torn from him, but for his sake should risk everything and disregard everything else on earth. On the other hand, you will easily see and judge how the world practices nothing but false worship and idolatry. There has never been a nation so wicked that it did not establish and maintain some sort of worship. All people have set up their own god, to whom they looked for blessings, help, and comfort. For example, the pagans, who put their trust in power and dominion, exalted Jupiter as their supreme god. Others, who strove for riches, happiness, pleasure, and the good life, venerated Hercules, Mercury, Venus, or others, while pregnant women worshiped Diana or Lucina, and so forth.’” They all made a god out of what their heart most desired. Even in the mind of all the pagan, therefore, to have a god means to trust and believe. The trouble is that their trust is false and wrong, for it is not placed in the one God, apart from whom there truly is no god in heaven or on earth. Accordingly the pagans actually fashion their own fancies and dreams about God into an idol and rely on an empty nothing. So it is with all idolatry. Idolatry does not consist merely of erecting an image and praying to it, but it is primarily a matter of the heart, which fixes its gaze upon other things and seeks help and consolation from creatures, saints, or devils. It neither cares for God nor expects good things from him sufficiently to trust that he wants to help, nor does it believe that whatever good it encounters comes from God. There is, moreover, another false worship. This is the greatest idolatry that we have practiced up until now, and it is still rampant in the world. All the religious orders are founded upon it. It involves only that conscience that seeks help, comfort, and salvation in its own works and presumes to wrest heaven

from God. It keeps track of how often it has made endowments, fasted, cele37. Both Hercules and Mercury were venerated by the Romans as gods of wealth and pros~ perity. Venus, often identified with Aphrodite, was regarded as giving success in love. Diana was the Roman goddess of the moon, often identified with Artemis. Lucina was the goddess of childbirth, often identified with Juno.

The Ten Commandments

389

brated Mass, etc. It relies on such things and boasts of them, unwilling to receive anything as a gift of God, but desiring to earn everything by itself or to merit everything by works of supererogation,®® just as if God were in our service or debt and we were his liege lords.?® What is this but to have made God into an idol—indeed, an “apple-god”4°—and to have set ourselves up as God? But this reasoning is a little too subtle and is not suitable for young pupils. This much, however, should be said to the common people, so that they may mark well and remember the sense of this commandment: We are to trust in God alone, to look to him alone, and to expect him to give us only good

23

24

things; for it is he who gives us body, life, food, drink, nourishment, health,

protection, peace, and all necessary temporal and eternal blessings. In addition, God protects us from misfortune and rescues and delivers us when any evil befalls us. It is God alone (as I have repeated often enough) from whom we receive everything good and by whom we are delivered from all evil. This, I think, is why we Germans from ancient times have called God by a name more elegant and worthy than found in any other language, 2 name derived from the

word “good,”*! because he is an eternal fountain who

25

overflows with pure

goodness and from whom pours forth all that is truly good. Although much that is good comes to us from human beings, nevertheless, anything received according to his command and ordinance in fact comes from God. Our parents and all authorities—as well as everyone who is a neighbor— have received the command to do us all kinds of good. So we receive our bless-

26

ings not from them, but from God through them. Creatures are only the hands,

channels, and means through which God bestows all blessings. For example, he gives to the mother breasts and milk for her infant or gives grain and all sorts of fruits from the earth for sustenance—things that no creature could produce by itself. No one, therefore, should presume to take or give anything unless God has commanded it. This forces us to recognize God’s gifts and give him thanks, as this commandment requires. Therefore, we should not spurn even this way of receiving such things through God’s creatures, nor are we through arrogance to seek other methods and ways than those God has commanded. For that would not be receiving them from God, but seeking them from ourselves.

38. Supererogatory works, in medieval theology, were good works done in excess of what God required of a person. They could then be applied for the benefit of someone else. 39. In the medieval feudal system, a vassal was obligated to render allegiance and service to his lord. 40. German: Apfelgott. The word may possibly be a corruption of Aftergott, a “sham god.” On 15 June 1539, Luther spoke of King Ferdinand as an Apfelkinig, an “apple-king.” In 1530 he wrote of Apfelkinige oder gemalete Herrn, “apple-kings or painted lords,” the latter expression being a term of derision somewhat like “plaster saints.” Sebastian Franck, a contemporary German humanist, uses the expression Apfelkaiser, “apple-emperor.” The Apfelbischof, “apple-bishop,” was a Shrove Tuesday character, for example, in Berlin. 41. German: gut. This derivation is etymologically incorrect. The words for “God” (Go#t) and “good” (gut) are not related in either Gothic or in Middle High German.

27

390 28

The Large Catechism

Let each and everyone, then, see to it that you esteem this commandment above all things and not make light of it. Search and examine your own heart thoroughly, and you will discover whether or not it clings to God alone. If you have the sort of heart that expects from him nothing but good, especially in dis-

tress and need, and renounces and forsakes all that is not God, then you have the

29

one, true God. On the contrary, if your heart clings to something else and expects to receive from it more good and help than from God and does not run to God but flees from him when things go wrong, then you have another god, an idol. Consequently, in order to show that God will not have this commandment taken lightly but will strictly watch over it, he has attached to it, first, a terrible threat, and, then, a beautiful, comforting promise. Both of these should be thoroughly emphasized and impressed upon the young people so that they may take them to heart and remember them.

[Explanation of the Appendix to the First Commandment[** 30

31

32

“For I am the Lorp your God, the strong, jealous one,* visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing mercy to many thousands who love me and keep my commandments.”4* Although these words apply to all the commandments (as we shall hear later), yet they are attached precisely to this commandment at the head of the list, because it is most important that a person have the right head. For where one’s head is right, one’s whole life must also be right, and vice versa. Learn

from these words, then, how angry God is with those who rely on anything but

him, and again, how kind and gracious he is to those who trust and believe him

33 34

s

m o 'm;:#;

35

36

alone with their whole heart. His wrath does not subside until the fourth generation, but, in contrast, his kindness and goodness extend to many thousands. Therefore, people should not live in false security and trust in luck, like brutes who think that it makes no great difference how they live. He is the sort of God who does not let the wickedness of those who turn away from him go unpunished, and his anger does not cease until the fourth generation, until they are utterly exterminated. Therefore he wants to be feared and not despised. He has also proved this in all the records of history, as Scripture abundantly shows and as daily experience can certainly still teach us. From the beginning he has completely rooted out all idolatry, and on that account he overthrew both heathens and Jews; just so in our day he overthrows all false worship, so that all who persist in it must ultimately perish. Even now there are proud, powerful, and rich potbellies who, not caring whether God frowns or smiles, 42, This subtitle is found only in the Latin version of the Book of Concord. 43. See Exodus 34:14: “You shall worship no other god, because the Lorp, whose name is

Jealous, is a jealous god.”

44, Exodus 20:5-6 (Luther’s translation). This text is virtually the same as in Luther’s Bible

translation. An entirely different version is used below.

The Ten Commandments

391

boast defiantly of their mammon and believe that they can withstand his wrath. But they will not succeed. Before they know it they will be ruined, along with all they have trusted in, just as all others have perished who doubtless thought themselves so secure and mighty. Just because such blockheads imagine, when God looks on and refrains from disturbing their security, that he is ignorant of or unconcerned about such matters, he must strike and punish them so severely that he just cannot forget his anger down to their children’s children. God does this so that everyone will be impressed and see that this is no joke with him. These are also the ones he has in mind when he says, “who hate me,” that is, those who persist in their stubbornness and pride. They refuse to hear what is preached or said to them. When someone rebukes them, in order to bring them to their senses and cause them to mend their ways before the real punishment comes, they become so wild and crazy that they justly deserve the wrath they receive. We experience this every day in the case of bishops and princes. But as terrible as these threats are, much more powerful is the comfort in the promise that assures all those clinging to God alone of his mercy, that is, his sheer goodness and blessing, not only for themselves but also for their children to a thousand and even many thousands of generations. Certainly, if we desire all good things in time and eternity, this promise ought to move and urge us to fix our hearts upon God with perfect confidence, since the divine Majesty approaches us so graciously, invites so warmly, and promises so richly. Therefore let everyone take this to heart and thus be careful not to regard this as if a mere human being were speaking. For it brings you either eternal blessing, happiness, and salvation, or eternal wrath, distress, and heartache. What more could you want or desire than God’s gracious promise that he wants to be yours with every blessing, to protect you, and to help you in every need? Unfortunately, the world neither believes this nor regards it as God’s Word. For the world sees that those who trust in God and not in mammon suffer grief and want and are opposed and attacked by the devil. They have neither money, prestige, nor honor, and can hardly stay alive. Conversely, those who serve mammon have power, prestige, honor, possessions, and all sorts of security in the world’s eyes. Therefore, we must hold fast to these words, even in the face of this apparent contradiction, and be certain that they do not lie or deceive but will yet prove true. Think back yourself, or ask around, and tell me: When people have devoted all their care and effort to scraping together possessions and great wealth, what have they accomplished in the end? You will find that they have wasted their effort and toil. Even if they have piled up great riches, these have turned to dust and blown away. They themselves never found happiness in their wealth, nor did it ever last to the third generation.*> You will find examples enough in all 45. A late Latin proverb: “Ill-gotten gains will not last to the third generation,” which Luther cites frequently.

37

38

39 40

41

42

43

44

392 45

46

47

48

The Large Catechism

the histories attention to but once he dence in his

and from old and experienced people. Just examine and pay close them. Saul was a great king, chosen by God, and an upright man; was in office and let his heart turn from God,*® placing his conficrown and power, he inevitably perished along with everything he

had; not one of his children survived.#” David, on the other hand, was a poor,

despised man, hunted down and always on the run, never certain of his life, yet inevitably he remained safe from Saul and became king.*® These words must stand and prove true, because God cannot lie or deceive. Just leave it to the devil and the world® to deceive you with their appearance; it may last for a while, but in the end it is nothing at all. Therefore, let us learn the First Commandment well, so that we see that God will tolerate no presumption or trust in anything else; he makes no greater demand on us than a heartfelt trust in him for every good thing, so that we walk straight ahead on the right path, using all of God’s gifts exactly as a shoemaker uses a needle, awl, and thread for his work and afterward puts them aside, or as a traveler makes use of an inn, food, and lodging, but only for his physical needs. Let each person do the same in his or her walk of life>® according to God’s order, allowing none of these things to be a lord or an idol. Let this be enough for the First Commandment. We have had to explain it at great length, for it is the most important.>! As I said before, if the heart is right with God and we keep this commandment, all the rest will follow on their own. The Second Commandment

49 50

51

“You are not to take the name of God in vain.” Just as the First Commandment instructs the heart and teaches faith, so this commandment leads us outward and directs the lips and tongue into a right relationship with God. For the first things that burst forth and emerge from the heart are words. As I have taught above how to answer the question of what it means to have a god, so you must learn to understand simply the meaning of this and all the other commandments and apply it to yourself. If you are asked, “What does the Second Commandment mean?” or, “What does it mean to take the name of God in vain or to misuse it?” you should 46. See 1 Samuel 15:11. 47. Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua were killed in battle with the Philistines (1 Sam. 31:2). Ishbaal, Saul’s youngest son, was beheaded (2 Sam. 4:7). 48. See 1 Samuel 18—2 Samuel 2.

49. Vincent Obsopoeus, in the first translation of the Large Catechism into Latin (1529), and

the German (1580) and Latin (1584) editions of the Book of Concord add a “not” at this point,

thus misunderstanding the passage. 50. German: Stand.

51. Luther believed that the Ten Commandments were arranged in decreasing order of importance.

The Ten Commandments

393

answer briefly: “It is a misuse of God’s name if we call upon the Lorp God in any way whatsoever to support falsehood or wrong of any kind.” What this commandment forbids, therefore, is appealing to God’s name falsely or taking his name upon our lips when our heart knows or should know that the facts are otherwise—for example, when taking oaths in court and one party lies about the other. God’s name cannot be abused more flagrantly than when it is used to lie and deceive. Let this be the simplest and clearest explanation of this commandment. From this all people can figure out for themselves when and in how many ways God’s name is abused, although it is impossible to enumerate all its misuses. To discuss it briefly, however, misuse of the divine name occurs first of all in business affairs and in matters involving money, property, and honor, whether publicly in court or in the marketplace or wherever someone commits perjury and swears a false oath in God’s name or by his own soul. This is especially common in marriage matters when two people secretly betroth themselves to each other and afterward deny it with an oath.>? The greatest abuse, however, is in spiritual matters, which affect the conscience, when false preach-

ers arise and present their lying nonsense as God’s Word. See, all of this is an attempt to deck yourself out with God’s name or to put up a good front and justify yourself with his name, whether in ordinary worldly affairs or in sophisticated and difficult matters of faith and doctrine. Also to be numbered among the liars are the blasphemers, not only the very crass ones who are known to everyone and disgrace God’s name flagrantly—they should take lessons from the hangman, not from us—but also those who publicly slander the truth and God’s Word and consign it to the devil. There is no need to say anything more about this now. Let us learn and take to heart how much is at stake in this commandment and diligently guard against and avoid every misuse of the holy name as the greatest sin that can be committed outwardly. Lying and deceiving are themselves great sins, but they become much more serious when we try to justify and confirm them by invoking God’s name and thus make it into a cloak to hide our shame. Thus one lie becomes two—indeed, a whole pack of lies. Therefore God has added a solemn threat to this commandment: “For the Lorp will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.”>® This means that no one

will be let off or go unpunished. As little as God will permit the heart that turns away from him to go unpunished, just as little will he permit his name to be used to disguise a lie. Unfortunately it is now a common affliction throughout the world that there are just as few who do not use God’s name for lies and all kinds of wickedness as there are few who trust in God with their whole heart. By nature we all have this lovely virtue that whenever we commit a wrong we like to cover it and gloss over our disgrace so that no one may see or know 52. Shortly after this, Luther addressed the subject of secret engagements in a treatise, On

Marriage Matters (1530) (WA 30/3: 205-48; LW 46:259-320).

53. Exodus 20:7.

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

394

60

61

62

63

64

The Large Catechism

it. No one is so audacious as to boast of the wickedness he or she has committed. We prefer to act in secret without anyone knowing about it. When someone is caught, then God and his name must be dragged into it, so that the dirty business may be made honorable and the disgrace noble. That is the common way things go in the world, and, like a great flood, it has inundated all lands. Therefore we get what we deserve: plague, war, famine, fire, flood, wayward spouses and children and servants, and troubles of every kind.** Where else could so much misery come from? It is a great mercy that the earth keeps on supporting and feeding us. Above all else, therefore, our young people should be strictly required and trained to hold this as well as the other commandments in high regard. Whenever they violate them, we must be after them at once with the rod, confront them with the commandment, and continually impress it upon them, so that they may be brought up not merely with punishment but with reverence and fear of God. Now you understand what it means to take God’s name in vain. To repeat it briefly, it is either simply to lie and assert under his name something that is not true, or it is to curse, swear, practice magic, and, in short, to do evil of any sort. In addition, you must also know how to use the name of God properly. With the words, “You are not to take the name of God in vain,” God at the same

time gives us to understand that we are to use his name properly, for it has been revealed and given to us precisely for our use and benefit. Therefore, since we are forbidden here to use his holy name in support of falsehood and wicked-

ness, it follows, conversely, that we are commanded to use it in the service of

truth and of all that is good—for example, when we swear properly where it is necessary and required, or also when we teach properly, or, again, when we call on God’s name in time of need, or thank and praise him in time of prosperity, etc. All of this is summarized in the command in Psalm 50[:15]: “Call on me in

65 e ;';‘1‘;, M

the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and what it means to call upon God’s name devoutly. In this way his name is hallowed, Here you have the substance of the

you shall glorify me.” All of this is to support the truth and to use it as we pray in the Lord’s Prayer. entire commandment explained.

When it is understood in this way, you have easily solved the question that

has troubled many teachers:>> why swearing is forbidden in the gospel, yet 54. This list was not theoretical. From August 1527 until January 1528, and in the fall of 1528,

Wittenberg suffered from the plague. On 5 August 1528, Luther’s daughter Elizabeth died. Since 1527 Emperor Charles V had been fighting England, France, the pope, Milan, and Venice (the

Cognac League of 1526). In addition, the war with the Turks threatened to break out again in 1528. Fire was a constant and very dangerous threat in a medieval town. Wittenberg was suffering from serious inflation, which caused a shortage of affordable food, and in the spring Wittenberg was particularly troubled with severe flooding of the Elbe River. 55. E.g., Augustine of Hippo and Jerome. The issue had taken on new urgency with the rise of the Anabaptists, many of whom objected to taking oaths.

The Ten Commandments

395

Christ, St. Paul, and other saints often took oaths.>® The explanation is briefly

66

this: We are not to swear in support of evil (that is, to a falsehood) or unnec-

essarily; but in support of the good and for the advantage of our neighbor we are to swear. This is a truly good work by which God is praised, truth and jus-

tice are confirmed, falsehood is refuted, people are reconciled, obedience is

rendered, and quarrels are settled. For here God himself intervenes and separates right from wrong, good from evil. If one party swears falsely, there fol-

lows judgment:

that person will not escape punishment. Although it may

take a long time, nothing such people do will succeed in the end; everything gained by the false oath will slip through their fingers and will never be enjoyed. I have seen this in the case of many who broke their promise of marriage under oath; they never enjoyed a happy hour or a healthful day thereafter, and thus they came to a miserable end with their body, soul, and possessions.

Therefore I advise and urge, as I have done before, that by means of warn-

ing and threat, restraint and punishment, children be trained in due time to

beware of lying and especially to avoid calling upon God’s name in support of it. Where they are allowed to act in this way, no good will come of it. It is evident that the world is more wicked than it has ever been. There is no government, no obedience, no fidelity, no faith—only perverse, unbridled people whom no teaching or punishment can help. All of this is God’s wrath and punishment upon such willful contempt of this commandment. On the other hand, one must urge and encourage children again and again to honor God’s name and to keep it constantly upon their lips in all circumstances and experiences, for the proper way to honor God’s name is to look to it for all consolation and therefore to call upon it. Thus, as we have heard above, first the heart honors God by faith and then the lips by confession. This is also a blessed and useful habit, and very effective against the devil, who is always around us, lying in wait to lure us into sin and shame, calamity and trouble. He hates to hear God’s name and cannot long remain when it is uttered and invoked from the heart. Many a terrible and shocking calamity would befall us if God did not preserve us through our calling upon his name. I have tried it myself and have indeed experienced that often a sudden, great calamity was averted and vanished in the very moment I called upon God. To defy the devil, I say, we should always keep the holy name upon our lips so that he may not be able to harm us as he would like to do. For this purpose it also helps to form the habit of commending ourselves each day to God—our soul and body, spouse, children, servants, and all that we have—for his protection against every conceivable need. This is why the

56. See Matthew 5:33-37; 26:63-64; Galatians 1:20; and 2 Corinthians 1:23. On the whole question of taking oaths, see Luther’s sermons on the Sermon on the Mount (1532) (WA 32:381, 23-386, 34; LW 21:99—104).

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

396

The Large Catechism

Benedicite, the Gratias,’” and other evening and morning blessings were also

74

75

76

77

introduced and have continued among us. From the same source comes the custom learned in childhood of making the sign of the cross when something dreadful or frightening is seen or heard, and saying, “Lorp God, save me!” or, “Help, dear Lord Christ!” and the like. Likewise, if someone unexpectedly experiences good fortune—no matter how insignificant—he or she may say, “God be praised and thanked!” “God has bestowed this upon me!” etc.—just as children used to be taught to fast and pray to St. Nicholas and other saints.> But these practices would be more pleasing and acceptable to God than life in a monastery or Carthusian holiness.> See, with simple and playful methods like this we should bring up young people in the fear and honor of God so that the First and Second Commandments may become familiar and constantly be practiced. Then some good may take root, spring up, and bear fruit, and people may grow to adulthood who may give joy and pleasure to an entire country. That would also be the right way to bring up children, while they may be trained with kind and agreeable methods. For what a person enforces by means of beatings and blows will come to no good end. At best, the children will remain good only as long as the rod is on their backs. But this kind of training takes root in their hearts so that they fear God more than they do rods and clubs. This I say plainly for the sake of the young people, so that it may sink into their minds, for when we preach to children we must talk baby talk. We have prevented the misuse of the divine name and taught its proper use, not only by how we speak but also by the way we act and live, so that everyone may know that God is well pleased with the right use of his name and will just as richly reward it as he will terribly punish its misuse. The Third Commandment

“You are to hallow the day of rest.” ‘ Our word “holy day” or “holiday”® is so called from the Hebrew word “Sabbath,” which properly means to rest, that is, to cease from work; hence our common expression for “stopping work” literally means “taking a holiday.”¢! In 57. The Benedicite (from Ps. 145:15-16) and the Gratias (from Pss. 106:1; 136:26; 147:9-11),

taken from the medieval breviary, were prayers to be said before and after meals. Luther included them in the Small Catechism. 58. St. Nicholas Day, which occurs on 6 December, was a time for giving gifts. Nicholas, reputedly bishop of Myra in Lycia in the fourth century, was the patron saint of children. 59. The Carthusian Order was founded by St. Bruno at the Grande Chartreuse near Grenoble, France, in 1084. It was frequently mentioned by Luther as an example of an especially ascetic monastic order. 60. German: Feiertag, which properly means a day of celebration, but, by extension, was applied to all church festivals, such as saints’ days. 61. German: Feierabend machen. Feiern literally means to celebrate, hence, Feiertag means a “day of celebration,” or “holiday.” The eve of a celebration or festival was Feierabend. Stopping

The Ten Commandments

397

the Old Testament, God set apart the seventh day, appointed it for rest, and commanded it to be kept holy above all other days.5? As far as outward observance is concerned, the commandment was given to the Jews alone. They were to refrain from hard work and to rest, so that both human beings and animals might be refreshed and not be exhausted by constant labor. In time, however,

the Jews interpreted this commandment too narrowly and grossly misused it. They slandered Christ and would not permit him to do the very same things they themselves did on that day, as we read in the gospel®®—as if the commandment could be fulfilled by refraining from work of any kind. This was not

81

its intention, but rather, as we shall hear, it meant that we should sanctify the

holy day or day of rest. Therefore, according to its outward meaning, this commandment does not concern us Christians. It is an entirely external matter, like the other regulations of the Old Testament associated with particular customs, persons, times, and places, from all of which we are now set free through Christ.5> But to give

a Christian interpretation to the simple people of what God requires of us in this commandment, note that we do not observe holy days for the sake of intelligent and well-informed Christians, for they have no need of them. We observe them, first, because our bodies need them. Nature teaches and demands that the common people—menservants and maidservants who have gone about their work or trade all week long—should also retire for a day to rest and be refreshed. Second and most important, we observe them so that people will have time and opportunity on such days of rest, which otherwise would not be available, to attend worship services, that is, so that they may assemble to hear and discuss God’s Word and then to offer praise, song, and prayer to God.% work the day before a holy day was referred to as Feierabend machen, to begin celebrating a festival on the evening before. Later, it came to mean simply “quitting time” on any day. Another expression, which Luther uses in the text, is heiligen Abend geben, literally “to give a holy eve,” meaning to let one’s workers cease work the evening before the celebration. 62. Genesis 2:3. 63. Matthew 12:1-13; Mark 2:23-28; 3:2-4; Luke 6:1-10; 13:10-17; 14:1-6; John 5:9-18; 7:22-23;

9:14-16.

64. Luther wrote in Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments

(1525) (WA 18:81, 7—-17; LW 40:97-98): “Therefore Moses’ legislation about images and the sab-

bath, and what else goes beyond the natural law, since it is not supported by the natural law, is free, null, and void, and is specifically given to the Jewish people alone. It is as when an emperor or a king makes special laws and ordinances in his territory, as the Sachsenspiegel in Saxony, and yet common natural laws such as to honor parents, not to kill, not to commit adultery, to serve God, etc., prevail and remain in all lands. Therefore one is to let Moses be the Sachsenspiegel of the Jews and not to confuse us Gentiles with it, just as the Sachsenspiegel is not observed in France, though the natural law there is in agreement with it.” The Sachsenspiegel, written in the early thirteenth century and equivalent to English common law, contained economic and social laws from in and around Magdeburg and Halberstadt but later applied throughout German-speaking lands. 65. See Colossians 2:16-17. 66. Luther wrote in Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525) (WA

18:81, 26-82, 6; LW 40:98): “It is not necessary to observe the sabbath or Sunday

82

83

84

398 85

86

87

88

89

90

Kol

The Large Catechism But this, I say, is not restricted, as it was among the Jews, to a particular time

so that it must be precisely this day or that, for in itself no one day is better than another. Actually, worship ought to take place daily. However, because this is more than the common people can do, at least one day a week ought to be set apart for it. Because Sunday has been appointed for this purpose from ancient times, it should not be changed, so that things may be done in an orderly fashion and no one create disorder by unnecessary innovation. This, then, is the simple meaning of this commandment: Because we observe holidays anyhow, we should use them to learn God’s Word. The real

business of this day should be preaching for the benefit of young people and the poor common folk. However, the observance of rest should not be so restrictive as to forbid incidental and unavoidable work. Accordingly, when you are asked what “You are to hallow the day of rest” means, answer: “Hallowing the day of rest means to keep it holy” What is meant by “keeping it holy”? Nothing else than devoting it to holy words, holy works, and holy living. The day itself does not need to be made holy, for it was created holy. But God wants it to be holy for you. So it becomes holy or unholy on your account, depending on whether you spend it doing something holy or unholy. How does such sanctifying take place? Not when we sit behind the stove and refrain from hard work, or place a garland on our head and dress up in our best clothes,% but, as has been said, when we make use of God’s Word and exercise ourselves in it. Truly, we Christians ought to make every day such a holy day and devote

ourselves only to holy things, that is, to occupy ourselves daily with God’s Word and carry it in our hearts and on our lips. However, as we have said, because we all do not have the time and leisure, we must set aside several hours a week for the young people, or at least a day for the whole community, when we can concentrate only on these matters and deal especially with the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer, and thus regulate our entire life and being in accordance with God’s Word. Whenever this practice is in force, a holy day is truly kept. When it is not, it ought not be called a Christian holy day. For non-Christians can spend a day in rest and idleness, too, and so can the whole swarm of clerics in our time who stand day after day in the church, singing and ringing bells, but without keeping a single day holy,

because they neither preach nor practice God’s Word, but rather teach and live contrary to it.

because of Moses’ commandment. Nature also shows and teaches that one must now and then rest a day, so that man and beast may be refreshed. This natural reason Moses also recognized in his sabbath law, for he places the sabbath under man, as also Christ does (Matt. 12[:1ff.] and Mark 3[:2ff.]). For where it is kept for the sake of rest alone, it is clear that he who does not need rest may

break the sabbath and rest on some other day, as nature allows. The sabbath is also to be kept for the purpose of preaching and hearing the Word of God.” 67. Things that young people would do in preparation for a dance.

The Ten Commandments

399

For the Word of God is the true holy object® above all holy objects. Indeed, it is the only one we Christians know and have. Even if we had the bones of all

91

the saints or all the holy and consecrated vestments gathered together in one

pile, they would not help us in the least, for they are all dead things that cannot make anyone holy. But God’s Word is the treasure that makes everything holy. By it all the saints have themselves been made holy. At whatever time God’s Word is taught, preached, heard, read, or pondered, there the person, the day, and the work is hallowed, not on account of the external work but on account of the Word that makes us all saints. Accordingly, I constantly repeat that all our life and work must be based on God’s Word if they are to be Godpleasing or holy. Where that happens the commandment is in force and is fulfilled. Conversely, any conduct or work apart from God’s Word is unholy in the sight of God, no matter how splendid and brilliant it may appear, or even if it is altogether covered with holy relics, as are the so-called spiritual walks of life,®® which do not know God’s Word but seek holiness in their own works. Note, then, that the power and force of this commandment consists not in the resting but in the hallowing, so that this day may have its special holy function. Other work and business are really not designated holy activities unless the person doing them is first holy. In this case, however, a work must take place through which a person becomes holy. This work, as we have heard, takes place through God’s Word. Places, times, persons, and the entire outward order of worship have therefore been instituted and appointed in order that God’s Word may exert its power publicly. Because so much depends on God’s Word that no holy day is sanctified without it, we must realize that God wants this commandment to be kept strictly and will punish all who despise his Word and refuse to hear and learn it, especially at the times appointed. Therefore this commandment is violated not only by those who grossly misuse and desecrate the holy day, like those who in their greed or frivolity neglect the hearing of God’s Word or lie around in taverns dead drunk like swine. It is also violated by that other crowd who listen to God’s Word as they would to any other entertainment, who only from force of habit go to hear the sermon and leave again with as little knowledge at the end of the year as at the beginning. It used to be thought that Sunday had been properly observed if one went to Mass or listened to the Gospel being read;” however, no one asked about God’s Word, and no one taught it either. Now that we have God’s Word, we still fail to eliminate this abuse, for we permit ourselves to be preached to and admonished, but we listen without serious concern. 68. German: Heiligtumb; literally, “relic” To understand Luther’s meaning, read something like this: We used to be taught to venerate relics and other “holy objects.” But the true holy object is the Word of God. 69. Monks, nuns, priests, and bishops. See the title of Luther’s treatise, Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops, Falsely So Called (1522) (WA 10/2: 105-58; LW 39:239~99). 70. Worshipers at Mass who did not intend to commune often left after the reading of the Gospel.

92

93

94

95

96

97

400 98

99

The Large Catechism

Remember, then, that you must be concerned not only about hearing the Word, but also about learning it and retaining it. Do not think that it is up to your discretion or that it is an unimportant matter. It is the commandment of God, who will require of you an accounting of how you have heard, learned, and honored his Word. In the same way those conceited spirits should also be punished who, after they have heard a sermon or two, become sick and tired of it and feel that they know it all and need no more instructors. This is precisely the sin that used to

be numbered among the mortal sins and was called acidia’'—that is, laziness or weariness—a malignant, pernicious plague with which the devil bewitches

100

101

102

and deceives many hearts so that he may take us by surprise and stealthily take the Word of God away again. Let me tell you this. Even though you know the Word perfectly and have already mastered everything, you are daily under the dominion of the devil, and he does not rest day or night in seeking to take you unawares and to kindle in your heart unbelief and wicked thoughts against these three and all the other commandments. Therefore you must constantly keep God’s Word in your heart, on your lips, and in your ears. For where the heart stands idle and the Word is not heard, the devil breaks in and does his damage before we realize it. On the other hand, when we seriously ponder the Word, hear it, and put it to use, such is its power that it never departs without fruit. It always awakens new understanding, pleasure, and devotion, and it constantly creates clean hearts and minds. For this Word is not idle or dead, but effective and living. Even if no other benefit or need drove us to the Word, yet everyone should be motivated by the realization that through the Word the devil is cast out and put to flight, this commandment is fulfilled, and God is more pleased than by any hypocrisy, no matter how brilliant. The Fourth Commandment

103

So far we have learned the first three commandments, which are directed

toward God. First, we are to trust, fear, and love God with our whole heart all

our lives. Second, we should not misuse his holy name to support lies or any

W

A

evil purpose whatsoever, but use it for the praise of God and the benefit and

@,

N

104 105

salvation of our neighbor and ourselves. Third, on holy days or days of rest we should diligently devote ourselves to God’s Word so that all our conduct and life may be regulated by it. Now follow the other seven, which relate to our neighbor. Among these the first and greatest is: : “You are to honor your father and mother.” God has given this walk of life, fatherhood and motherhood, a special position of honor, higher than that of any other walk of life under it. Not only has 71. The term comes from Aristotle’s Ethics, bk. [V. Acedia (or acidia) was one of the seven

deadly sins.

The Ten Commandments

401

he commanded us to love parents but to honor them. In regard to brothers, sisters, and neighbors in general he commands nothing higher than that we love them. But he distinguishes father and mother above all other persons on earth, and places them next to himself. For it is a much higher thing to honor than to love. Honor includes not only love, but also deference, humility, and modesty directed (so to speak) toward a majesty concealed within them. Honor requires us not only to address them affectionately and with high esteem, but above all to show by our actions, both of heart and body, that we respect them very highly, and that next to God we give them the very highest place. For anyone whom we are wholeheartedly to honor, we must truly regard as high and great. It must therefore be impressed on young people that they revere their parents as God’s representatives, and to remember that, however lowly, poor, feeble, and eccentric they may be, they are still their mother and father, given by God. They are not to be deprived of their honor because of their ways or failings. Therefore, we are not to think of their persons, whatever they may be, but of the will of God, who has created and ordained it so. We are indeed all equal in God’s sight, but among ourselves it is impossible for there not be this sort of inequality and proper distinction. Therefore God also commands that you are to obey me as your father and that I have authority over you. First, then, learn what this commandment requires concerning honor to parents. You are to esteem them above all things and to value them as the most precious treasure on earth. Second, in your words you are also to behave respectfully toward them and are not to speak discourteously to them, to criticize them, or to take them to task, but rather to submit to them and hold your tongue, even if they go too far. Third, you are also to honor them by your actions, that is, with your body and possessions, serving them, helping them, and caring for them when they are old, sick, feeble, or poor; all this you should do not only cheerfully, but also with humility and reverence, doing it as if for God. Those who know how they are to cherish their parents in their hearts will not let them endure want or hunger, but will place them above and beside themselves and share with them all they have to the best of their ability. In the second place, notice what a great, good, and holy work is here assigned to children. Unfortunately, it is entirely despised and brushed aside, and no one recognizes it as God’s command or as a holy, divine word and teaching. For if we had regarded it in this way, it would have been apparent to everyone that those who live according to these words must also be holy people. Then no one would have needed to institute monasticism or spiritual walks of life.”2 Every child would have kept this commandment and all would have been able to set their consciences right before God and say: “If I am to do good and holy works, I know of none better than to give honor and obedience to my parents, for God himself has commanded it. What God commands must 72. “Spiritual walk of life” or “estates” was a common term for priests and members of religious orders. ‘

106

107

108

109 110

111

112

113

402

114

The Large Catechism

be much nobler than anything we ourselves may devise. And because there is no greater or better teacher to be found than God, there will certainly be no better teaching than he himself gives. Now, he amply teaches what we should do if we want to do truly good works, and by commanding them he shows that they are well-pleasing to him. So, if it is God who commands this and knows nothing better to require, I will never be able to improve upon it.” In this way, you see, upright children would have been properly trained and reared in true blessedness. They would have remained at home in obedience and service to their parents, and everyone would have had an object lesson in goodness and happiness. However, no one felt obligated to emphasize God’s

115

116

17

commandment. Instead, it was ignored and skipped over, so that children could not take it to heart; they simply gaped in astonishment at all the things we devised without ever asking God’s approval. For God’s sake, therefore, let us finally learn that the young people should banish all other things from their sight and give first place to this commandment. If they wish to serve God with truly good works, they must do what is pleasing to their fathers and mothers, or to those to whom they are subject in their stead. For every child who knows and does this has, in the first place, the great comfort of being able joyfully to boast in defiance of all who are occupied with works of their own choice: “See, this work is well-pleasing to my God in heaven; this I know for certain.” Let all of them come forward with their many, great, laborious, and difficult works and boast. Let us see whether they can produce a single work that is greater and nobler than obeying father and mother, which God has ordained and commanded next to obedience to his own majesty. If God’s Word and will are placed first and are observed, nothing ought to be considered more important than the will and word of our parents, provided that these, too, are subordinated to God and are not set in opposition to the preceding commandments. For this reason you should rejoice from the bottom of your heart and give thanks to God that he has chosen and made you worthy to perform works so precious and pleasing to him. You should regard it as great and precious—even though it may be looked at as the most trivial and contemptible thing—not because of our worthiness but because it has its place and setting within that jewel and holy shrine, the Word and commandment of God. Oh, what a price would all the Carthusians,”® both monks and nuns,’# pay if in all their spiritual exercises they could present to God a single work done in accordance with his commandment and could say with a joyful heart in his presence: “Now I 73. Vincent Obsopoeus, who translated the Catechism into Latin, substituted “Carmelites” for

“Carthusians” here and in the following paragraph. (Only the second substitution was corrected in the printing of the Latin Book of Concord in 1584.) The Carmelite Order, founded circa 1154,

originally practiced strict asceticism, but by the late Middle Ages it had been transformed into a mendicant order. Late in the sixteenth century it underwent a reform, led by St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, two Spanish mystics. 74. A Carthusian Order for women was founded in 1147.

The Ten Commandments

403

know that this work is well-pleasing to you.” What will become of these poor wretched people when, standing in the presence of God and the whole world, they will blush with shame before a little child who has lived according to this commandment and will confess that with their entire lives they are not worthy to offer that child a drink of water? That they must torture themselves in vain with their self-devised works”” serves them right for their devilish perversity in trampling God’s commandment under foot—for this they have only scorn and trouble for their reward. Should not the heart leap and overflow with joy when it can go to work and do what is commanded of it, saying, “See, this is better than the holiness of all the Carthusians, even if they fast to death and never stop praying on their knees”? For here you have a sure text and a divine testimony that God has enjoined this but has not commanded a single word concerning those other works. But it is the plight and miserable blindness of the world that no one believes this—so thoroughly has the devil bewitched us with the false holiness and glamour of our own works. Therefore, I repeat, I would be glad if people opened their eyes and ears and took this to heart so that we may not again be led astray from the pure Word of God into the lying vanities of the devil. Then all would be well; parents would have more happiness, love, kindness, and harmony in their houses, and children would win their parents’ hearts completely. On the other hand, where they are obstinate and never do what they are supposed to unless a rod is laid on their backs, they anger both God and their parents. Thus they deprive themselves of this treasure and joy of conscience and lay up for themselves nothing but misfortune. This is also the way things are now going in the world, as everyone complains. Both young and old are altogether wild and unruly; they have no sense of modesty or honor; they do nothing unless driven by blows; and they defame and disparage one another behind their backs in any way they can. Therefore God also punishes them so that they sink into all kinds of trouble and misery. Neither can parents, as a rule, do very much; one fool raises another,’ and as they have lived, so live their children after them. This, I say, should be the first and greatest reason for us to keep this commandment. If we had no father or mother, we should wish, on account of this commandment, that God would set up a block of wood or stone that we might call father or mother. How much more, since he has given us living parents, should we be happy to show them honor and obedience. For we know that it is highly pleasing to the divine Majesty and to all the angels, that it vexes all the devils, and, besides, that it is the greatest work that we can do, except for the sublime worship of God summarized in the previous commandments. Even almsgiving and all other works for our neighbor are not equal to this. For God has exalted this walk of life above all others; indeed, he has set it up in his place 75. For example, the Carthusians’ obligation to maintain strict silence. 76. A proverbial ‘expression.

119

120

121

122

123

124 125

126

404

127 128

The Large Catechism

on earth. This will and pleasure of God ought to provide us sufficient reason and incentive to do cheerfully and gladly whatever we can. Besides this, it is our duty before the world to show gratitude for the kindness and for all the good things we have received from our parents. But here again the devil rules in the world; children forget their parents, as we all forget God. No one thinks about how God feeds, guards, and protects us and how many blessings of body and soul he gives us. Especially when an evil hour comes, we rage and grumble impatiently and forget all the blessings that we have received throughout our life. We do the very same thing with our parents, and there is no child who recognizes and considers this, unless led to it by the

129

130

131

132

133

134

Holy Spirit. God knows well this perversity of the world, and therefore, by means of the commandments, he reminds and impels all people to think of what their parents have done for them. Then they realize that they have received their bodies and lives from their parents and have been nourished and nurtured by their parents when otherwise they would have perished a hundred times in their own filth. Therefore the wise people of old rightly said, Deo, parentibus et magistris non potest satis gratiae rependi, that is, “God, parents, and teachers can never be sufficiently thanked or repaid.””” Those who look at the matter in this way and think about it will, without compulsion, give all honor to their parents and esteem them as the ones through whom God has given them everything good. Over and above all this, another strong incentive to attract us into keeping this commandment is that God has attached to it a lovely promise, “that you may have long life in the land where you dwell.” Here you can see for yourself how important God considers this commandment. He declares not only that it is an object of pleasure and delight to himself, but also that it is an instrument intended for our greatest welfare, to lead us to a quiet and pleasant life, filled with every blessing. Therefore St. Paul also highly exalts and praises this commandment, saying in Ephesians 6[:2-3]: “This is the first commandment with a promise: ‘so that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”” Although the other commandments also have their own promise implied, yet in none of them is it so plainly and explicitly stated. Here you have the fruit and the reward, that whoever keeps this commandment will enjoy good days, happiness, and prosperity. On the other hand, the penalty for those who disobey it is that they will die earlier and will not be happy in life. For, in the Scriptures, to have a long life means not merely to grow old, but to have everything that belongs to long life—for example, health, 77. Luther wrote in A Sermon

on Keeping Children in School (1530)

(WA

30/2: 579; LW

46:252-53): “I will simply say briefly that a diligent and upright schoolmaster or teacher, or anyone who faithfully trains and teaches boys, can néver be adequately rewarded or repaid with any amount of money, as even the heathen Aristotle says.” See Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 8, 16 and 9, 1.

The Ten Commandments

405

spouse and child, sustenance, peace, good government, etc.—without which this life cannot be enjoyed nor will it long endure. Now, if you are unwilling to answer to your father and mother or to take direction from them, then answer to the executioner; and if you will not answer to him, then answer to the grim reaper,’ death! This, in short, is the way God will have it: render obedience,

Jove, and service to him, and he will reward you abundantly with every blessing; on the other hand, if you anger him, he will send upon you both death and the executioner. Why do we have so many scoundrels who must daily be hanged, beheaded, or broken on the wheel if not because of disobedience? They will not allow themselves to be brought up in kindness; consequently, because of God’s punishment, they bring upon themselves the misfortune and grief that is seen in their lives. For it seldom happens that such wicked people die a natural and timely death. The godly and obedient, however, receive this blessing in that they live long in peace and quietness. They see their children’s children, as stated above, “to the third and fourth generation.” Again, as we know from experience, where there are fine, old families who prosper and have many children, it is certainly because some of them were brought up well and honored their parents. On the other hand, it is written of the wicked in Psalm 109[:13]: “May his posterity be cut off; may their name be blotted out in a single generation.”” Therefore, let it be a warning to you how important obedience is to God, because he treasures it so highly, delights so greatly in it, rewards it so richly, and besides is so strict about punishing those who transgress it. I say all this so that it may be thoroughly impressed upon the young people, for no one believes how necessary this commandment is, especially since up until now under the papacy it was neither heeded nor taught. These are plain and simple words, and everyone thinks that he or she already knows them well. So they pass over them lightly, fasten their attention on other things, and fail to perceive and believe how angry they make God when they neglect this commandment, and how precious and acceptable a work they perform when they observe it. Furthermore, in connection with this commandment, we must mention the sort of obedience due to superiors, persons whose duty it is to command and to govern. For all other authority is derived and developed out of the authority of parents. Where a father is unable by himself to bring up his child, he calls upon a schoolmaster to teach him; if he is too weak, he seeks the help of his friends and neighbors; if he dies, he confers and delegates his responsibility and authority to others appointed for the purpose. In addition, he has to have servants—menservants and maidservants—under him in order to man78. German: Streckebein (literally, “strech legs”), a primarily Low German expression for death, which Luther often used. 79. Luther’s translation.

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

406

143

144

145

146

147 148

|

The Large Catechism

age the household. Thus all who are called masters stand in the place of parents and must derive from them their power and authority to govern. They are all called fathers in the Scriptures because in their sphere of authority they have been commissioned as fathers and ought to have fatherly hearts toward their people. Thus from ancient times the Romans and peoples speaking other languages called the masters and mistresses of the household patres et matres familias, that is, housefathers and housemothers. Again, their princes and overlords were called patres patriae,® that is, fathers of the whole country, to the great shame of us would-be Christians who do not speak of our rulers in the same way, or at least do not treat and honor them as such. What a child owes to father and mother, all members of the household owe them as well. Therefore menservants and maidservants should take care not just to obey their masters and mistresses, but also to honor them as their own fathers and mothers and to do everything that they know is expected of them, not reluctantly, because they are compelled to do so, but gladly and cheerfully. They should do it for the reason mentioned above, that it is God’s commandment and is more pleasing to him than all other works. They should even be willing to pay for the privilege of serving®!' and be glad to acquire masters and mistresses in order to have such joyful consciences and to know how to do truly golden works. In the past these works were neglected and despised; therefore everyone ran in the devil’s name into monasteries, on pilgrimages, and after indulgences,® to their own harm and with a bad conscience.

If this could be impressed on the poor people, a servant girl would dance for joy and praise and thank God; and with her careful work, for which she receives sustenance and wages, she would obtain a treasure such as those who are regarded as the greatest saints do not have. Is it not a tremendous honor to know this and to say, “If you do your daily household chores, that is better than the holiness and austere life of all the monks”? Moreover, you have the promise that whatever you do will prosper and fare well. How could you be more blessed or lead a holier life, as far as works are concerned? In God’s sight it is actually faith that makes a person holy; it alone serves God, while our works serve people. Here you have every blessing, protection, and shelter under the Lord, and, what is more, a joyful conscience and a gracious God who will

E IR

- xFa; 25

80. Cicero received this title after exposing the conspiracy of Catiline. In later times it became a part of the Roman emperor’s official title. 81. Such payments by apprentices were a normal part of the medieval guild system. 82. In medieval doctrine, indulgences were remissions of the temporal penalty for sin in this life or in purgatory. The merits of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints, which exceeded what they required for themselves, made up a treasury from which the faithful could draw. The pope administered this treasury on behalf of the church. While indulgences themselves were not to be sold, there was a flourishing trade in the sale of certificates indicating that the recipient had obtained an indulgence. Popular opinion saw an indulgence as a remission of punishment for sin, and although contrition and confession were piesupposed, in practice indulgence certificates often were sold for a financial consideration, enabling people, in effect, to buy their way out of purgatory.

The Ten Commandments

407

reward you a hundredfold. You are a true nobleman® if you are simply upright and obedient. If you are not, you will have nothing but God’s wrath and displeasure; there will be no peace in your heart, and eventually you will have all sorts of trouble and misfortune. If this will not convince you and make you upright, we commend you to the executioner and the grim reaper.®* Therefore, all those willing to take advice should learn that God is not joking. God speaks to you and demands obedience. If you obey him, you will be his dear child; but if you despise this commandment, you will also have shame, misery, and grief as your reward. The same may be said of obedience to the civil authority, which, as we have said, belongs in the category of “fatherhood” as a walk of life, and is the most comprehensive of all. For here one is the father not of an individual family, but of as many people as he has inhabitants, citizens, or subjects. Through civil rulers, as through our own parents, God gives us food, house and home, protection and security, and he preserves us through them. Therefore, because they bear this name and title with all honor as their chief distinction, it is also our duty to honor and respect them as the most precious treasure and most priceless jewel on earth. Those who are obedient, willing and eager to be of service, and cheerfully do everything that honor demands, know that they please God and receive joy and happiness as their reward. On the other hand, if they will not do so in love, but despise authority, rebel, or cause unrest, let them know that they will have no favor or blessing. Where they count on gaining a gulden,® they will lose ten times more elsewhere, or they will fall prey to the hangman, or perish through war, pestilence, or famine, or their children will turn out badly; servants, neighbors, or strangers and tyrants will inflict injury, injustice, and violence upon them until what we seek and earn will finally come home to roost and mete out

149

150

151

payment.

If we were ever to let ourselves be persuaded that such works of obedience are so pleasing to God and have such a rich reward, we would be absolutely inundated with blessings and have whatever our hearts desire. But because people completely despise God’s Word and commandment, as if these things had come from some loudmouthed street vendor,3 we shall see if you are the person who can defy him: how difficult will it be for him to pay you back in kind? For this reason you will live much better with God’s favor, peace, and blessing than you will with disfavor and misfortune. Why do you think the world is now so full of unfaithfulness, shame, misery, and murder? It is because all want to be their own lords, to be free of all authority,?’ to care nothing for 83. German: Junker.

84. German: Streckebein. 85. The gulden was originally a large gold coin, later also silver. 86. German: Holhipler; literally, “waffle vendor.”

87. German: kaiserfrei; literally, “free of the emperor.”

153 154

408

155

156

157

158

159 160

161

|

The Large Catechism

anyone, and to do whatever they please. So God punishes one scoundrel by means of another,3® so that when you defraud or despise your lord, another person comes along and treats you likewise. Indeed, in your own household you must suffer ten times as much wrong from your own wife, children, or servants. We certainly feel our misfortune, and we grumble and complain about unfaithfulness, violence, and injustice. But we are unwilling to see that we our-

selves are scoundrels who have rightly deserved punishment and are in no way better because of it. We spurn grace and blessing; therefore, it is only fair that we have nothing but misfortune without any mercy. Somewhere on earth there must still be some godly people, or else God would not grant us so many blessings! If it wereup to us, we would not have a penny®® in the house or a straw in the field. I have been obliged to use so many words to teach this in the hope that someone may take it to heart, so that we may be delivered from the blindness and misery in which we have sunk so deeply and may rightly understand the Word and will of God and sincerely accept it. From God’s Word we could learn how to obtain an abundance of joy, happiness, and salvation, both here and in eternity. So we have introduced three kinds of fathers in this commandment: fathers by blood, fathers of a household, and fathers of the nation. In addition, there are also spiritual fathers—not like those in the papacy who have had themselves called “father” but have not performed a fatherly function. For the name of spiritual father belongs only to those who govern and guide us by the Word of God. St. Paul boasts that he is such a father in 1 Corinthians 4[:15], where

he says, “In Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” Because they are fathers, they are entitled to honor, even above all others. But they very seldom receive it, for the world’s way of honoring them is to chase them out of the country and to begrudge them even a piece of bread.’® In short, as St. Paul says [1 Cor. 4:13], they must be “the rubbish of the world, the dregs of all things.” Yet it is necessary to impress upon the common people that they who would bear the name of Christian owe it to God to show “double honor™! to those who watch over their souls and to treat them well and make provision for them. If you do, God will also give you what you need and not let you suffer want. But here everyone resists and rebels; all are afraid that their bellies will suffer, and therefore they cannot now support one good preacher, although in

88. A proverbial expression. 89. Literally: Heller, a small coin. In popular expressions it represented an insignificant amount of money. 90. A reflection of the treatment of many of those who had preached Luther’s message in the first decade of the Reformation, especially after the disruptions of the Peasants’ Revolt of 1525. The Saxon church visitation of 152728 uncovered many such inequities. 91. 1 Timothy 5:17.

The Ten Commandments

409

the past they filled ten fat paunches.®? For this we deserve to have God deprive us of his Word and blessing and once again allow preachers of lies?® to arise who lead us to the devil—and wring sweat and blood out of us besides. Those who keep God’s will and commandment before their eyes, however,

have the promise that they will be richly rewarded for all they contribute both to their natural and spiritual fathers, and for the honor they render them. Not that they shall have bread, clothing, and money for a year or two, but long life, sustenance, and peace, and they will be rich and blessed eternally. Therefore, just do what you are supposed to do, and leave it to God how he will support you and provide for all your wants. As long as he has promised it and has never

163

164

165

yet lied, then he will not lie to you either.

This ought to encourage us and so melt our hearts for joy and love toward those to whom we owe honor that we lift up our hands in joyful thanks to God for giving us such promises. We ought to be willing to run to the ends of the earth to obtain them. For the combined efforts of the whole world cannot add a single hour to our life or raise up from the earth a solitary grain of wheat for

166

us. But God can and will give you everything abundantly, according to your

heart’s desire. Anyone who despises this and tosses it to the wind is unworthy to hear a single word of God. More than enough has now been said to all those to whom this commandment applies. In addition, it would also be well to preach to parents on the nature of their responsibility, how they should treat those whom they have been appointed to rule. Although their responsibility is not explicitly presented in the Ten Commandments, it is certainly treated in detail in many other passages of Scripture. God even intends it to be included precisely in this commandment in which he speaks of father and mother. For he does not want scoundrels or tyrants in this office or authority; nor does he assign them this honor (that is, power and right to govern) so that they may receive homage.

167

168

Instead, they should keep in mind that they owe obedience to God, and that,

above all, they should earnestly and faithfully discharge the duties office, not only to provide for the material support of their children, subjects, etc., but especially to bring them up to the praise and honor Therefore do not imagine that the parental office is a matter of your

of their servants, of God. pleasure

169

and whim. It is a strict commandment and injunction of God, who holds you

accountable for it. But once again, the real trouble is that no one perceives or pays attention to this. Everyone acts as if God gave us children for our pleasure and amusement, gave us servants merely to put them to work like cows or donkeys, and gave us subjects to treat as we please, as if it were no concern of ours what they learn 92. In the Middle Ages, income for church positions usually came from endowments of land or property. When the Reformation was introduced, many endowments were expropriated by the civil authorities, thus leaving the officeholders without incomes. 93. “Preachers of lies” (see Micah 2:11) was a favorite epithet in the sixteenth century.

170

410 171

172

173

174

175

176

177

The Large Catechism

or how they live. No one is willing to see that this is the command of the divine Majesty, who will solemnly call us to account and punish us for its neglect. Nor is it recognized how very necessary it is to devote serious attention to the young. For if we want capable and qualified people for both the civil and the spiritual realms, we really must spare no effort, time, and expense in teaching and educating our children to serve God and the world. We must not think only of amassing money and property for them. God can provide for them and

make them rich without our help, as indeed he does daily. But he has given us children and entrusted them to us precisely so that we may raise and govern them according to his will; otherwise, God would have no need of fathers and mothers. Therefore let all people know that it is their chief duty—at the risk of losing divine grace—first to bring up their children in the fear and knowledge of God, and, then, if they are so gifted, also to have them engage in formal study and learn so that they may be of service wherever they are needed. If this were done, God would also bless us richly and give us grace so that people might be trained who would be a credit to the nation and its people. We would also have good, capable citizens, virtuous women who, as good managers of the household [Titus 2:5], would faithfully raise upright children and servants. Think what deadly harm you do when you are negligent and fail to bring up your children to be useful and godly. You bring upon yourself sin and wrath, thus earning hell by the way you have reared your own children, no matter how holy and upright you may be otherwise. Because this commandment is neglected, God also terribly punishes the world; hence there is no longer any discipline, government, or peace. We all complain about this situation, but we fail to see that it is our own fault. We have unruly and disobedient

178

subjects because of how we train them. This is enough to serve as a warning; a more extensive explanation will have to await another time.**

The Fifth Commandment 179 180

“You are not to kill.” We have now dealt with both the spiritual and the civil government, that is, divine and parental authority and obedience. However, here we leave our own

o

e

house and go out among the neighbors in order to learn how we should live

u,

181

among them, how people should conduct themselves among their neighbors. Therefore neither God nor the government is included in this commandment, nor is their right to take human life abrogated. God has delegated his authority to punish evildoers to the civil authorities in the parents’ place; in former times, as we read in Moses [Deut. 21:18-20], parents had to judge their children themselves and sentence them to death. Therefore what is forbidden here applies to individuals, not to the governmental officials.

94. Shortly after this, Luther wrote A Sermon on Keeping Children in School (1530) (WA 30/2: 517-88; LW 46:207-58).

The Ten Commandments

411

This commandment is easy enough to understand, and it has often been treated because we hear Matthew 5 every year in the Gospel lesson,” where Christ himself explains and summarizes it: We must not kill, either by hand, heart, or word, by signs or gestures, or by aiding and abetting. It forbids anger except, as we have said, to persons who function in God’s stead, that is, parents and governing authorities. Anger, reproof, and punishment are the preroga-

182

tives of God and his representatives and are to be meted out to those who

transgress this and the other commandments. But the occasion and need for this commandment is that, as God well knows, the world is evil and this life is full of misery. Therefore he has erected this and the other commandments to separate good and evil. Just as there are many attacks against all the commandments, so here, too, we must live among many people who do us harm, and thus we have reason to be their enemy. For example, when your neighbors see that you have received from God a better house and property, or more possessions and good fortune than they, it irritates them and makes them envious of you so that they slander you. Thus by the devil’s prompting you acquire many enemies who begrudge you every blessing, whether physical or spiritual. When we see such people, our hearts in turn rage, and we are ready to shed blood and take revenge. Then follow cursing and blows, and eventually calamity and murder. Here God, like a kind father, steps in and intervenes to settle the quarrel before it turns into real trouble and one person kills the other. In short, God wants to have everyone

183

184

185

defended, delivered, and protected from the wickedness and violence of others, and he has placed this commandment as a wall, fortress, and refuge around our

neighbors, so that no one may do them bodily harm or injury. The meaning of this commandment, then, is that no one should harm another person for any evil deed, no matter how much that person deserves it. For wherever murder is forbidden, there also is forbidden everything that may lead to murder. Many people, although they do not actually commit murder, nevertheless curse others and wish such frightful things on them that, if they were to come true, they would soon put an end to them. Everyone acts this way by nature, and it is common knowledge that no one willingly suffers injury from another. Therefore, God wishes to remove the root and source that embitters our heart toward our neighbor. He wants to train us to hold this commandment always before our eyes as a mirror in which to see ourselves, so that we may be attentive to his will and, with heartfelt confidence and prayer in his name, commit whatever wrong we suffer to God. Then we can let our enemies rave and rage and do their worst. Thus we may learn to calm our anger and have a patient, gentle heart, especially toward those who give us cause to be angry, namely, our enemies.

95. Matthew 5:20-26 was the Gospel appointed for the sixth Sunday after Trinity (seventh Sunday after Pentecost). Sixteen of Luther’s sermons on this text have been preserved.

186

187

412 188

189

190

|

The Large Catechism

This, then is the brief summary of this commandment (to impress it most

clearly upon the common people what this commandment means by “not killing”). First, we should not harm anyone, either by hand or deed. Next, we should not use our tongue to advocate or advise harming anyone. Furthermore, we should neither use nor sanction any means or methods whereby anyone may be mistreated. Finally, our heart should harbor no hostility or malice against anyone in a spirit of anger and hatred. Thus you should be blameless in body and soul toward all people, but especially toward anyone who wishes or does you evil. For to do evil to someone who desires good for you and does you good is not human but devilish. In the second place, this commandment is violated not only when we do evil, but also when we have the opportunity to do good to our neighbors and to prevent, protect, and save them from suffering bodily harm or injury, but fail to do so. If you send a naked person away when you could clothe him, you have let him freeze to death. If you see anyone who is suffering from hunger and do not feed her, you have let her starve. Likewise, if you see anyone who is condemned? to death or in similar peril and do not save him although you have means and ways to do so, you have killed him. It will be of no help for you to use the excuse that you did not assist their deaths by word or deed, for you have withheld your love from them and robbed them of the kindness by means of which their lives might have been saved.

191

192

g

%

193 194

Therefore God rightly calls all persons murderers who do not offer counsel or assistance to those in need and peril of body and life. He will pass a most terrible sentence upon them at the Last Day, as Christ himself declares. He will say: “I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.”®” That is to say, “You would have permitted me and my family to die of hunger, thirst, and cold, to be torn to pieces by wild beasts, to rot in prison or perish from want.” What else is this but to call these people murderous and bloodthirsty? For although you have not actually committed all these crimes, as far as you are concerned, you have nevertheless permitted your neighbors to languish and perish in their misfortune. It is just as if I saw someone who was struggling in deep water or someone who had fallen into a fire and I could stretch out my hand to pull him out and save him, and yet I did not do so. How would I appear before all the world except as a murderer and a scoundrel? Therefore it is God’s real intention that we should allow no one to suffer harm but show every kindness and love. And this kindness, as I said, is directed especially toward our enemies. For doing good to our friends is nothing but an ordinary virtue of pagans, as Christ says in Matthew 5[:46-47]. 96. The revised version of the Large Catechism published in Wittenberg in 1538, and the German Book of Concord (1580), have the variant reading: “innocently condemned.” 97. Matthew 25:42-43.

The Ten Commandments

413

Once again we have God’s Word by which he wants to encourage and urge us to true, noble, exalted deeds, such as gentleness, patience, and, in short, love and kindness toward our enemies. He always wants to remind us to recall the

195

First Commandment, that he is our God; that is, that he wishes to help, com-

fort, and protect us, so that he may restrain our desire for revenge. If we could thoroughly impress this on people’s minds, we would have our hands full of good works to do. But this would not be a preaching for the monks. It would too greatly undermine the “spiritual walk of life” and infringe upon the holiness of the Carthusians. It would be practically the same as forbidding their good works and emptying the monasteries. For in such a teaching the ordinary Christian life would be worth just as much, indeed much more. Everyone would see how the monks mock and mislead the world with a false, hypocritical show of holiness, because they have thrown this and the other commandments to the winds, regarding them as unnecessary, as if they were not commands but counsels.”® Moreover, they have shamelessly boasted and bragged of their hypocritical calling and works as “the most perfect life,” so that they might live a nice, soft life without the cross and suffering. This is why they fled into the monasteries, so that they might not have to suffer wrong from anyone or do anyone any good. Know, however, that these works, commanded by God’s Word, are the true, holy, and divine works in which he rejoices with all the angels. In contrast to them, all human holiness is only stench and

196 197

198

filth, and it merits nothing but wrath and damnation. The Sixth Commandment

“You are not to commit adultery.” The following commandments are easily understood from the preceding one, for they all teach us to guard against harming our neighbor in any way. They are admirably arranged. First they deal with the person of our neighbors. Then they go on to speak of the person nearest to them, the most important thing to them after their own life, namely, their spouse, who is one flesh and blood with them.% With respect to no other blessing can one do them greater harm than here. Therefore, it is explicitly forbidden here to dishonor another’s marriage partner. Adultery is particularly mentioned because among the Jewish people it was ordered and commanded that one marry. Young people were martied at the earliest age possible, and the state of virginity was not commended, nor were public prostitution and lewdness tolerated as they are now. Accordingly, adultery was the most widespread form of unchastity among them. 98. Roman Catholic practice drew a distinction between divine “commands” (praecepta), which were obligatory upon all people, and “evangelical counsels” (consilia evangelica), which were observed voluntarily only by those seeking special grace, such as monks. The nonobservance of such “counsels” was no sin. 99. Genesis 2:24.

|

199 200

201

414 202

203

The Large Catechism But inasmuch as there is such a shameless mess and cesspool of all sorts of

immorality and indecency among us, this commandment is also directed against every form of unchastity, no matter what it is called. Not only is the outward act forbidden, but also every kind of cause, provocation, and means, so that your heart, your lips, and your entire body may be chaste and afford no occasion, aid, or encouragement to unchastity. Not only that, but you are to defend, protect, and rescue your neighbors whenever they are in danger or need, and, moreover, even aid and assist them so that they may retain their

204 205

206

207

honor. Whenever you fail to do this (although you could prevent a wrong) or do not even lift a finger (as if it were none of your business), you are just as guilty as the culprit who commits the act. In short, all are required both to live chastely themselves and also to help their neighbors to do the same. Thus God wants to guard and protect every husband or wife through this commandment against anyone who would violate them. However, because this commandment is directed specifically toward marriage as a walk of life and gives occasion to speak of it, you should carefully note, first, how highly God honors and praises this walk of life, endorsing and protecting it by his commandment. He endorsed it above in the Fourth Commandment, “You shall honor father and mother.” But here, as I said, he has secured and protected it. For the following reasons he also wishes us to honor, maintain, and cherish it as a divine and blessed walk of life. He has established it before all others as the first of all institutions, and he created man

and woman differently (as is evident) not for indecency but to be true to each 208

other, to be fruitful, to beget children, and to nurture and bring them up to the glory of God. God has therefore blessed this walk of life most richly, above all

others, and, in addition, has supplied and endowed it with everything in the world in order that this walk of life might be richly provided for. Married life is no matter for jest or idle curiosity, but it is a glorious institution and an object of God’s serious concern. For it is of utmost importance to him that per-

sons be brought up to serve the world, to promote knowledge of God, godly

living, and all virtues, and to fight against wickedness and the devil.

209

Therefore I have always taught that we should not despise or disdain this walk of life, as the blind world and our false clergy do, but view it in the light of God’s Word, by which it is adorned and sanctified. Because of this Word it

ey

210

211

is not a walk of life to be placed on the same level with all the others, but it is before and above them all, whether those of emperor, princes, bishops, or any other. Important as the spiritual and civil walks of life are, these must humble themselves and allow all people to enter marriage as a walk of life, as we shall hear. It is not a restricted walk of life, but the most universal and noblest, pervading all Christendom and even extending throughout all the world. In the second place, you should also remember that it is not just an honor-

able walk of life but also a necessary one; it is solemnly commanded by God that in general both men and women of all walks of life, who have been creat-

ed for it, shall be found in this walk of life. To be sure, there are some (albeit

The Ten Commandments

415

rare) exceptions whom God has especially exempted, in that some are unsuited for married life, or others God has released by a high, supernatural gift so that they can maintain chastity outside of marriage. Where nature functions as God implanted it, however, it is not possible to remain chaste outside of marriage; for flesh and blood remain flesh and blood, and natural inclinations and stimulations proceed unrestrained and unimpeded, as everyone observes and experiences. Therefore, to make it easier for people to avoid unchastity in some measure, God has established marriage, so that all may have their allotted portion and be satisfied with it—although here, too, God’s grace is still required to keep the heart pure.

212

From this you see that our papal crowd—priests, monks, and nuns—resist

213

the common people with lying words and false impressions. For no one has so

214

God’s ordinance and commandment when they despise and forbid marriage and boast and vow that they will maintain perpetual chastity while they deceive

little love and inclination for chastity as those who under the guise of great sanctity avoid marriage and either indulge in open and shameless fornication or secretly do éven worse—things too evil to mention, as unfortunately has been experienced all too often. In short, even though they abstain from the act, yet their hearts remain so full of unchaste thoughts and evil desires that they suffer incessant ragings of secret passion, which can be avoided in married life. Therefore, all vows of chastity outside marriage are condemned and annulled

215

216

by this commandment; indeed, all poor, captive consciences deceived by their monastic vows are even commanded to forsake their unchaste existence and enter the married life. In this regard, even if the monastic life were godly, still it is not in their power to maintain chastity. If they remain in it, they will inevitably sin more and more against this commandment. I say these things in order that our young people may be led to acquire a 217 desire for married life and know that it is a blessed and God-pleasing walk of life. Thus it may in due time regain its proper honor, and there may be less of the filthy, dissolute, disorderly conduct that is now so rampant everywhere in public prostitution and other shameful vices resulting from contempt of married life. Therefore parents and governmental authorities have the duty of so 218 supervising the youth that they will be brought up with decency and respectability and, when they are grown, will be married honorably in the fear of God. Then God would add his blessing and grace so that they might have joy and happiness in their married life. Let it be said in conclusion that this commandment requires all people not 219 only to live chastely in deed, word, and thought in their particular situation (that is, especially in marriage as a walk of life), but also to love and cherish the spouse whom God has given them. Wherever marital chastity is to be maintained, above all it is essential that husband and wife live together in love and harmony, cherishing each other wholeheartedly and with perfect fidelity. This is one of the chief ways to make chastity attractive and desirable. Under such | conditions chastity always follows spontaneously without any command. This

416 221

The Large Catechism

is why St. Paul so urgently admonishes married couples to love and honor each other.1% Here again you have a precious good work—indeed, many great works—in which you can happily boast over against all “spiritual walks of life” that are chosen without God’s Word and commandment. The Seventh Commandment

222 223 224

225

“You are not to steal.”

After your own person and your spouse, the next thing God wants to be

protected is temporal property, and he has commanded us all not to rob or pilfer our neighbor’s possessions. For to steal is nothing else than to acquire someone else’s property by unjust means. These few words include taking advantage of our neighbors in any sort of dealings that result in loss to them. Stealing is a widespread, common vice, but people pay so little attention to it that the matter is entirely out of hand. As a result, if we were to hang every thief on the gallows, especially those who do not admit it, the world would soon be empty and there would be a shortage of both hangmen and gallows. For, as I just said, stealing is not just robbing someone’s safe or pocketbook but also taking advantage of someone in the market, in all stores, butcher shops, wine and beer cellars, workshops, and, in short, wherever business is transacted and money is exchanged for goods or services. We shall make this a bit clearer to the common people, so that they may see how upright we are. Suppose, for example, that a manservant or a maidservant is unfaithful in his or her domestic duties and does damage or permits damage to be done when it could have been avoided. Or suppose that through laziness, carelessness, or malice a servant wastes things or is negligent with them in order to vex and annoy the master or mistress. When this is done deliberately—for I am not speaking about what happens accidentally or unintentionally—you can cheat your employer out of thirty or forty or more gulden a year. If someone else had filched or stolen that much, he would have been hung on the gallows,'%! but here you become defiant and insolent, and no one dare call you a thiefl

I say the same thing about artisans, workers, and day laborers who act highhandedly and never know enough ways to overcharge people and yet are careless and unreliable in their work. These are all far worse than sneak thieves, against whom we can guard with lock and bolt. If we catch the sneak thieves, we can deal with them so that they will not do it anymore. But no one can guard against these others. No one even dares to give them a harsh look or accuse them of theft. People would ten times rather lose money from their purse. For these are my neighbors, my good friends, my own servants—from whom I expect good—who are the first to defraud me. 100. Ephesians 5:22, 25; Colossians 3:18-19. 101. Death by hanging was the penalty for theft.

The Ten Commandments

417

Furthermore, at the market and in everyday business the same fraud prevails in full power and force. One person openly cheats another with defective merchandise, false weights and measures, and counterfeit coins, and takes advantage of the other by deception and sharp practices and crafty dealings. Or again, one swindles another in a trade and deliberately fleeces, skins, and tor-

ments him. Who can even describe or imagine it all? In short, thievery is the

most common craft and the largest guild on earth. If we look at the whole world in all its situations, it is nothing but a big, wide stable full of great thieves. This is why these people are also called armchair bandits!%? and highway robbers. Far from being picklocks and sneak thieves who pilfer the cash box, they sit in their chairs and are known

228

229

as great lords and honorable,

upstanding citizens, while they rob and steal under the cloak of legality. Yes, we might well keep quiet here about individual petty thieves since we ought to be attacking the great, powerful archthieves with whom lords and princes consort and'®® who daily plunder not just a city or two, but all of Germany. Indeed, what would become of the head and chief protector of all thieves, the Holy See at Rome, and all its retinue, which has plundered and stolen the treasures of the whole world and holds them to this day? In short, this is the way of the world. Those who can steal and rob openly are safe and free, unpunished by anyone, even desiring to be honored. Meanwhile, the petty sneak thieves who have committed one offense must bear disgrace and punishment to make the others look respectable and honorable. But they should know that God considers them the greatest thieves, and that he will punish them as they deserve. This commandment is very far-reaching, as we have shown. Therefore, it is

necessary to emphasize and explain it to the common people in order that they may be restrained in their wantonness and that the wrath of God always be kept before their eyes and impressed upon them. For we must preach this not to Christians but chiefly to knaves and scoundrels, though it would certainly be more fitting if the judge, the jailer, or the hangman!%* did the preaching. Let all people know, then, that it is their duty, on pain of God’s displeasure, not to harm their neighbors, to take advantage of them, or to defraud them by any faithless or underhanded business transaction. Much more than that, they are

also obligated faithfully to protect their neighbors’ property and to promote and further their interests, especially when they get money, wages, and provisions for doing so. |

102. German: Stuhlriuber, a contemporary expression for “usurers.” Luther incorrectly derives the word from Stuhl, chair, and Riuber, robber; it comes rather from the Low German St6hl, mean-

ing capital that is lent out at interest. 103. The words in italics were included in the first two editions of the Large Catechism, printed in Wittenberg and Erfurt in 1529. However, they were already removed while the first Wittenberg edition was in the press, probably by the printer. The passage was restored in the German Book of Concord (1580).

227

104. German: Meister Hans (literally, “master Jack”), an expression Luther frequently used for the executioner. '

230

231

232

233

418

234

235

The Large Catechism

Those who willfully disregard this commandment may indeed get by and avoid the hangman, but they will not escape God’s wrath and punishment. Though they may pursue their defiant and arrogant course for a long time, they will still remain tramps and beggars and will suffer all kinds of troubles

and misfortunes. Now, you ought to take care of your master’s or mistress’s

property, which enables you to stuff your craw and belly. But you take your pay like a thief and expect to be honored like a nobleman. Many of you are even insolent toward masters and mistresses and unwilling to do them the

236

237

238

239

240

241 242

¢ 243

5 A.’yn ’

244

favor and service of protecting them from loss. Look at what you gain. When you acquire property yourself and sit in your own house—which God will help you acquire to your undoing—there will come a day of reckoning and retribution: thirty times over will you have to repay every penny of loss or harm you have caused. The same thing will happen to artisans and day laborers, from whom one is now obliged to suffer such intolerable insolence. They act as if they were lords over other people’s possessions and entitled to whatever they demand. Let them keep on fleecing others as long as they can. God will not forget his commandment and will pay them what they deserve. He will hang them not on a green gallows but on a dry one.!% They will neither prosper nor gain anything their whole life long. Of course, if there were a proper government in the country, one could soon put a stop to such insolence, as did the ancient Romans, who promptly took such people by the scruff of their neck so that others took warning. The same fate will befall those who turn the free public market into nothing but a carrion pit and a robber’s den. The poor are defrauded every day, and new burdens and higher prices are imposed. They all misuse the market in their own arbitrary, defiant, arrogant way, as if it were their privilege and right to sell their goods as high as they please without any criticism. We will stand by and let such people fleece, grab, and hoard. But we will trust God, who takes matters into his own hands. After you have scrimped and saved for a long time, God will pronounce a blessing over you: May your grain spoil in the barn, your beer in the cellar, your cattle perish in the stall. Yes, where you have cheated and defrauded anyone out of a gulden, your entire hoard ought to be consumed by rust!% so that you will never enjoy it. Indeed, we have the evidence before our eyes every day that no stolen or illgotten possession thrives. How many people are there who scrape and scratch day and night and are not even a penny richer? Even though they amass a great amount, they have to suffer so many troubles and misfortunes that they can never enjoy it or pass it on to their children. But because everyone ignores this and acts as if it were none of our business, God must punish us and teach us 105. Death on the gallows was considered a more ignominious punishment than death on a green tree (“green gallows”). 106. See Matthew 6:19-20; Luke 12:33.

The Ten Commandments

419

morals in a different way. He imposes one affliction after another on us, or he quarters a troop of soldiers among us; in one hour they clean out our strongboxes and purses down to the last penny, and then by way of thanks they burn and ravage house and home and assault and kill wife and children. In short, no matter how much you steal, be certain that twice as much will be stolen from you. Anyone who robs and takes things by violence and dishonesty must put up with someone else who plays the same game. Because everyone robs and steals from everyone else, God has mastered the art of punishing one thief by means of another. Otherwise, where would we find enough gallows and ropes? Anyone who is willing to learn should know that this is God’s commandment and that he does not want it to be considered a joke. We will put up with those of you who despise, defraud, steal, and rob us. We will endure your arrogance and show forgiveness and mercy, as the Lord’s Prayer teaches us. The upright, meanwhile, will have enough, and you will hurt yourself more than anyone else. But beware of how you deal with the poor—there are many of them now—who must live from hand to mouth. If you act as if everyone has to live by your favor, if you skin and scrape them right down to the bone, if you arrogantly turn away those who need your aid, they will go away wretched and dejected, and, because they can complain to no one else, they will cry out to

245

246

247

heaven. Beware of this, I repeat, as if it were the devil himself. Such sighs and

cries are no laughing matter, but will have an effect too great for you and all the world to bear. For they will reach God, who watches over poor, troubled hearts, and he will not leave them unavenged. But if you despise and defy this, see whom you have brought upon yourself. If you succeed and prosper, however, you may call God and me liars before the whole world. We have now given warning and exhortation enough. Those who do not heed or believe this may go their own way until they learn it by experience. But it needs to be impressed upon the young people so that they may be on their guard and not go along with the old, wayward crowd but instead keep their eyes on God’s commandment, lest God’s wrath and punishment overtake even them. Our responsibility is only to instruct and to reprove with God’s Word. But it is the responsibility of the princes and magistrates to restrain open wantonness. They should be alert and courageous enough to establish and maintain order in all areas of trade and commerce in order that the poor may not be burdened and oppressed and in order that they themselves may not be responsible for other people’s sins. Enough has been said about what stealing is. It should not be narrowly restricted, but it should pertain to anything that has to do with our neighbor. We will sum it up, as we have done in the previous commandments: First, we are forbidden to do our neighbors any injury or wrong in any way imaginable, whether by damaging, withholding, or interfering with their possessions and property. We are not even to consent to or permit such a thing but are rather to avert and prevent it. In addition, we are commanded to promote and further

248

249

250

251

420

|

The Large Catechism

our neighbors’ interests, and when they suffer any want, we are to help, share,

252

and lend to both friends and foes. : Anyone who seeks and desires good works will find here more than enough things to do that are heartily acceptable and pleasing to God. Moreover, God lavishes upon them a wonderful blessing, and generously rewards us for what we do to benefit and befriend our neighbor, as King Solomon also teaches in Proverbs 19{:17]: “Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lorp, and will be

253

repaid in full” Here you have a rich Lord, who is surely sufficient for your needs and will let you lack or want for nothing. Thus with a happy conscience you can enjoy a hundred times more than you could scrape together by perfidy and injustice. Whoever does not desire this blessing will find wrath and misfortune enough. :

The Eighth Commandment

254 255 256

257

“You are not to bear false witness against your neighbor.” Besides our own body, our spouse, and our temporal property, we have one more treasure that is indispensable to us, namely, our honor and good reputation. For it is important that we not live among people in public disgrace and dishonor. Therefore God does not want our neighbors deprived of their reputation, honor, and character any more than of their money and possessions; he wants everyone to maintain self-respect before spouse, child, servant, and neighbor. In its first and simplest meaning, as the words stand (“You shall not bear false witness”), this commandment pertains to public courts of justice, where one may accuse and malign a poor, innocent man and crush him by

means of false witnesses, so that consequently he may suffer punishment in

258

body, property, or honor. This appears to have little to do with us now, but among the Jews it was an extraordinarily common occurrence. That nation had an excellent, orderly government, and even now, where there is such a government, this sin still has

not diminished. The reason is this: Where judges, mayors, princes, or others in authority sit in judgment, it never fails to happen that, true to the usual course of the world, people are loath to offend anyone. Instead, they speak dishonest-

ly with an eye to gaining favor, money, prospects, or friendship. Consequently,

259

a poor man is inevitably oppressed, loses his case, and suffers punishment. And it is a common misfortune in the world that seldom do people of integrity preside in courts of justice.!” A judge must, above all, be a person of integrity, and not only that, but also wise and perceptive, in fact, a bold and fearless man. Likewise, a witness must be fearless; more than that, someone who is upright. For those who are to administer justice equitably and to impose penalties will often offend good friends, relatives, neighbors, and the rich and 107. As an example of such an upright, prudent, and wise jurist, Luther once named Gregory Briick, the chancellor of Electoral Saxony (WATR 2, no. 1421; LW 54:150).

The Ten Commandments

421

powerful who could do much to harm or help them. Therefore they must be absolutely blind, closing their eyes and ears to everything but the evidence presented, and render judgment accordingly.

The first application of this commandment, then, is that all people should help their neighbors maintain their legal rights. One must not allow these rights to be thwarted or distorted but should promote and resolutely guard

260

quences may be. Here a special goal is set for our jurists: to take care that they deal fairly and honestly with cases, that they let right remain right, not perverting or concealing or suppressing anything on account of someone’s money, property, honor, or power. This is one aspect of this commandment and its plainest meaning, applying to all that takes place in court. Next, it extends much further when it is applied to spiritual jurisdiction or administration. Here, too, all people bear false witness against their neighbors. Wherever there are upright preachers and Christians, they must endure having the world call them heretics, apostates, even seditious and desperate scoundrels. Moreover, the Word of God must undergo the most shameful and spiteful persecution and blasphemy; it is contradicted, perverted, misused, and misinterpreted. But let this pass; it is the blind world’s nature to condemn and persecute the truth and the children of God and yet consider this no sin. The third aspect of this commandment, which applies to all of us, forbids all sins of the tongue by which we may injure or offend our neighbor. “Bearing false witness” is nothing but a work of the tongue. God wants to hold in check whatever is done with the tongue against a neighbor. This applies to false preachers with their blasphemous teaching, to false judges and witnesses with their rulings in court and their lying and malicious talk outside of court. It applies especially to the detestable, shameless vice of backbiting or slander by

261

them, whether this person is judge or witness, no matter what the conse-

262

263

264

which the devil rides us.18 Of this much could be said. It is a common, perni-

cious plague that everyone would rather hear evil than good about their neighbors. Even though we ourselves are evil, we cannot tolerate it when anyone speaks evil of us; instead, we want to hear the whole world say golden things of us. Yet we cannot bear it when someone says the best things about others. To avoid this vice, therefore, we should note that none has the right to judge and reprove a neighbor publicly, even after having seen a sin committed, unless authorized to judge and reprove. There is a very great difference between judging sin and having knowledge of sin. You may certainly know about a sin, but you should not judge it. I may certainly see and hear that my neighbor sins, but I have no command to tell others about it. If I were to interfere and pass judgment on him, I would fall into a sin greater than that of my neighbor. When you become aware of a sin, however, do nothing but turn your ears into a tomb and bury it until you are appointed a judge and are authorized to administer punishment by virtue of your office. 108. A proverbial expression.

265 266

422 267

268

269

270

271 272 273

274 e ’Afi';é '

The Large Catechism

Those who are not content just to know but rush ahead and judge are called backbiters. Learning a bit of gossip about someone else, they spread it into every corner, relishing and delighting in the chance to stir up someone else’s dirt like pigs that roll in manure and root around in it with their snouts. This is nothing else than usurping God’s judgment and office and pronouncing the severest kind of verdict or sentence, for the harshest verdict a judge can pronounce is to declare someone a thief, a murderer, a traitor, etc. Therefore those who venture to accuse their neighbor of such guilt assume as much authority as the emperor and all rulers. For though you do not wield the sword, you use your venomous tongue to bring disgrace and harm upon your neighbor. Therefore God forbids you to speak evil about another, even though, to your certain knowledge, that person is guilty. Even less may you do so if you are not really sure and have it only from hearsay. But you say: “Why shouldn’t I say it if it is the truth?” Answer: “Why don’t you bring it before the proper judge?” “Oh, I can’t prove it publicly; I might be called a liar and sent away in disgrace.” Ah, my dear, now do you smell the roast?!% If you do not trust yourself to stand before the persons appointed for such tasks and make your charges, then hold your tongue. If you know something, keep it to yourself and do not tell others. For when you repeat a story that you cannot prove, even though it is true, you appear as a liar. Besides, you act like a knave, for no one should be deprived of his honor and good name unless these have first been taken away from the person publicly. Every report, then, that cannot be adequately proved is false witness. Therefore, no one should publicly assert as truth what is not publicly substantiated. In short, what is secret should be left secret, or at any rate be reproved in secret, as we shall hear. Therefore, if you encounter someone with a worthless tongue who gossips and slanders someone else, rebuke such people straight to their faces and make them blush with shame. Then those who otherwise would bring some poor person into disgrace, from which one could scarcely clear one’s self, will hold their tongue. For honor and good name are easily taken away but not easily restored. So you see that we are absolutely forbidden to speak evil of our neighbor. Exception is made, however, of civil magistrates, preachers, and fathers and mothers in order that we may interpret this commandment in such a way that

evil does not go unpunished. We have seen that the Fifth Commandment forbids us to injure anyone physically, and yet an exception is made of the hangman.!!0 By virtue of his office he does not do his neighbor good but only harm and evil, yet he does not sin against God’s commandment because God of his own accord instituted that office, and, as he warns in the First Commandment, he has reserved to himself the right of punishment. Likewise, although no one personally has the right to judge and condemn anyone, yet if they are com109. A proverbial expression. 110. German: Meister Hans.

The Ten Commandments

423

manded to do so and fail to do it, they sin as much as those who take the law

into their own hands apart from any office. In that case necessity requires one

to report evil, to prefer charges, to give evidence, to examine witnesses, and to

testify. It is no different than when a physician, in order to cure a patient, is sometimes compelled to examine and touch the patient’s private parts. Just so, the authorities, fathers and mothers, and even brothers and sisters and other good friends are under a mutual obligation to reprove evil wherever it is necessary and helpful. But the right way to deal with this matter would be to follow the rule laid down by the gospel, Matthew 18,11 where Christ says, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.”!!? Here you have a fine, precious precept for governing the tongue that ought to be noted carefully in order to avoid this detestable abuse. Let this be your rule, then, that you should not be quick to spread slander and gossip about your neighbors but admonish them privately so that they may improve. Likewise, do the same when others tell you what this or that person has done. Instruct them, if they saw the wrongdoing, to go and reprove the individual personally or otherwise to hold their tongue. You can also learn this lesson from the day-to-day running of a household. This is what the master of the house does: when he sees a servant not doing what he is supposed to do, he speaks to him personally. If he were so foolish as to let the servant sit at home while he went out into the streets to complain to his neighbors, he would no doubt be told: “You fool, it’s none of our business! Why don’t you tell him yourself¢” See, that would be the proper, brotherly thing to do, for the evil would be corrected and your neighbor’s honor preserved. As Christ also says in the same passage: “If he listens to you, you have gained your brother”!!3 There you will have done a great and excellent deed. For do you think that it is an insignificant thing to gain a brother? Let all the monks and holy orders step forward with all their works piled together, and see if they can boast of having gained one brother! Christ teaches further: “But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.”!!4 Thus the people involved are to be dealt with directly and not gossiped about behind their backs. If this does not help, bring the matter publicly before the community, either before the civil or the ecclesiastical court. Here you are not standing alone, but you have those witnesses with you through whom you can prove the accused’s guilt and on whose testimony the judge can base the decision and pass sentence. This is the right and proper way of dealing with and improving a wicked person. But if you gossip about 111. An incorrect reference to Matthew Catechism. 112, Matthew 18:15 (RSV). 113. Matthew 18:15 (RSV). 114. Matthew 18:16 (NRSV).

19 was corrected in later editions of the Large

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

424

282

283

284

285

286

287

The Large Catechism

someone in every corner and root around in the filth, no one will be improved. Moreover, when people are subsequently called upon' to witness, they deny having said anything. It would serve such big mouths right to have their fun

spoiled, as a warning to others. If you were acting to improve your neighbor or

out of love for the truth, you would not sneak about in secret, shunning the light of day. All of this refers to secret sins. But where the sin is so public that the judge and everyone else are aware of it, you can without sin shun and avoid those who have brought disgrace upon themselves, and you may also testify publicly against them. For when something is exposed to the light of day, there can be no question of slander or injustice or false witness. For example, we now censure the pope and his teaching, which is publicly set forth in books and shouted throughout the world. Where the sin is public, appropriate public punishment should follow so that everyone may know how to guard against it. Now we have the summary and substance of this commandment: No one

shall use the tongue to harm a neighbor, whether friend or foe. No one shall say anything evil of a neighbor, whether true or false, unless it is done with proper authority or for that person’s improvement. Rather, we should use our tongue to speak only the best about all people, to cover the sins and infirmities of our neighbors, to justify their actions, and to cloak and veil them with our own honor. Qur chief reason for doing this is the one that Christ has given in the gospel, and in which he means to encompass all the commandments concerning our neighbor, “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you.”113 : Nature, too, teaches us the same thing in our own bodies, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12[:22-23]: “The members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect.” No one covers his face, eyes, nose, and mouth; we do not need to, for they are the most honorable members we have. But the weakest members, of which we are ashamed, we carefully conceal. Our hands and eyes,

288

by 289

even the whole body, must help to cover and with one another all of us should veil whatever neighbors, and do whatever we can to serve, name. On the other hand, we should prevent to their disgrace. It is a particularly fine, noble

veil them. Thus in our relations is dishonorable and weak in our assist, and promote their good everything that may contribute virtue to put the best construc-

tion on all we may hear about our neighbors (as long as it is not an evil that is

publicly known), and to defend them against the poisonous tongues of those who are busily trying to pry out and pounce on something to criticize in their neighbor, misconstruing and twisting things in the worst way. At present this is happening especially to the precious Word of God and to its preachers.

115. Matthew 7:12.

The Ten Commandments

425

This commandment, then, includes a great many good works that please

God most highly and bestow abundant blessings, if only the blind world and false saints would recognize them. There is nothing around or in us that can do

greater good or greater harm in temporal or spiritual matters than the tongue,

290 291

although it is the smallest and weakest member.!!6 The Ninth and Tenth Commandments

“You are not to covet your neighbor’s house.” “You are not to covet his wife, manservant, maidservant, cattle, or anything

292

that is his.”

These two commandments, taken literally, were given exclusively to the Jews; nevertheless, in part they also apply to us. The Jews did not interpret

them as referring to unchastity or theft, for these were sufficiently forbidden in the previous commandments. They also thought that they were keeping all the commandments when they outwardly did precisely the works commanded and did not do the ones forbidden. God therefore added these two so that people would also think that coveting a neighbor’s spouse or property, or desiring them in any way, is sinful and forbidden. These commandments were especially needed because under the Jewish government menservants and maidservants were not free, as now, to earn a wage as long as they wanted. Rather, with

their body and all they had they were their master’s property, just the same as his cattle and other possessions. Moreover, every man had the power to put away his wife publicly by giving her a bill of divorce!!” and to take another wife. So there was a danger among them that if any man craved another’s wife, he might find some sort of reason to put away his own wife and to alienate the other man’s so that he might legally take her for himself. Among them this was no more a sin or disgrace than it is among us when a master dismisses his manservant or maidservant or entices someone else’s servant away. Therefore, 1 say, they interpreted these commandments correctly (even

293

294

295

296

though they have a broader and higher application) to forbid anyone, even

with an apparently good pretense and excuse, to harm a neighbor by intending or scheming to take away anything that belongs to this neighbor, such as spouse, servants, house and farm, fields, meadows, or cattle. Above, the Seventh

Commandment prohibits seizing or withholding someone else’s possessions to which you have no right. But here it is also forbidden to entice anything away from your neighbor, even though in the eyes of the world you could do it hon-

orably, without accusation or blame for fraudulent gain. Such is nature that no one wants someone else to have as much as he or she does. Everyone tries to accumulate as much as he or she can, and lets others

116. See James 3:5. 117. See Deuteronomy 24:1.

297

426 298

299

300

The Large Catechism

look out for themselves. Yet we all consider ourselves upright people, and put up a fine front to conceal our villainy. We hunt for and think up clever tricks and shrewd tactics—Dbetter and better ones are being devised daily—under the guise of justice. We brazenly dare to boast of it and defiantly insist that it should not be called rascality but shrewdness and foresight. In this we are abetted by jurists and lawyers who twist and stretch the law to suit their purpose, straining words and using them for pretexts, without regard for equity or for our neighbor’s plight. In short, whoever is sharpest and shrewdest in such matters gets most advantage out of the law, for as the saying has it, “The law favors the vigilant.”118 This last commandment, therefore, is not addressed to those whom the world considers wicked rogues, but precisely to the most upright—to people who wish to be commended as honest and virtuous because they have not offended against the preceding commandments. Especially the Jews saw them-

selves this way, as today the nobles, lords, and princes do even more. The common masses belong much farther back in the Seventh Commandment, however, for they are not much concerned about honor and right when acquiring

301

302

303

possessions.

This occurs most often in lawsuits in which someone sets out to gain and squeeze something out of a neighbor. For example, when people wrangle and wrestle over a large inheritance, real estate, etc., they resort to anything that has the appearance of legality, so varnishing and garnishing it that the law must support them, and they gain such a title to the property that no one can raise an objection or initiate legal action. Similarly, if people covet a castle, city, county, or some other great thing, they practice bribery through friendly connections and any other means available to them, until the property is taken away from the other person and legally awarded to them, complete with deed and official seal showing that they have lawfully obtained title from the prince. The same thing also happens in ordinary business dealings, where people

cunningly filch something out of another’s hand so that the victim is helpless

to prevent it. Or, seeing an opportunity for profit—perhaps where a person

because of adversity or debt cannot hold on to property nor sell it without a loss—they hustle and harass the person until they get it for half price or less; and yet this is not to be considered as something acquired or obtained illegally, but rather as legitimately purchased. Hence the sayings, “First come, first

“n-fg

e

304

served,” and “Take care of yourself,”!!? and let the others take what they can.

Who would be clever enough to make up all the ways by which people can acquire for themselves so much through such lovely pretexts, which the world does not consider wrong? The world does not want to see that the neighbor is being taken advantage of and is being forced to sacrifice what he or she cannot 118. A proverbial saying, given in Latin in the text: Vigilantibus jura subveniunt. 119. Two proverbial expressions, literally, “The first is the best,” and “Everyone is to look after his own chance.”

The Ten Commandments

427

afford to lose. Who would want to experience this personally? From this it is clear that all these pretexts and shams are false. This was also the case in ancient days in respect to wives. They knew tricks like these: If a man took a fancy to another woman, he managed, either personally or through others, by any number of ways to make her husband displeased with her, or she became so disobedient and hard to live with that her husband had to dismiss her and leave her to the other man. That sort of thing was undoubtedly quite prevalent in the time of the [Old Testament] law,'?° for we read even in the gospel that King Herod took his brother’s wife while the latter was still living, and yet posed as an honorable, upright man, as St. Mark testifies.!2! But such an example, I hope, will not be found among us, for in the New Testament married people are forbidden to be divorced.!?2 Still in our day someone may trick another person out of a rich fiancée. Among us it is not uncommon for someone to entice or lure a person’s manservant or maidservant away or otherwise estrange him or her with fine words. However these things may happen, we must learn that God does not want you to deprive your neighbors of anything that is theirs, so that they suffer loss while you satisfy your greed, even though before the world you can retain the property with honor. To do so is underhanded and malicious wickedness, and, as we say, it is all done “under the table”!?* so as to escape detection. Although you may act as if you have wronged no one, you have certainly trespassed on your neighbors’ rights. It might not be called stealing or cheating, but it is coveting—that is, having designs on your neighbors’ property, luring it away from them against their will, and begrudging what God gave them. The judge and everyone else may have to let you keep the property, but God will not, for he sees your wicked heart and the deceitfulness of the world. Give the world an inch!24 and it will take a mile,'?5 and open injustice and violence will result. This, then, is the common meaning of this commandment. First, we are commanded not to desire to harm our neighbors, nor to assist in doing harm, nor to give occasion for it. Instead, we are gladly to let them have what is theirs and to promote and protect whatever may be profitable and serviceable to them, just as we wish others would do for us. So these commandments are aimed directly against envy and miserable covetousness, so that God may remove the root and cause from which arise all injuries to our neighbors.

Therefore he sets it forth in plain words: “You shall not covet,” etc. Above all, he wants the heart to be pure, even though, as long as we live here, we cannot accomplish that. So this commandment remains, like all the rest, one that con-

stantly accuses us and shows just how upright we really are in God’s sight. 120. Latin: “among the Jews.” 121. Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-20.

122. Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

123, Literally, “under the hat,” a proverbial expression derived from sorcery. 124. German: Finger; literally, “finger,” used as a measurement.

125. German: Elle, a unit of measure about fifteen to twenty inches in length.

305

306

307

308

309

310

428

The Large Catechism

[Conclusion of the Ten Commandments]'?¢ 311

312

313

Here, then, we have the Ten Commandments, a summary of divine teaching on

what we are to do to make our whole life pleasing to God. They are the true fountain from which all good works must spring, the true channel through which all good works must flow. Apart from these Ten Commandments no action or life can be good or pleasing to God, no matter how great or precious it may be in the eyes of the world. Let us see now how our great saints can boast of their spiritual orders and the great, difficult works that they have invented and piled up for themselves, while they neglect these commandments as if they were too insignificant or had been fulfilled long ago. It seems to me that we shall have our hands full to keep these commandments, practicing gentleness, patience, love toward enemies, chastity, kindness, etc., and all that is involved in doing so. But such works are not important or impressive in the eyes of the world. They are not uncommon and showy, reserved to certain special times, places, rites, and ceremonies, but are common,

314

315

316 . ’?’-.7' , Zy;

everyday domestic duties of one neighbor to another, with nothing glamorous about them. Those other deeds captivate all eyes and ears. Aided by great splendor, expense, and magnificent buildings, they are so adorned that everything gleams and glitters. There is burning of incense, singing and ringing of bells, lighting of candles and tapers until for all of this nothing else can be seen or heard. For when a priest stands in a golden chasuble,'?” or a layperson spends a whole day in the church on his or her knees, that is considered a precious work that cannot be sufficiently extolled. But when a poor servant girl takes care of a little child or faithfully does what she is told, this is regarded as nothing. Otherwise, what should monks and nuns be looking for in their cloisters? Just think, is it not a devilish presumption on the part of those desperate saints to dare to find a higher and better way of life and status than the Ten Commandments teach? They pretend, as we have said, that this is a simple life for an ordinary person, whereas theirs is for the saints and those who are perfect. They fail to see, these miserable, blind fools, that no one is able to keep even one of the Ten Commandments as it ought to be kept. Both the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer must come to our aid, as we shall hear later. Through them we must seek and pray for help and receive it continually. Therefore all their bragging amounts to as much as if I were to boast, “I do not have a single groschen to pay, of course, but I promise to pay ten gulden.”!28

126. This heading was not in the original printing. It was placed in the margin in the second edition (1529) and in the German editions of 1530 and 1538, and first inserted in the text in the German Book of Concord (1580). -

127. A chasuble is a bell-shaped cloak, often decorated with gold, silver, or precious stones, that

is worn over other Mass vestments.

128. There were twenty-one groschen to a gulden.

The Ten Commandments

429

I say this repeatedly in order that we may get rid of the pernicious abuse that has become so deeply rooted and still clings to everyone, and so that all classes of people on earth may accustom themselves to look only at these precepts and heed them. It will be a long time before people produce a doctrine or social order equal to that of the Ten Commandments, for they are beyond human power to fulfill. The one who does fulfill them is a heavenly, angelic person, far above all holiness on earth. Just concentrate upon them and test yourself thoroughly, do your very best, and you will surely find so much to do that you will neither seek nor pay attention to any other works or other kind of holiness. Let this suffice concerning the first part,'? both for instruction and for admonition.

In conclusion,

however, we

must

repeat the text that we

have

already treated above in connection with the First Commandment in order to show how much effort God desires us to devote to learning how to teach and practice the Ten Commandments. “I the Lorp, your God, am a jealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me. But to those who love me and keep my commandments, I show mercy unto a thousand generations.” Although this appendix is primarily attached to the First Commandment, as we heard above, it is intended to apply to all the commandments, and all of them as a whole ought to be referred and directed to it. For this reason I said that we should keep it before the eyes of young people and drum it into them, in order that they learn and remember it in such a way that we may see why we are constrained and compelled to keep these Ten Commandments. This appendix ought to be regarded as attached to each individual commandment, penetrating and pervading them all. Now, as we said before, these words contain both a wrathful threat and a friendly promise, not only to terrify and warn us but also to attract and allure us, so that we will receive and regard God’s Word as seriously as he does. For God declares how important the commandments are to him and how strictly he will watch over them, namely, that he will fearfully and terribly punish all who despise and transgress his commandments; and again, how richly he will reward, bless, and bestow all good things on those who prize them and gladly act and live in accordance with them. Thus he demands that all our actions proceed from a heart that fears God, looks to him alone, and because of this

fear avoids all that is contrary to his will, lest he be moved to wrath. Conversely, he demands that our actions proceed from a heart that trusts in him alone and for his sake does all that he asks of us, because he reveals himself as a kind father and offers us every grace and blessing. This is exactly the meaning and the right interpretation of the first and chief commandment, from which all the others proceed. This word, “You shall 129. Le., the first part of the Catechism, the Ten Commandments.

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

430

|

The Large Catechism

have no other gods,” means simply, “You shall fear, love, and trust me as your

325

one true God.” For where your heart has such an attitude toward God, you have fulfilled this commandment and all the others. On the other hand, whoever fears and loves anything else in heaven or on earth will keep neither this one nor any other. Thus the whole Scriptures have proclaimed and presented this commandment everywhere, emphasizing these two things, fear of God and trust in God. The prophet David particularly proclaims it throughout the Psalter, as when he says [Ps. 147:11], “The Lorp takes pleasure in those who fear him, in those who hope in his steadfast love.” He seems to explain the

326

whole commandment in one verse, as if to say, “The Lorp takes pleasure in those who have no other gods.” Thus the First Commandment is to illuminate and impart its splendor to all the others. In order that this may be constantly repeated and never forgotten, therefore, you must let these concluding words run through all the com-

327

328

£

mandments, like the clasp or hoop of a wreath that binds the end to the beginning and holds everything together. For example, in the Second Commandment we are told to fear God and not to take his name in vain by cursing, lying, deceiving, and other kinds of corruption and wickedness, but to use his name properly by calling upon him in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, which spring from that love and trust that the First Commandment requires. In the same way, this fear, love, and trust should impel us not to despise his Word, but to learn it, hear it gladly, keep it holy, and honor it. Again, throughout the following commandments, which concern our neighbor, everything proceeds from the power of the First Commandment: We are to be subordinate to, honor, and obey father and mother, masters, and all in authority, not on their own account but for God’s sake. For you dare not respect or fear father or mother, doing or neglecting to do things simply in order to please them. Rather, pay attention to what God wants of you and what he will quite surely demand of you. If you omit that, you have an angry judge; otherwise, you have a gracious father. Again, you are to do your neighbors no harm, injury, or violence, nor in any way to hurt them in regard to their person, spouse, property, honor, or rights (according to the order in which these things are commanded), even if you had the opportunity and occasion to do so and no one would reprove you. On the

3‘;'#}:‘1; %y :

329

330

contrary, you should do good to all people, help them and promote their interests, however and wherever you can, purely out of love to God and in order to please him, in the confidence that he will repay you richly in everything. Thus you see how the First Commandment is the chief source and fountainhead that permeates all others; again, to it they all return and upon it they depend, so that end and beginning are completely linked and bound together. It is useful and necessary, I say, always to teach, admonish, and remind young people of all of this so that they maybe brought up, not only with blows and compulsion, like cattle, but in the fear and reverence of God. These are not

human trifles but the commandments of the most high Majesty, who watches

The Creed

431

over them with great earnestness, who is angry and punishes those who despise them, and, on the contrary, abundantly rewards those who keep them. Where people consider this and take it to heart, there will arise a spontaneous impulse

and desire gladly to do God’s will. Therefore it is not without reason that the Old Testament command was to write the Ten Commandments on every wall and corner, and even on garments.!*® Not that we are to have them there only for display, as the Jews did,!! but we are to keep them incessantly before our eyes and constantly in our memory and to practice them in all our works and ways. Each of us is to make them a matter of daily practice in all circumstances, in all activities and dealings, as if they were written everywhere we look, even wherever we go or wherever we stand. Thus, both for ourselves at home and abroad among our neighbors, we will find occasion enough to practice the Ten Commandments, and no one need search far for them. From all of this we see once again how highly these Ten Commandments are to be exalted and extolled above all orders, commands, and works that are

taught and practiced apart from them. Here we can throw out a challenge: Let all the wise and holy step forward and produce, if they can, any work like that which God in these commandments so earnestly requires and enjoins under threat of his greatest wrath and punishment, while at the same time he adds such glorious promises that he will shower us with all good things and blessings. Therefore we should prize and value them above all other teachings as the greatest treasure God has given us.

Second Part: The Creed Thus far we have heard the first part of Christian teaching, and in it we have seen all that God wishes us to do and not to do. The Creed properly follows, which sets forth all that we must expect and receive from God; in short, it teaches us to know him perfectly. It is given in order to help us do what the Ten Commandments require of us. For, as we said above, they are set so high that all human ability is far too puny and weak to keep them. Therefore it is just as necessary to learn this part as it is the other so that we may know where and how to obtain the power to do this. If we were able by our own strength to keep the Ten Commandments as they ought to be kept, we would need nothing else, neither the Creed nor the Lord’s Prayer. But before we explain the usefulness and necessity of the Creed, it is enough, as a first step, for very simple people to learn to grasp and understand the Creed itself. In the first place, the Creed used to be divided into twelve articles.!?? Of course, if all the elements contained in Scripture and belonging to the Creed were gathered together, there would be many more articles, nor could they all 130. Deuteronomy 6:8-9; 11:20.

131. Matthew 23:5. 132. Tradition, which is first in evidence about a.p. 400, held that each of the twelve apostles

contributed one phrase to the Apostles’ Creed.

331

332

333

432

The Large Catechism

be clearly expressed in so few words. But to make it most clear and simple for teaching to children, we shall briefly sum up the entire Creed in three main articles,'3? according to the three persons of the Godhead, to whom everything that we believe is related. Thus the first article, concerning God the Father, explains creation; the second, concerning the Son, redemption; the third, con-

cerning the Holy Spirit, being made holy. Hence the Creed could be briefly condensed to these few words: “I believe in God the Father, who created me; I believe in God the Son, who has redeemed me; I believe in the Holy Spirit, who makes me holy” One God and one faith, but three persons, and therefore also three articles or confessions. Let us comment briefly on these words. The First Article 10

11

12

13

14

“I believe in God, the Father almighty, CReaTOR of heaven and earth ... This is the shortest possible way of describing and illustrating the nature,

will, acts, and work of God the Father. Because the Ten Commandments have

explained that we are to have no more than one God, so it may now be asked: “What kind of person is God? What does he do? How can we praise or portray or describe him in such a way so we may know him?” This is taught here and in the following articles. Thus the Creed is nothing else than a response and confession of Christians based on the First Commandment. If you were to ask a young child, “My dear, what kind of God do you have? What do you know about him?” he or she could say: “First, my God is the Father, who made heaven and earth. Aside from this one alone I regard nothing as God, for there is no one else who could create heaven and earth.” For the highly educated and those somewhat more well informed, however, all three articles can be treated more fully and divided into as many parts as there are words. But for the young pupils it is now enough to indicate the most necessary points, namely, as we have said, that this article deals with creation. We should emphasize the words “creator of heaven and earth.” What is meant by these words or what do you mean when you say, “I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator,” etc.? Answer: I hold and believe that I am God’s creature, that is, that he has given me and constantly sustains my body, soul, and life, my members great and small, all my senses, my reason and understanding, and the like; my food and drink, clothing, nourishment, spouse and children, servants, house and farm, etc. Besides, he makes all creation help provide the benefits and necessities of life—sun, moon, and stars in the heavens; day and night; air, fire, water, the earth and all that it yields and brings forth; birds, fish,

15 16

animals, grain, and all sorts of produce. Moreover, he gives all physical and temporal blessings—good government, peace, security. Thus we learn from

133. In 1520 Luther had already divided the Creed into “three chief parts, according to which the three persons of the holy, divine Trinity are to be related, corresponding first to the Father, second to the Son, and third to the Holy Spirit” (WA 7:214; LW 43:24).

The Creed

433

this article that none of us has life—or anything else that has been mentioned here or can be mentioned—from ourselves, nor can we by ourselves preserve any of them, however small and unimportant. All this is comprehended in the word “Creator.” Moreover, we also confess that God the Father has given us not only all that we have and what we see before our eyes, but also that he daily guards and defends us against every evil and misfortune, warding off all sorts of danger and disaster. All this he does out of pure love and goodness, without our merit, as a kind father who cares for us so that no evil may befall us. But further discussion of this subject belongs in the other two parts of this article, where it says, “Father almighty.” , Hence, because everything we possess, and everything in heaven and on earth besides, is daily given, sustained, and protected by God, it inevitably follows that we are in duty bound to love, praise, and thank him without ceasing, and, in short, to devote all these things to his service, as he has required and enjoined in the Ten Commandments. Here much could be said if we were to describe how few people believe this article. We all pass over it; we hear it and recite it, but we neither see nor think about what the words command us to do. For if we believed it with our whole heart, we would also act accordingly, and not swagger about and boast and brag as if we had life, riches, power, honor, and such things of ourselves, as if we ourselves were to be feared and served. This is the way the wretched, perverse world acts, drowned in its blindness, misusing all the blessings and gifts of God solely for its own pride, greed, pleasure, and enjoyment, and never once turning to God to thank him or acknowledge him as Lord or Creator. Therefore, if we believe it, this article should humble and terrify all of us. For we sin daily with eyes, ears, hands, body and soul, money and property, and with all that we have, especially those who even fight against the Word of God. Yet Christians have this advantage, that they acknowledge that they owe it to God to serve and obey him for all these things. For this reason we ought daily to practice this article, impress it upon our minds, and remember it in everything we see and in every blessing that comes our way. Whenever we escape distress or danger, we should recognize how God gives and does all of this so that we may sense and see in them his fatherly heart and his boundless love toward us. Thus our hearts will be warmed and kindled with gratitude to God and a desire to use all these blessings to his glory and praise. Such, very briefly, is the meaning of this article. It is all that ordinary people need to learn at first, both about what we have and receive from God and

about what we owe him in return. This is knowledge of great significance, but an even greater treasure. For here we see how the Father has given to us himself with all creation and has abundantly provided for us in this life, apart from the fact that he has also showered us with inexpressible eternal blessings through his Son and the Holy Spirit, as we shall hear.

17

18

19

20 21

22

23

24

434

The Large Catechism

The Second Article 25

26

27

“And [I believe] in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lorp. He was conceived by

the Holy Spirit and born of Mary the virgin. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God, the Father almighty. From there he will come again to judge the living and the dead.” Here we get to know the second person of the Godhead, and we see what we have from God over and above the temporal goods mentioned above, namely, how he has given himself completely to us, withholding nothing. This article is very rich and far-reaching, but in order to treat it briefly for children, we shall take up one phrase and in it grasp the substance of the article so that everyone may learn from it, as we have said, how we are redeemed. We shall concentrate on these words, “in Jesus Christ, our Lorp.” If anyone asks, “What do you believe in the second article about Jesus

Christ?” answer as briefly as possible, “I believe that Jesus Christ, true Son of God, has become my Lord.” What is it “to become a lord”? It means that he has redeemed and released me from sin, from the devil, from death, and from all

28

misfortune. Before this I had no lord or king, but was captive under the power of the devil. I was condemned to death and entangled in sin and blindness. For when we were created by God the Father and had received from him all

kinds of good things, the devil came and led us into disobedience, sin, death,

29 30

’j.

and all misfortune. As a result, we lay under God’s wrath and displeasure, sentenced to eternal damnation, as we had merited it and deserved it. There was no counsel, no help, no comfort for us until this only and eternal Son of God, in his unfathomable goodness, had mercy on us because of our misery and distress and came from heaven to help us. Those tyrants and jailers have now been routed, and their place has been taken by Jesus Christ, the Lord of life, righteousness, and every good and blessing. He has snatched us, poor lost creatures, from the jaws of hell, won us, made us free, and restored us to the Father’s favor and grace. As his own possession he has taken us under his protection and shelter, in order that he may rule us by his righteousness, wisdom, power, life, and blessedness. Let this be the summary of this article, that the little word “Lorp” simply means the same as Redeemer, that is, he who has brought us back from the devil to God, from death to life, from sin to righteousness, and keeps us there. The remaining parts of this article simply serve to clarify and express how and by what means this redemption was accomplished—that is, how much it cost Christ and what he paid and risked in order to win us and bring us under his dominion. That is to say, he became a human creature, conceived and born without sin, of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin, so that he might become Lord over sin; moreover, he suffered, died, and was buried so that he might make satisfaction for me and pay what I owed, not with silver and gold but with his

The Creed

435

own precious blood. And he did all this so that he might become my Lorp. For he did none of these things for himself, nor had he any need of them. Afterward he rose again from the dead, swallowed up'** and devoured death, and finally ascended into heaven and assumed dominion at the right hand of the Father. The devil and all his powers must be subject to him and lie beneath his feet until finally, at the Last Day, he will completely divide and separate us from the wicked world, the devil, death, sin, etc. But the proper place to explain all these different points is not in the brief children’s sermon,!3® but rather the longer sermons throughout the whole year, especially at the times appointed!3¢ for dealing at length with such articles as Christ’s birth, passion, resurrection, ascension, etc. Indeed, the entire gospel that we preach depends on the proper understanding of this article. Upon it all our salvation and blessedness are based, and it is so rich and broad that we can never learn it fully.

32

33

The Third Article

“I believe in the Holy Spirit, one holy Christian church, the community'?” of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting. Amen.” To this article, as I have said, I cannot give a better title than “Being Made Holy.” In it are expressed and portrayed the Holy Spirit and his office, which is that he makes us holy. Therefore, we must concentrate on the term “Hory SpirrT,” because it is so precise that we can find no substitute for it. Many other kinds of spirits are mentioned in Scripture, such as the human spirit,!33 heavenly spirits,!? and the evil spirit.14° But God’s Spirit alone is called a Holy Spirit, that is, the one who has made us holy and still makes us holy. As the Father is called a Creator and the Son is called a Redeemer, so on account of his work the Holy Spirit must be called a Sanctifier, or one who makes us holy. How does such sanctifying take place? Answer: Just as the Son obtains dominion by purchasing us through his birth, death, and resurrection, etc., so the Holy Spirit effects our being made holy through the following: the communityl4! of saints or Christian church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. That is, he first leads us into his holy com134. See Isaiah 25:7. 135. That is, sermons at the weekday worship services, which were designed primarily for children and servants. 136. Christmas, Lent, Easter, Ascension, festivals in which the pericopes, particularly the Gospel lessons, treat the life of Christ. 137. German: Gemeine. See above, p. 384, where the word Gemeinschaft is used.

138. E.g., 1 Corinthians 2:11. 139. Luther interpreted these as the good angels. E.g., 2 Maccabees 11:6; 15:23. 140. E.g., 1 Samuel 16:14, 23; Tobit 3:8; Acts 19:12, 15.

141. German: Gemeine.

34

35

36

37

436

38

39

The Large Catechism

munity, placing us in the church’s lap, where he preaches to us and brings us to Christ. : : Neither you nor I could ever know anything about Christ, or believe in him and receive him as Lord, unless these were offered to us and bestowed on our

hearts!42 through the preaching of the gospel by the Holy Spirit. The work is finished and completed; Christ has acquired and won the treasure for us by his sufferings, death, and resurrection, etc. But if the work remained hidden so that no one knew of it, it would have been all in vain, all lost. In order that this treasure might not remain buried but be put to use and enjoyed, God has caused the Word to be published and proclaimed, in which he has given the Holy Spirit to offer and apply to us this treasure, this redemption. Therefore being made holy is nothing else than bringing us to the Lord Christ to receive this blessing, to which we could not have come by ourselves.

40

4 42

43

44

Learn this article, then, as clearly as possible. If someone asks, What do you mean by the words “I believe in the Holy Spirit”? you can answer, “I believe that the Holy Spirit makes me holy, as his name states.” How does he do this, or what are his ways and means? Answer: “Through the Christian church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” In the first place, he has a unique community'4? in the world, which is the mother that begets and bears every Christian through the Word of God, which the Holy Spirit reveals and proclaims, through which he illuminates and inflames hearts so that they grasp and accept it, cling to it, and persevere in it. Where he does not cause it to be preached and does not awaken the understanding of it in the heart, all is lost, as happened under the papacy, where faith was swept completely under the rug and no one recognized Christ as the Lord or the Holy Spirit as the one who makes us holy. That is, no one believed that Christ is our Lord in the sense that he won such a treasure for us without our works and merits and made us acceptable to the Father. What was lacking there? There was no Holy Spirit present to reveal this truth and have it preached. Rather, it was human beings and evil spirits who were there, who

45

taught us to obtain grace and be saved by our works. Therefore there was no Christian church. For where Christ is not preached, there is no Holy Spirit to create, call, and gather the Christian church, apart from which no one can

come to the Lord Christ. Let this be enough about the substance of this article. But because the parts enumerated in it are not quite clear to the common people, we shall run through them briefly. The Creed calls the holy Christian church a communio sanctorum,'4* “a communion!4> of saints.” Both expressions have the same meaning. In earlier

142. Literally, “bosom.” 143. German: Gemeine. 144. Given in Latin in the text.

145. German: Gemeinschatft.

The Creed

437

days the phrase was not included,'*® and it is odd and not understandable when put into German. If we were to render it clearly, we would have to speak quite differently in German. The word ecclesia properly means nothing but an assembly' in German. But we are accustomed to using the word Kirche, which the common people understand not as an assembled group of people, but as a consecrated house or building. But the house would not be called a church if it were not for the single reason that the group of people come together in it. For we who come together choose a special place and give the house its name because of this group. Thus the word “church”!#® really means nothing else than a common assembly and is not of German but of Greek origin, like the word ecclesia. In that language the word is kyria, and in Latin curia.!% Therefore, in our mother tongue and in good German it ought to be called “a Christian community or assembly,”>® or best and most clearly of all, “a holy Christian people.”!>! Likewise, the word communio, which is attached to it, should not be translated “communion” but rather “community.”!>? It is nothing but a comment or interpretation by which someone wished to explain what the Christian church is. But some among our people, who understand neither Latin nor German, have rendered it “communion of saints,”!*3 although no German would talk that way or understand it. To speak proper German we ought to say “a community of saints,”!> that is, a community that is composed only of saints, or, still more clearly, “a holy community”!>> This I say in order that the word might be understood; it has become so established in usage that it cannot well be uprooted, and it would be next to heresy to alter a word. This is the meaning and substance of this phrase: I believe that there is on earth a holy little flock and community of pure saints under one head, Christ. It is called together by the Holy Spirit in one faith, mind, and understanding. 146. Already in 1519 Luther noted that the expression communio sanctorum was a later addition to the Creed, meaning the same as “holy catholic church.” The earliest extant version of the Creed containing the phrase is that attributed to Bishop Nicetas of Remesiana. 147. German: Versammlunge. In Old High German, the Latin ecclesia was translated both with kirihha and samanunga, but in Middle High German it was rendered only as kirche. 148. German: Kirche. 149. Although Luther incorrectly associates the Latin word curia (it derives rather from quiris [a Roman citizen]) with the Greek kuria, modern linguistic research confirms his derivation of the German word Kirche from the Greek kuriakos (“belonging to the Lord”). It is one of the earliest

Christian words taken over into another language, having been carried by Arian missionaries from the kingdom of the Goths up the Danube River into Germany. 150. German: Gemeine. In his translation of the Bible, Luther consistently rendered the Greek ecclesia with Gemeine.

151. German: Ein heilige Christenheit. In On the Councils and the Church (1539) Luther urged

that Christenheit, “Christendom,” or christliches Volk, “Christian people,” be substituted for the non-German and “meaningless” word Kirche (WA 50:624, 14-20; LW 41:143-44).

152. 153. 154, 155.

Not Gemeinschaft but Gemeine. German: Gemeinschaft der Heiligen. German: ein Gemeine der Heiligen. German: ein heilige Gemeine.

48

49

50

51

438 52

53

54

The Large Catechism

It possesses a variety of gifts, and yet is united in love without sect or schism. Of this community I also am a part and member, a participant and co-partner!56 in all the blessings it possesses. I was brought into it by the Holy Spirit and incorporated into it through the fact that I have heard and still hear God’s Word, which is the beginning point for entering it. Before we had come into this community, we were entirely of the devil, knowing nothing of God and of Christ. The Holy Spirit will remain with the holy community'>” or Christian people until the Last Day. Through it he gathers us, using it to teach and preach the Word. By it he creates and increases holiness, causing it daily to grow and become strong in the faith and in its fruits, which the Spirit produces. Further we believe that in this Christian community we have the forgiveness of sins, which takes place through the holy sacraments and absolution as well as through all the comforting words of the entire gospel. This encompasses everything that is to be preached about the sacraments and, in short, the entire gospel and all the official responsibilities of the Christian community. Forgiveness is constantly needed, for although God’s grace has been acquired by Christ, and holiness has been wrought by the Holy Spirit through God’s Word in the unity of the Christian church, yet we are never without sin because we carry our flesh around our neck.

55

56

57 . a?:':r; .

P58

Therefore everything in this Christian community is so ordered that everyone may daily obtain full forgiveness of sins through the Word and signs'>® appointed to comfort and encourage our consciences as long as we live on earth. Although we have sin, the Holy Spirit sees to it that it does not harm us because we are a part of this Christian community. Here there is full forgiveness of sins, both in that God forgives us and that we forgive, bear with, and aid one another. Outside this Christian community, however, where there is no gospel, there is also no forgiveness, and hence there also can be no holiness. Therefore, all who would seek to merit holiness through their works rather than through the gospel and the forgiveness of sin have expelled and separated themselves from this community. Meanwhile, because holiness has begun and is growing daily, we await the time when our flesh will be put to death, will be buried with all its uncleanness, and will come forth gloriously and arise to complete and perfect holiness in a new, eternal life. Now, however, we remain only halfway pure and holy. The Holy Spirit must always work in us through the Word, granting us daily forgiveness until we attain to that life where there will be no more forgiveness. In that life there will be only perfectly pure and holy people, full of integrity and righteousness, completely freed from sin, death, and all misfortune, living in new, immortal, and glorified bodies. 156. passage: 157. 158.

See 1 Corinthians 1:9. In his translation of the Bible, Luther placed a marginal note at this “That is, you are co-heirs and co-associates of all Christ’s blessings.” German: Gemeine. The sacraments.

The Creed

439

All this, then, is the office and work of the Holy Spirit, to begin and daily increase holiness on earth through these two means, the Christian church and the forgiveness of sins. Then, when we pass from this life, in the blink of an eye he will perfect our holiness and will eternally preserve us in it through the last two parts of this article.

59

The phrase “resurrection of the flesh,”!> however, is also not good German.

60

This, then, is the article that must always remain in force. For creation is

61

For when we hear the word Fleisch'®® we think no farther than the butcher shop. In proper German we would say “resurrection of the body.”!¢! However, this is not of great importance, as long as the words are rightly understood.

now behind us, and redemption has also taken place, but the Holy Spirit continues his work without ceasing until the Last Day, and for this purpose he has appointed a community'6? on earth, through which he speaks and does all his work. For he has not yet gathered together all of this Christian community, nor has he completed the granting of forgiveness. Therefore we believe in him who daily brings us into this community through the Word, and imparts, increases, and strengthens faith through the same Word and the forgiveness of sins. Then when his work has been finished and we abide in it, having died to the world and all misfortune, he will finally make us perfectly and eternally holy. Now we wait in faith for this to be accomplished through the Word.

Here in the Creed you have the entire essence, will, and work of God exquisitely depicted in very brief but rich words. In them are comprehended all our wisdom, which surpasses all human wisdom, understanding, and reason. Although the whole world has sought painstakingly to learn what God might be and what he might think and do, yet it has never succeeded in the least. But here you have everything in richest measure. For in all three articles God himself has revealed and opened to us the most profound depths of his fatherly heart and his pure, unutterable love. For this very purpose he created us, so that he might redeem us and make us holy, and, moreover, having granted and bestowed upon us everything in heaven and on earth, he has also given us his Son and his Holy Spirit, through whom he brings us to himself. For, as 159. German: Auferstehung des Fleisches. 160. The German word Fleisch means both “flesh” and “meat.” 161. German: Auferstehung des Leibs oder Leichnams, literally, “resurrection of the body or corpse.” Although the earliest Christians believed in the resurrection of the dead, in the ancient church groups arose that looked on all material things as evil, thus denying that the body as well as the soul could be saved. The phrase “resurrection of the flesh” in the Creed was intended to oppose these views. See Luther’s exposition of John 1:14 (WA 10/1, 1: 235, 18-21; LW 52:80-81), where Luther wrote: “ ‘Flesh” here means total humanity, body and soul, according to the usage of Scripture which calls man “flesh, . . . and in the Creed where we say: ‘I believe in the resurrection of the flesh, i.e., of all people.” Older English versions of the Apostles’ Creed also read “resurrection of the flesh” until 1543, when in “The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for Any Christian Man,” issued by Henry VIII, “resurrection of the body” was introduced. 162. German: Gemeine.

62

63

64

65

440

The Large Catechism

explained above, we could never come to recognize were it not for the Lorp Christ, who is a mirror from him we see nothing but an angry and terrible know anything of Christ, had it not been revealed 66

the Father’s favor and grace of the Father’s heart. Apart judge. But neither could we by the Holy Spirit.

These three articles of the Creed, therefore, separate and distinguish us

Christians from all other people on earth. All who are outside this Christian

people, whether heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites—even

though they believe in and worship only the one, true God—nevertheless do not know what his attitude is toward them. They cannot be confident of his love and blessing, and therefore they remain in eternal wrath and condemna-

tion. For they do not have the Lorp Christ, and, besides, they are not llumi-

67

68

69

nated and blessed by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. From this you see that the Creed is a very different teaching than the Ten Commandments. For the latter teach us what we ought to do, but the Creed

tells us what God does for us and gives to us. The Ten Commandments, moreover, are written in the hearts of all people,!6? but no human wisdom is able to comprehend the Creed; it must be taught by the Holy Spirit alone. Therefore the Ten Commandments do not succeed in making us Christians, for God’s wrath and displeasure still remain upon us because we cannot fulfill what God demands of us. But the Creed brings pure grace and makes us righteous and acceptable to God. Through this knowledge we come to love and delight in all the commandments of God because we see here in the Creed how God gives himself completely to us, with all his gifts and power, to help us keep the Ten Commandments: the Father gives us all creation, Christ all his works, the Holy

70

'W-;j-‘y;'

Spirit all his gifts. This is enough now concerning the Creed to lay a foundation for ordinary people without overburdening them. After they understand the substance of it, they may on their own initiative learn more, relating to these teachings all that they learn in the Scriptures, and thus continue to advance and grow in understanding. For as long as we live we shall have enough here in the Creed to preach and learn.

Third Part: The Lord’s Prayer We have now heard what we are to do and believe. The best and most blessed life consists of these things. Now follows the third part, how we are to pray. We are in such a situation that no one can keep the Ten Commandments perfectly, even though he or she has begun to believe. Besides, the devil, along with the world and our flesh, resists them with all his power. Consequently, nothing is so necessary as to call upon God incessantly and to drum into his ears our prayer that he may give, preserve, and increase in us faith and the fulfillment of 163. See Romans righteousness.

2:15. This reflects Luther’s concept

of the law of nature and civil

The Lord’s Prayer

441

the Ten Commandments and remove all that stands in our way and hinders us

in this regard. That we may know what and how to pray, however, our Lorp Christ himself has taught us both the way and the words, as we shall see.

But before we explain the Lord’s Prayer part by part, the most necessary

thing is to exhort and encourage people to pray, as Christ and the apostles also did.'®* The first thing to know is this: It is our duty to pray because of God’s command. For we heard in the Second Commandment, “You are not to take God’s name in vain.” Thereby we are required to praise the holy name and to pray or call upon it in every need. For calling upon it is nothing else than praying. Prayer, therefore, is as strictly and solemnly commanded as all the other commandments (such as having no other God, not killing, not stealing, etc.) lest anyone thinks it makes no difference whether I pray or not, as vulgar people do who say in their delusion: “Why should I pray? Who knows whether God pays attention to my prayer or wants to hear it? If I do not pray, someone

else will.” Thus they fall into the habit of never praying, claiming that because we reject false and hypocritical prayers, we teach that there is no duty or need to pray.

'

It is quite true that the kind of babbling and bellowing that used to pass for prayers in the church was not really prayer. Such external repetition, when properly used, may serve as an exercise for young children, pupils, and simple folk; while it may be useful in singing or reading, it is not actually prayer. To pray, as the Second Commandment teaches, is to call upon God in every need. This God requires of us; it is not a matter of our choice. It is our duty and obligation to pray if we want to be Christians, just as it is our duty and obligation to obey our fathers, mothers, and the civil authorities. By invocation and prayer the name of God is glorified and used to good purpose. This you should note above all, so that you may silence and repel any thoughts that would prevent or deter us from praying. Now it would be improper for a son to say to his father: “What is the use of being obedient? I will go and do as I please; what difference does it make?” But there stands the commandment, “You shall and must obey!” Just so, it is not left to my choice here whether to pray or not, but it is my duty and obligation on pain of God’s wrath and displeasure.'®® This should be kept in mind above all things so that we may silence and repel thoughts that would prevent or deter us from praying, as though it made no great difference if we do not pray, or as though prayer were commanded for those who are holier and in better favor with God than we are. Indeed, the human heart 1s by nature so desperately wicked that it always flees from God, thinking that he neither wants nor cares for our prayers because we are sinners and have merited

164. See, e.g., Matthew 7:7; Luke 18:1; 21:36; Romans 5:17; 1 Timothy 2:1; James 1:6; 5:13; 1 Peter 4:8; Jude 20.

12:12; Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians

165. The text in italics does not appear in the first edition of the Large Catechism, in the Jena

edition of Luther’s works, or in the German Book of Concord (1580). It is found in revised editions of the Catechism (1529 and later), in the Latin translation (1544), and freshly translated in the Latin Book of Concord (1584), and thus is included here.

10

442 11

12

13

14

The Large Catechism

nothing but wrath. Against such thoughts, I say, we should respect this commandment and turn to God so that we may not increase his anger by such disobedience. By this commandment he makes it clear that he will not cast us out or drive us away, even though we are sinners; he wishes rather to draw us to himself so that we may humble ourselves before him, lament our misery and plight, and pray for grace and help. Therefore we read in the Scriptures that he is angry because those who were struck down for their sin did not return to him and assuage his wrath and seek grace by their prayers. From the fact that prayer is so urgently commanded, you ought to conclude that we should by no means despise our prayers, but rather prize them highly. Take an example from the other commandments. A child should never despise obedience to his or her father and mother, but should always think: “This act is an act of obedience, and what I do has no other purpose than that it befits obedience and the commandment of God. On this I can rely and depend, and I can revere it highly, not because of my worthiness, but because of the commandment.” So, too, here. We should regard the words of our prayers and their purpose as something demanded by God and done in obedience to him. We should think, “On my account this prayer would not amount to anything; but it is important because God has commanded it.” So, no matter what he or she has to pray for, everybody should always approach God in obedience to this commandment. We therefore urgently beg and exhort everyone to take these words to heart and in no case to despise prayer. Prayer used to be taught in the devil’s name, in such a way that no one paid any attention to it, and people sup-

15

posed it was enough if the act was performed, whether God heard it or not. But that is to stake prayer on luck and to mumble aimlessly. Such a prayer is worthless. We allow ourselves to be impeded and deterred by such thoughts as these: “I am not holy enough or worthy enough; if I were as righteous and holy as St. Peter or St. Paul, then I would pray” Away with such thoughts! The very commandment that applied to St. Paul applies also to me. The Second Commandment is given just as much on my account as on his. He can boast of no better or holier commandment than I. Therefore you should say: “The prayer I offer is just as precious, holy, and pleasing to God as those of St. Paul and the holiest of saints. The reason is this: I freely admit that he is holier in respect to his person, but not on account of the commandment. For God does not regard prayer on account of the person, but on account of his Word and the obedience accorded it. On this command-

ment, on which all the saints base their prayer, I, too, base mine. Moreover, 1

pray for the same thing for which they all pray, or ever have prayed.”!¢¢

166. The 1538 Wittenberg edition of the Catechism and the German Book of Concord (1580) add: “and I need them just as much as and more than those great saints.”

The Lord’s Prayer

443

This is the first and most important point, that all our prayers must be based on obedience to God, regardless of our person, whether we are sinners or righteous people, worthy or unworthy. We must understand that God is not joking, but that he will be angry and punish us if we do not pray, just as he punishes all other kinds of disobedience. Nor will he allow our prayers to be futile or lost, for if he did not intend to answer you, he would not have ordered you to pray and backed it up with such a strict commandment. In the second place, what ought to impel and arouse us to pray all the more is the fact that God has made and affirmed a promise: that what we pray is a certain and sure thing. As he says in Psalm 50[:15], “Call on me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you,” and Christ says in the Gospel in Matthew 7[:7-8], “Ask, and it will be given you,” etc. . . . “For everyone who asks receives.” Such promises certainly ought to awaken and kindle in our hearts a longing and love for prayer. For by his Word, God testifies that our prayer is heartily pleasing to him and will assuredly be heard and granted, so that we may not despise it, cast it to the winds, or pray uncertainly. You can hold such promises up to him and say, “Here I come, dear Father, and pray not of my own accord nor because of my own worthiness, but at your commandment and promise, which cannot fail or deceive me.” Those who do not believe such a promise should again realize that they are angering God, grossly dishonoring him, and accusing him of lying. Furthermore, we should be encouraged and drawn to pray because, in addition to this commandment and promise, God takes the initiative and puts into our mouths the very words and approach we are to use. In this way we see how deeply concerned he is about our needs, and we should never doubt that such prayer pleases him and will assuredly be heard. So this prayer is far superior to all others that we might devise ourselves. For in that case our conscience would always be in doubt, saying, “I have prayed, but who knows whether it pleases him or whether I have hit upon the right form and mode?” Thus there is no nobler prayer to be found on earth,'¢” for it has the powerful testimony that God loves to hear it. This we should not trade for all the riches in the world. It has been prescribed for this reason also, that we should reflect on our

need, which ought to drive and compel us to pray without ceasing. A person

17 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

who wants to make a request must present a petition, naming and describing

something that he or she desires; otherwise it cannot be called a prayer. Therefore we have rightly rejected the prayers of monks and priests, who howl and growl frightfully day and night, but not one of them thinks of asking for the least little thing.168 If we gathered all the churches together, with all their clergy, they would have to confess that they have never prayed whole167. The 1538 Wittenberg edition of the Catechism and the German Book of Concord (1580)

add: “than the daily Lord’s Prayer.” 168. Literally, “for a hair’s breadth.”

25

444

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

The Large Catechism

heartedly for so much as a drop of wine. For none of them has ever undertaken to pray out of obedience to God and faith in his promise, or out of consideration for their own needs. They only thought, at best, of doing a good work as a payment to God, not willing to receive anything from him, but only to give him something. But where there is to be true prayer, there must be utter earnestness. We must feel our need, the distress that drives and impels us to cry out. Then prayer will come spontaneously, as it should, and no one will need to be taught how to prepare for it or how to create the proper devotion. This need, however, that ought to concern us—ours and everyone else’s—is something you will find richly enough in the Lord’s Prayer. Therefore it may serve to remind us and impress upon our hearts that we not neglect to pray. For we are all lacking plenty of things: all that is missing is that we do not feel or see them. God therefore wants you to lament and express your needs and concerns, not because he is unaware of them, but in order that you may kindle your heart to stronger and greater desires and open and spread your apron wide to receive many things. Therefore from youth on we should form the habit of praying daily for our needs, whenever we are aware of anything that affects us or other people around us, such as preachers, magistrates, neighbors, and servants; and, as I have said, we should always remind God of his commandment and promise, knowing that he does not want them despised. This I say because I would like to see people learn again to pray properly and not act so crudely and coldly that they daily become more inept in praying. This is just what the devil wants and works for with all his might, for he is well aware what damage and harm he suffers when prayer is used properly. This we must know, that all our safety and protection consists in prayer alone. For we are far too weak against the devil and all his might and forces arrayed against us, trying to trample us underfoot. Therefore we must keep this in mind and grasp the weapons with which Christians are to arm themselves for resisting the devil. What do you think has accomplished such great results in the past, parrying the counsels and plots of our enemies and checking their murderous and seditious designs by which the devil expected to crush us, and the gospel as well, except that the prayers of a few godly people intervened like an iron wall on our side? Otherwise they would have seen a far different drama: the devil would have destroyed all Germany in its own blood. Now they may confidently laugh and make their snide comments. But by prayer alone we shall be a match both for them and for the devil, if only we persevere and do not become weary. For whenever a good Christian prays, “Dear Father, your will be done,” God replies from above, “Yes, dear child, it shall be done indeed, in spite of the devil and all the world.” Let this be said as an admonition in order that we may learn above all to value prayer as a great and precious thing and may properly distinguish between vain babbling and asking for something. By no means do we reject prayer, but we do denounce the utterly useless howling and growling, as Christ

The Lord’s Prayer

445

himself rejects and forbids great wordiness.!®® Now we shall treat the Lord’s Prayer very briefly and clearly. In seven successive articles or petitions are comprehended all the needs that continually beset us, each one so great that it should impel us to keep praying for it all our lives.

34

The First Petition

“May your name be hallowed.” This is rather obscure and not in idiomatic German. In our mother tongue we would say, “Heavenly Father, grant that your name alone may be holy.” But what is it to pray that his name may become holy? Is it not already holy? Answer: Yes, in its essence it is always holy, but our use of it is not holy. God’s name was given to us when we became Christians and were baptized, and so we are called children of God and have the sacraments, through which he incorporates us into himself with the result that everything that is God’s must serve for our use. Thus it is a matter of grave necessity, about which we should be most concerned that God’s name receive due honor and be kept holy and sacred as the greatest treasure and most sacred thing that we have, and that, as good children, we pray that his name, which is in any case holy in heaven, may also be holy and be kept holy on earth in our midst and in all the world. How does it become holy among us? The plainest answer that can be given is: when both our teaching and our life are godly and Christian. Because in this prayer we call God our Father, it is our duty in every way to behave as good children so that he may receive from us not shame but honor and praise. Now, the name of God is profaned by us either in words or deeds. (For everything we do on earth may be classified as word or deed, speech or act.) In the first place, then, it is profaned when people preach, teach, and speak in the name of God anything that is false and deceptive, using his name to dress up their lies and make them acceptable; this is the worst desecration and dishonor of the divine name. Likewise, when people grossly misuse the divine name as a cover for their shame, by swearing, cursing, conjuring, etc. In the next place, it is also profaned by an openly evil life and wicked works, when those who are called Christians and God’s people are adulterers, drunkards, gluttons, jealous persons, and slanderers. Here again God’s name is necessarily being profaned and blasphemed because of us. Just as it is a shame and a disgrace to an earthly father to have a bad, unruly child who antagonizes him in word and deed, with the result that on his account the father ends up suffering scorn and reproach, so God is dishonored if we who are called by his name and enjoy his manifold blessings fail to teach, speak, and live as upright and heavenly children, with the result that he must hear us called not children of God but children of the devil. 169. Matthew 6:7; 23:14.

35 36 37

38

39

40 41

42 43

44

446 45

The Large Catechism

So you see that in this petition we pray for exactly the same thing that God demands in the Second Commandment: that his name should notbe taken in vain by swearing, cursing, deceiving, etc., but used rightly to the praise and glory of God. Whoever uses God’s name for any sort of wrong profanes and desecrates this holy name, as in the past a church was said to be desecrated

when a murder or other crime had been committed in it, or when a mon46

47

48

strance!”? or relic was profaned, thus rendering unholy by misuse that which is holy in itself. This petition, then, is simple and clear if we only understand the language, namely, that to “hallow” means the same as in our idiom “to praise, extol, and honor” both in word and deed. See, then, what a great need there is for this kind of prayer! Because we see that the world is full of sects and false teachers, all of whom wear the holy name as a cloak and warrant for their devilish doctrine, we ought constantly to shout and cry out against all who preach and believe falsely and against those who want to attack, persecute, and suppress our gospel and pure doctrine, as the bishops, tyrants, fanatics, and others do. Likewise, this petition is for ourselves who have the Word of God but are ungrateful for it and fail to live according to it as we ought. If you ask for such things from your heart, you can be sure that God is pleased. For there is nothing that he would rather hear than to have his glory and praise exalted above everything else and his Word taught in its purity, cherished and treasured. The Second Petition

49

50

“May your kingdom come.” In the first petition we prayed about God’s name and honor, that God would prevent the world from using his glory and name to dress up its lies and wickedness but would instead keep his name sacred and holy in both teaching and life so that he may be praised and exalted in us. In the same way in this petition we ask that his kingdom may come. Just as God’s name is holy in itself and yet we pray that it may be holy among us, so also his kingdom comes of

itself without our prayer, and yet we pray that it may come to us, that is, that it

Dwflig’&

.,

may prevail among us and with us, so that we may be a part of those among whom his name is hallowed and his kingdom flourishes. What is the kingdom of God? Answer: Simply what we heard above in the Creed, namely, that God sent his Son, Christ our Lorp, into the world to redeem and deliver us from the power of the devil, to bring us to himself, and to rule us as a king of righteousness, life, and salvation against sin, death, and an evil conscience. To this end he also gave his Holy Spirit to deliver this to us through his holy Word and to enlighten and strengthen us in faith by his power.

170. A monstrance is a vessel in which the consecrated host is displayed for adoration.

The Lord’s Prayer

447

We ask here at the outset that all this may be realized in us and that his name may be praised through God’s holy Word and Christian living. This we ask, both in order that we who have accepted it may remain faithful and grow daily in it and also in order that it may find approval and gain followers among other people and advance with power throughout the world. In this way many, led by the Holy Spirit, may come into the kingdom of grace and become partakers of redemption, so that we may all remain together eternally in this kingdom that has now begun. “The coming of God’s kingdom to us” takes place in two ways: first, it comes here, in time, through the Word and faith, and second, in eternity, it comes through the final revelation.!”! Now, we ask for both of these things: that it may come to those who are not yet in it and that, by daily growth here and in eternal life hereafter, it may come to us who have attained it. All this is nothing more than to say: “Dear Father, we ask you first to give us your Word, so that the gospel may be properly preached throughout the world and then that it may also be received in faith and may work and dwell in us, so that your kingdom may pervade among us through the Word and the power of the Holy Spirit and the devil’s kingdom may be destroyed so that he may have no right or power over us until finally his kingdom is utterly eradicated and sin, death, and hell wiped out, that we may live forever in perfect righteousness and blessedness.” From this you see that we are not asking here for crumbs!?2 or for a temporal, perishable blessing, but for an eternal, priceless treasure and for everything that God himself possesses. It would be far too great for any human heart to dare to desire it if God himself had not commanded us to ask for it. But because he is God, he also claims the honor of giving far more abundantly and liberally than anyone can comprehend—Ilike an eternal, inexhaustible fountain, which, the more it gushes forth and overflows, the more it continues to give. He desires nothing more from us than that we ask many and great things of him. And, on the contrary, he is angered if we do not ask and demand with confidence. Imagine if the richest and most powerful emperor commanded a poor beggar to ask for whatever he might desire and was prepared to give lavish, royal gifts, and the fool asked only for a dish of beggar’s broth. He would rightly be considered a rogue and a scoundrel, who had made a mockery of the imperial majesty’s command

52

53

54

55

56

57

and was unworthy to come into his presence. Just so, it is

a great reproach and dishonor to God if we, to whom he offers and pledges so many inexpressible blessings, despise them or lack confidence that we shall receive them and scarcely venture to ask for a morsel of bread. The fault lies wholly in that shameful unbelief that does not look to God even for enough to satisfy the belly, let alone expect, without doubting, eternal 171. That is, at the second coming of Christ.

172. German: Parteken; literally, token alms.

58

448

|

The Large Catechism

blessings from God. Therefore, we must strengthen ourselves against unbelief and let the kingdom of God be the first thing for which we pray. Then, surely, we shall have all the other things in abundance, as Christ teaches, “Strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well”173 For how could God allow us to suffer want in temporal things while promising eternal and imperishable things? The Third Petition 59 60

61

“May your will come about on earth as in heaven.” Thus far we have prayed that God’s name may be hallowed by us and that his kingdom may prevail among us. These two points embrace all that pertains to God’s glory and to our salvation, in which we appropriate God with all his treasures. But there is just as great need for us to keep firm hold on these two things and never to allow ourselves to be torn from them. In a good government there is need not only for good builders and rulers, but also for defenders, protectors, and vigilant guardians. So here also; although we have prayed for what is most necessary—for the gospel, for faith, and for the Holy Spirit, that he may govern us who have been redeemed from the power of the devil— we must also pray that God cause his will to be done. If we try to hold these treasures fast, we will have to suffer an astonishing number of attacks and assaults from all who venture to hinder and thwart the fulfillment of the first two petitions.

62

For no one can believe how the devil opposes and obstructs their fulfillment. He cannot bear to have anyone teach or believe rightly. It pains him beyond measure when his lies and abominations, honored under the most specious pretexts of God’s name, are disclosed and exposed in all their shame, when they are driven out of people’s hearts and a breach is made in his kingdom. Therefore, like a furious foe, he raves and rages with all his power and might, marshaling all his subjects and even enlisting the world and our own

63

9;9_#‘1 . At

64 65

flesh as his allies. For our flesh is in itself vile and inclined to evil, even when we have accepted God’s Word and believe it. The world, too, is perverse and wicked. Here the devil stirs things up, feeding and fanning the flames, in order to impede us, put us to flight, cut us down, and bring us once again under his power. This is his only purpose, desire, and thought, and for this end he strives without rest day and night, using all the arts, tricks, methods, and approaches that he can devise. Therefore we who would be Christians must surely expect to have the devil with all his angels!’# and the world as our enemies and must expect that they will inflict every possible misfortune and grief upon us. For where God’s Word is preached, accepted, or believed, and bears fruit, there the holy and precious 173. Matthew 6:33; Luke 12:31. 174. On the devil’s angels, see Matthew 25:41.

The Lord’s Prayer

449

cross will also not be far behind. And let no one think that we will have peace; rather, we must sacrifice all we have on earth—possessions, honor, house and farm, spouse and children, body and life. Now, this grieves our flesh and the old creature, for it means that we must remain steadfast, suffer patiently whatever

befalls us, and let go whatever is taken from us. Therefore, there is just as much need here as in every other case to ask without ceasing: “Dear Father, your will be done and not the will of the devil

66

67

or of our enemies, nor of those who would persecute and suppress your holy

Word or prevent your kingdom from coming; and grant that we may bear patiently and overcome whatever we must suffer on its account, so that our poor flesh may not yield or fall away through weakness or sloth.” Observe that in these three petitions we have needs that concern God himself in a very simple form, and yet everything has been for our sake. What we pray for concerns only ourselves in that, as mentioned above, we ask that what otherwise must be done without us may also be done in us. Just as God’s name must be hallowed and his kingdom must come even without our prayer, so must his will be done and prevail even though the devil and all his host bluster, storm, and rage furiously against it in their attempt to exterminate the gospel utterly. But we must pray for our own sake so that his will may be done also among us without hindrance, in spite of their fury, so that they may accomplish nothing and we may remain steadfast against all violence and persecution and submit to the will of God. : Such prayer must be our protection and defense now to repulse and vanquish all that the devil,'”> bishops, tyrants, and heretics can do against our gospel. Let them all rage and try their worst, let them plot and plan how to suppress and eliminate us so that their will and scheme may prevail. Against them a simple Christian or two, armed with this single petition, shall be our bulwark, against which they shall dash themselves to pieces. We have this comfort and boast: that the will and purpose of the devil and of all our enemies shall and must fail and come to naught, no matter how proud, secure, and powerful they think they are. For if their will were not broken and frustrated, the kingdom of God could not abide on earth nor his name be hallowed.

68

69

70

The Fourth Petition

“Give us today our daily bread.” Here we consider the poor breadbasket—the needs of our body and our life on earth. It is a brief and simple word, but very comprehensive. When you say and ask for “daily bread,” you ask for everything that is necessary in order to have and enjoy daily bread and, on the contrary, against everything that interferes with enjoying it. You must therefore expand and extend your thoughts to 175. The 1538 Wittenberg edition of the Catechism and the German Book of Concord (1580) add: “pope”

71 72

450

73

The Large Catechism

include not just the oven or the flour bin, but also the broad fields and the whole land that produce and provide our daily bread and all kinds of sustenance for us. For if God did not cause grain to grow and did not bless it and preserve it in the field, we could never have a loaf of bread to take from the oven or to set upon the table. To put it briefly, this petition includes everything that belongs to our entire

life in this world, because it is only for its sake that we need daily bread. Now,

our life requires not only food and clothing!’® and other necessities for our body, but also peace and concord in our daily activities, associations, and situations of every sort with the people among whom we live and with whom we interact—in short, in everything that pertains to the regulation of both our domestic and our civil or political affairs.!”” For where these two spheres are interfered with and prevented from functioning as they should, there the necessities of life are also interfered with, and life itself cannot be maintained

74

75

for any length of time. Indeed, the greatest need of all is to pray for the civil authorities and the government, for it is chiefly through them that God provides us daily bread and all the comforts of this life. Although we have received from God all good things in abundance, we cannot retain any of them or enjoy them in security and happiness were he not to give us a stable, peaceful government. For where dissension, strife, and war prevail, there daily bread is already taken away or at least reduced. It would therefore be fitting if the coat of arms of every upright prince were emblazoned with a loaf of bread!”® instead of a lion!”? or a wreath of rue,!8 or if a loaf of bread were stamped on coins,!®! in order to remind both princes and subjects that it is through the princes’ office that we enjoy protection and peace and that without them we could neither eat nor preserve the precious gift of bread. Therefore, rulers are also worthy of all honor, and we are to render to them what we should and what we are able, as to those through whom we enjoy all our possessions in peace and quietness, because otherwise we could not 176. See 1 Timothy 6:8: “But if we have food and clothing, we will be content.” Until 1541 Luther rendered that passage, as he does here, as Futter und Decke, “feed and covering”; after 1541,

he translated it Nahrung und Kleider, “food and clothing.” 177. Luther always conceived society as formed by the three estates of medieval social theory: the household, the civil government, and the church. 178. In his sermon on the Catechism on 15 December

1528 (WA 30/1: 103, 22-104, 2; LW

51:177), Luther recommended the reverse, saying that the image of the emperor or prince should be impressed on loaves of bread. . 179. A black lion on gold was on the coat of arms of the March of Meissen, in the domains of ducal Saxony, ruled by Duke George, a cousin of Elector John, Luther’s prince at this time; a redand-white striped lion on blue decorated the coat of arms of the County of Thuringia, which lay in the domains of Elector John.

180. For example, on the coat of arms of Electoral Saxony. Rue is a woody or bushy herb native to Europe that was much used as a drug in medieval and later medicine. 181. The Lowenpfenning, “lion-penny,” of Saxony and Brunswick showed a lion on the coat of arms.

The Lord’s Prayer

451

keep a penny. Moreover, we should pray for them, that through them God may bestow on us still more blessings and good things. Let us outline very briefly how comprehensively this petition covers all kinds of earthly matters. Out of it a person might make a long prayer, enumerating with many words all the things it includes. For example, we might ask God to give us food and drink, clothing, house and farm, and a healthy body. In addition, we might ask God to cause the grain and fruits of the field to grow and thrive abundantly. Then we might ask God to help us manage our household well by giving and preserving for us an upright spouse, children, and servants, causing our work, craft, or occupation, whatever it may be, to prosper and succeed, and granting us faithful neighbors, and good friends, etc. In addition, we may ask God both to endow with wisdom, strength, and prosperity the emperor, kings, and all estates, especially the princes of our land, all councilors, magistrates, and officials, so that they might govern well and be victorious over the Turks!®2 and all our enemies, and to grant their subjects and the general populace to live together in obedience, peace, and concord. Moreover, we might ask that he would protect us from all kinds of harm to our body and to the things that sustain us—from

76

77

78

storms, hail, fire, and flood; from poison,

pestilence, and cattle plague; from war and bloodshed, famine, savage beasts, wicked people, etc. It is good to impress upon the common people that all these things come from God and that we must pray for them. But especially is this petition directed against our chief enemy, the devil, whose whole purpose and desire it is to take away or interfere with all we have

79 80

received from God. He is not satisfied to obstruct and overthrow the spiritual

order, by deceiving souls with his lies and bringing them under his power, but he also prevents and impedes the establishment of any kind of government or honorable and peaceful relations on earth. This is why he causes so much contention, murder, sedition, and war, why he sends storms and hail to destroy crops and cattle, why he poisons the air, etc. In short, it pains him that anyone should receive even a mouthful of bread from God and eat it in peace. If it were in his power and our prayer to God did not restrain him, surely we would not have a straw in the field, a penny in the house, or even an hour more of life— especially those of us who have the Word of God and would like to be Christians. Thus, you see, God wishes to show us how he cares for us in all our needs and faithfully provides for our daily sustenance. Although he gives and provides these blessings bountifully, even to the godless and rogues, yet he wishes us to ask for them so that we may realize that we have received them from his hand and may recognize in them his fatherly goodness toward us. When he withdraws his hand,'83 nothing can prosper or last for any length of time, as 182. As Luther wrote his Catechisms, Turkish armies were advancing into the Holy Roman Empire; within a few months, in September 1529, they laid siege to Vienna. 183. A proverbial expression.

81

82

83

452

84

|

The Large Catechism

indeed we see and experience every day. How much trouble there is now in the world simply on account of false coinage, yes, on account of daily exploitation and usury in public business, commerce, and labor on the part of those who wantonly oppress the poor and deprive them of their daily bread! This we must put up with, of course; but let those who do these things beware lest they lose the common intercession of the church,!® and let them take care lest this peti-

tion of the Lord’s Prayer be turned against them.

The Fifth Petition 85

86

87

88

89

“And remit our debt, as we remit what our debtors owe.” This petition has to do with our poor, miserable life. Although we have God’s Word and believe, although we obey and submit to his will and are nourished by God’s gift and blessing, nevertheless we are not without sin. We still stumble daily and transgress because we live in the world among people who sorely vex us and give us occasion for impatience, anger, vengeance, etc. Besides, the devil is after us, besieging us on every side and, as we have heard, directing his attacks against all the previous petitions, so that it is not possible always to stand firm in this ceaseless conflict. Here again there is great need to call upon God and pray: “Dear Father, forgive us our debts.” Not that he does not forgive sins even apart from and before our praying; for before we prayed for it or even thought about it, he gave us the gospel, in which there is nothing but forgiveness. But the point here is for us to recognize and accept this forgiveness. For the flesh in which we daily live is of such a nature that it does not trust and believe God and is constantly aroused by evil desires and devices, so that we sin daily in word and deed, in acts of commission and omission. Thus our conscience becomes restless; it fears God’s wrath and displeasure, and so it loses the comfort and confidence of the gospel. Therefore it is necessary constantly to run to this petition and get the comfort

90

5’”"@?-1, ; Fa

a1

92

that will restore our conscience. This should serve God’s purpose to break our pride and keep us humble. He has reserved to himself this prerogative: those who boast of their goodness and despise others should examine themselves and put this petition uppermost in their mind. They will find that they are no more righteous than anyone else, that in the presence of God all people must fall on their knees and be glad that we can come to forgiveness. Let none think that they will ever in this life reach the point where they do not need this forgiveness. In short, unless God constantly forgives, we are lost. : Thus this petition really means that God does not wish to regard our sins and punish us as we daily deserve but to deal graciously with us, to forgive as he has promised, and thus to grant us a joyful and cheerful conscience so that 184. The general prayer in the worship service. This is a proverbial expression, meaning “lose public respect.”

The Lord’s Prayer

453

we may stand before him in prayer. For where the heart is not right with God and cannot generate such confidence, it will never dare to pray. But such a confident and joyful heart can never come except when one knows that his or her sins are forgiven. There is, however, attached to this petition a necessary and even comforting addition, “as we forgive our debtors.” He has promised us assurance that everything is forgiven and pardoned, yet on the condition that we also forgive our neighbor. For just as we sin greatly against God every day and yet he forgives it all through grace, so we also must always forgive our neighbor who does us harm, violence, and injustice, bears malice toward us, etc. If you do not forgive, do not think that God forgives you. But if you forgive, you have the comfort and assurance that you are forgiven in heaven—not on account of your forgiving (for he does it altogether freely, out of pure grace, because he has promised it, as the gospel teaches) but instead because he has set this up for our strengthening and assurance as a sign along with the promise that matches this petition in Luke 6[:37], “Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Therefore Christ repeats it immediately after the Lord’s Prayer, saying in Matthew 6[:14], “If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. .. ” Therefore, this sign is attached to the petition so that when we pray we may recall the promise and think, “Dear Father, I come to you and pray that you will forgive me for this reason: not because I can make satisfaction or deserve anything by my works, but because you have promised and have set this seal on it, making it as certain as if I had received an absolution pronounced by you yourself” For whatever baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which are appointed to us as outward signs, can effect, this sign can as well, in order to strengthen and gladden our conscience. Moreover, above and beyond the other signs, it has been instituted precisely so that we can use and practice it every hour, keeping it with us at all times.

93

94 95 96

97

98

The Sixth Petition

“And lead us not into temptation.” We have now heard enough about the trouble and effort it takes to retain and persevere in all the gifts for which we pray. This, however, is not accomplished without failures and stumbling. Moreover, although we have acquired forgiveness and a good conscience and have been wholly absolved, yet such is life that one stands today and falls tomorrow. Therefore, even though at present we are upright and stand before God with a good conscience, we must ask once again that he will not allow us to fall and collapse under attacks and temptations. Temptation (or, as our Saxons called it in former times, Bekdrunge)!®> is of three kinds: of the flesh, the world, and the devil. For we live in the flesh and 185. This word (korunga or bikorunga), which was common in Old High German translations of the Lord’s Prayer, is still used today in Low German. Luther characterized the word as “very fine

99 100

101 102

454

103

The Large Catechism

carry the old creature around our necks; it goes to work and lures us daily into unchastity, laziness, gluttony and drunkenness, greed and deceit, into acts of fraud and deception against our neighbor—in short, into all kinds of evil lusts that by nature cling to us and to which we are incited by the association and example of other people and by things we hear and see. All this often wounds and inflames even an innocent heart. Next comes the world, which assails us by word and deed and drives us to anger and impatience. In short, there is in it nothing but hatred and envy, enmity, violence and injustice, perfidy, vengeance, cursing, reviling, slander, arrogance, and pride, along with fondness for luxury, honor, fame, and power. For no one is willing to be the least, but everyone wants to sit on top and be

104

seen by all. Then comes the devil, who baits and badgers us on all sides, but especially exerts himself where the conscience and spiritual matters are concerned. His purpose is to make us scorn and despise both the Word and the works of God, to tear us away from faith, hope, and love, to draw us into unbelief, false secu-

rity, and stubbornness, or, on the contrary, to drive us into despair, denial of

105

God, blasphemy, and countless other abominable sins. These are snares and nets; indeed, they are the real “flaming darts”!8¢ that are venomously shot into our hearts, not by flesh and blood but by the devil. Every Christian must endure such great, grievous perils and attacks—grievous enough even if they come one at a time. As long as we remain in this vile

life, where we are attacked, hunted, and harried on all sides, we are constrained

106

107 aiw'r.x’i},' . b

to cry out and pray every hour that God may not allow us to become faint and weary and to fall back into sin, shame, and unbelief. Otherwise it is impossible to overcome even the smallest attack. This, then, is what “leading us not into temptation” means: when God gives us power and strength to resist, even though the attack is not removed or ended. For no one can escape temptations and allurements as long as we live in the flesh and have the devil prowling around us. We cannot help but suffer attacks, and even be mired in them, but we pray here that we may not fall into them and be drowned by them. To experience attack, therefore, is quite a different thing from consenting to it or saying “Yes” to it.8” We must all experience it, though not to the same degree; some have more frequent and severe attacks than others. Young people, for example, are tempted chiefly by the flesh; adults and older people are old German.” By Saxony, Luther meant Lower Saxony; in the sixteenth century Plattdeutsch was spoken in Wittenberg. 186. Ephesians 6:16. 187. Luther wrote in An Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for Simple Laymen (1519) (WA 2:124, 26-29; LW 42:73): “Thus we read in the book of hermits [i.e., Jerome’s Lives of the Hermits] how a

young brother longed to rid himself of his evil thoughts. The aged father said to him, ‘Dear brother, you cannot prevent the birds from flying over your head, but you can certainly keep them from building a nest in your hair’ ” Luther frequently used this example in his writings.

The Lord’s Prayer

455

tempted by the world. Others, who are concerned with spiritual matters (that is, strong Christians), are tempted by the devil. But no one can be harmed by merely experiencing an attack, as long as it is contrary to our will and we would prefer to be rid of it. For if we did not experience it, it could not be called an attack. But to consent to it is to give it free rein and neither to resist it nor to pray for help against it. Accordingly we Christians must be armed and expect every day to be under

continuous attack. Then we will not go about securely and heedlessly as if the devil were far from us, but will at all times expect his blows and fend them off. Even if at present I am chaste, patient, kind, and firm in faith, the devil is likely at this very hour to send such an arrow into my heart that I can scarcely endure, for he is an enemy who never lets up or becomes weary; when one attack ceases, new ones always arise. At such times our only help and comfort is to run here and seize hold of the Lord’s Prayer and to speak to God from our heart, “Dear Father, you have commanded me to pray; let me not fall because of temptation.” Then you will see that the temptation has to cease and eventually admit defeat. Otherwise, if you attempt to help yourself by your own thoughts and resources, you will only make the matter worse and give the devil a wider opening. For he has a serpent’s head; if it finds an opening into which it can slither, the whole body will irresistibly follow. But prayer can resist him and drive him back.

108

109

110

The Last Petition

“But deliver us from the evil. AMEN.” In the Greek!®8 this petition reads, “Deliver or preserve us from the Evil One, or the Wicked One.” It seems to be speaking of the devil as the sum of all evil in order that the entire substance of our prayer may be directed against our archenemy. For it is he who obstructs everything for which we ask: God’s name or honor, God’s kingdom and will, our daily bread, a good and cheerful conscience, etc.

112 113

Therefore at the end we sum it up by saying, “Dear Father, help us to get rid of all this misfortune.” Nevertheless, this petition includes all the evil that may

114 115

the tragic misery and heartache, of which there is so incalculably much on earth. For because the devil is not only a liar but a murderer as well,'®* he incessantly seeks our life and vents his anger by causing accidents and injury to our bodies. He crushes some and drives others to insanity; some he drowns in water, and many he hounds to suicide or other dreadful catastrophes. ‘Therefore, there is nothing for us to do on earth but to pray without ceasing

116

befall us under the devil’s kingdom: poverty, disgrace, death, and, in short, all

188. The first edition of the Large Catechism reads erroneously, “In the Hebrew.” This error was corrected in later editions. 189. John 8:44.

456

117 118

119

120

121

122

123

124

’

The Large Catechism

against this archenemy. For if God did not support us, we would not be safe from him for a single hour. : Thus you see how God wants us to pray to him for everything that attacks even our bodily welfare so that we seek and expect help from no one but him. But he has placed at the end this petition, for if we are to be protected and delivered from all evil, his name must first be hallowed in us, his kingdom come among us, and his will be done. In the end he will preserve us from sin and disgrace and from everything else that harms or injures us. Thus God has laid before us very briefly all the afflictions that may ever beset us in order that we may never have an excuse for failing to pray. But the efficacy of prayer consists in our learning also to say AMEN to it—that is, not to doubt that our prayer is surely heard and will be answered. This word' is nothing else than an unquestioning word of faith on the part of the one who does not pray as a matter of luck but knows that God does not lie because he has promised to grant it. Where there is no faith like this, there also can be no true prayer. It is therefore a pernicious delusion when people pray in such a way that they dare not wholeheartedly add “Yes” and conclude with certainty that God hears their prayer. Instead, they remain in doubt, saying, “Why should I be so bold as to boast that God hears my prayer? I am only a poor sinner,” etc. That means that they are looking not at God’s promise but at their own works and worthiness, and thereby they despise God and accuse him of lying. Therefore they receive nothing, as St. James [1:6-7] says, “But ask in faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind; for the doubter . . . must not expect to receive anything from the Lord.” Look! God has attached much importance to our being certain so that we do not pray in vain or despise our prayers in any way.

Fourth Part: Concerning Baptism We have now finished with the three chief parts'®! of common Christian teaching. We must still say something about our two sacraments, instituted by Christ. For every Christian ought to have at least some brief, elementary PR Sghy

instruction about them, because without them no one can be a Christian,

although unfortunately nothing was taught about them in the past. First we shall take up baptism, through which we are initially received into the Christian community. In order that it may be readily understood, we shall treat 190. In An Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for Simple Laymen (1519) (WA 2:126, 29-31; LW

42:76), Luther wrote: “The little word ‘Amen’ is of Hebrew or Jewish origin. In German it means

that something is most certainly true. It is good to remember that this word expresses the faith that we should have in praying every petition.” 191. German: Héuptstiick. Luther used the word Héuptstiick in a twofold sense, meaning “major divisions” but also “chief articles” or “the most essential.” The present sense of “chief parts” of the Catechism derives from the Nuremberg Kinderbiichlein (1531).

Baptism

457

it in a systematic way and limit ourselves to that which is necessary for us to know. How it is to be maintained and defended against heretics and sectarians we shall leave to the scholars. In the first place, we must above all be familiar with the words upon which baptism is founded and to which everything is related that is to be said on the subject, namely, where the Lord Christ says in the last chapter of Matthew (28:19]:

“Go into all the world, teach all the heathen, and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”19? Likewise, in the last chapter of Mark [16:16]:

“The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.” Observe, first, that these words contain God’s commandment and institution, so that no one may doubt that baptism is of divine origin, not something devised or invented by human beings. As truly as I can say that the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer were not spun out of anyone’s imagination but are revealed and given by God himself, so I can boast that baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or

we shall not be saved, so that we are not to regard it as an indifferent matter,

like putting on a new red coat.!?? It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted. It is the chief cause of our contentions and battles because the world is now full of sects who scream that baptism is an external thing and that external things are of no use.!** But no matter how external it may be, here stand God’s Word and command that have instituted, established, and confirmed baptism. What God institutes and commands cannot be useless. Rather, it is a most precious thing, even though to all appearances it may not be worth a straw. If people used to consider it a great thing when the pope dispensed indulgences with his letters and bulls'®> and confirmed altars and churches solely by virtue of his letters and seals,!*® then we ought to regard baptism as much greater and more precious because God has commanded it. What is more, it is performed in his name. So the words read, “Go, baptize,” not “in your name” but “in God’s name.” To be baptized in God’s name is to be baptized not by human beings but by God himself. Although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God’s own act. From this fact everyone can easily conclude that it is of much 192. Luther’s translation. 193. A red coat was appropriate dress for a celebratory occasion. 194. This was an argument used by some radical preachers in the sixteenth century. 195. A bull is the most formal type of papal decree. It takes it name from the capsule (Latin: bulla) that contains the papal seal attached to the thick parchment of the document. Papal decrees of less universal significance are called “letters” or “briefs” and are written on thin parchment. 196. In Luther’s day, the pope “confirmed” that certain altars and churches were places where the benefits of indulgences could be obtained.

10

458

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

iy 18

The Large Catechism

greater value than the work of any human being or saint. For what human work can possibly be greater than God’s work? But here the devil sets to work to blind us with false appearances and to lead us away from God’s work to our own. It makes a much more splendid appearance when a Carthusian does many great and difficult works, and we all attach greater importance to our own achievements and merits. But the Scriptures teach that if we piled together all the works of all the monks in a heap, no matter how precious and dazzling they might appear, they would still not be as noble and good as if God were to pick up a straw. Why? Because the person performing the act is nobler and better. Here one must evaluate not the person according to the works, but the works according to the person, from whom they must derive their worth. But mad reason rushes forth!®” and, because baptism is not dazzling like the works that we do, regards it as worthless. ' Now you can understand how to formulate a proper answer to the question, What is baptism? Namely, that it is not simply plain water, but water placed in the setting of God’s Word and commandment and made holy by them. It is nothing else than God’s water, not that the water itself is nobler than other water but that God’s Word and commandment are added to it. Therefore it is sheer wickedness and devilish blasphemy that now, in order to blaspheme baptism, our new spirits!%® set aside God’s Word and ordinance, consider nothing but the water drawn from the well, and then babble, “How can a handful of water help the soul?” Yes, my friend! Who does not know that water is water, if it is considered separately? But how dare you tamper thus with God’s ordinance and rip out his most precious jewel, in which God has fastened and enclosed his ordinance and from which he does not wish it to be separated? For the real significance of the water lies in God’s Word or commandment and God’s name, and this treasure is greater and nobler than heaven and earth. Note the distinction, then: Baptism is a very different thing from all other water, not by virtue of the natural substance but because here something nobler is added, for God himself stakes his honor, his power, and his might on it. Therefore it is not simply a natural water, but a divine, heavenly, holy, and blessed water—praise it in any other terms you can—all by virtue of the Word, which is a heavenly, holy Word that no one can sufficiently extol, for it contains and conveys all that is God’s. This, too, is where it derives its nature so that it is called a sacrament, as St. Augustine taught, “Accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum,’!*® which means that “when the Word is added to the element or the natural substance, it becomes a sacrament,” that is, a holy, divine

thing and sign.

197. Instead of these words, the 1538 Wittenberg edition of the Catechism and the German Book of Concord (1580) have: “But our mad reason will not consider this.”

198. Those in the sixteenth century, especially Anabaptists, who denied infant baptism. 199. Tractate 80, on John 15:3 (MPL 35:1840; NPNF, ser. 1, 7:344), which reads accedit. Luther

frequently quoted this passage.

|

Baptism

459

Therefore, we constantly teach that we should see the sacraments and all

19

external mask (as we see the shell of a nut) but as that in which God’s Word is enclosed. In the same way we speak about fatherhood and motherhood and

20

external things ordained and instituted by God not according to the crude,

governmental authority. If we regard these people with reference to their noses, eyes, skin, and hair, flesh and bones, they look no different from Turks and heathen, and someone might come and ask, “Why should I think more of this person than of others?” But because the commandment is added, “You shall honor father and mother,” I see another person, adorned and clothed with the majesty and glory of God. The commandment, I say, is the golden chain around the neck,2% yes, the crown on the head, which shows me how and why I should honor this particular flesh and blood. In the same manner, and to an even greater extent, you should give honor and glory to baptism on account of the Word, for God himself has honored it by both words and deeds and has confirmed it by miracles from heaven. Do you think it was a joke that the heavens opened when Christ was baptized, that the Holy Spirit descended visibly,?%! and that the divine glory and majesty were manifested everywhere? I therefore admonish you again that these two, the Word and the water, must by no means be separated from each other. For where the Word is separated from the water, the water is no different from the water that the maid uses for cooking and could indeed be called a bath-keeper’s baptism.2%> But when the Word is with it according to God’s ordinance, baptism is a sacrament, and it is called Christ’s baptism. This is the first point to be emphasized: the nature and dignity of the holy sacrament. In the second place, because we now know what baptism is and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for what purpose it has been instituted, that is, what benefits, gifts, and effects it brings. Nor can we better understand this than from the words of Christ quoted above, “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved.”2?® This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but, as the words say, “to be saved.” To be saved, as everyone well knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death,

forever.

and

the devil, to enter into

Christ’s kingdom,

and

to live with

22

23

24 25

him

Here again you see how baptism is to be regarded as precious and important, for in it we obtain such an inexpressible treasure. This indicates that it

cannot be simple, ordinary water, for ordinary water could not have such an effect. But the Word does it, and this shows also, as we said above, that God’s

200. An insignia of office. 201. Matthew 3:16. 202. See Luther’s Sermon on Baptism (1534) (WA 37:642, 17-18): “A mere watery or earthly water, or (as the sectarians call it) a bathwater or dog’s bath .. 203. Mark 16:16.

21

26

460 27

The Large Catechism

name is in it. And where God’s name is, there must also be life and salvation. Thus it is well described as a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water, for it

is through the Word that it receives the power to become the “washing of regeneration,” as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3[:5].

28

29

Our know-it-alls, the new spirits,?** claim that faith alone saves and that works and external things add nothing to it. We answer: It is true, nothing that

is in us does it but faith, as we shall hear later on. But these leaders of the blind

are unwilling to see that faith must have something to believe—something to

which it may cling and upon which it may stand. Thus faith clings to the water

and believes it to be baptism, in which there is sheer salvation and life, not through the water, as we have sufficiently stated, but through its incorporation with God’s Word and ordinance and the joining of his name to it. When 1

30

believe this, what else is it and implanted his Word in in which we can grasp this Now, these people are which faith is attached and thing external. Yes, it must

but believing in God as the one who has bestowed baptism and has offered us this external thing withtreasure? so foolish as to separate faith from the object to secured, all on the grounds that the object is somebe external so that it can be perceived and grasped

by the senses and thus brought into the heart, just as the entire gospel is an external, oral proclamation. In short, whatever God does and effects in us he desires to accomplish through such an external ordinance. No matter where he

speaks—indeed, no matter for what purpose or through what means he

31

32

33

speaks—there faith must look and to it faith must hold on. We have here the words, “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved.” To what do they refer if not to baptism, that is, the water placed in the setting of God’s ordi-

nance? Hence it follows that whoever rejects baptism rejects God’s Word, faith, and Christ, who directs and binds us to baptism. In the third place, having learned the great benefit and power of baptism, let us observe further who the person is who receives these gifts and benefits of baptism. This again is most beautifully and clearly expressed in these same words, “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved,” that is, faith alone makes the person worthy to receive the saving, divine water profitably. Because such blessings are offered and promised in the words that accompany the water, they cannot be received unless we believe them from the heart. Without

faith baptism is of no use, although in itself it is an infinite, divine treasure. So this single expression, “The one who believes,” is so powerful that it excludes and drives out all works that we may do with the intention of gaining and mer-

iting salvation through them. For it is certain that whatever is not faith contributes nothing toward salvation and receives nothing. 35

But some are accustomed to ask, “If baptism is itself a work and you say

that works are of no use for salvation, what place is there for faith?” Answer:

Yes, it is true that our works are of no use for salvation. Baptism, however, is 204. Zwinglians or Anabaptists.

Baptism

461

not our work, but God’s work (for, as was said, you must distinguish Christ’s baptism quite clearly from a bath-keeper’s baptism). God’s works are salutary and necessary for salvation, and they do not exclude but rather demand?% faith, for without faith one cannot grasp them. Just by allowing the water to be poured over you, you do not receive or retain baptism in such a manner that it does you any good. But it becomes beneficial to you if you accept it as God’s command and ordinance, so that, baptized in God’s name, you may receive in the water the promised salvation. Neither the hand nor the body can do this, but rather the heart must believe it. Thus you see plainly that baptism is not a work that we do but that itis a treasure that God gives us and faith grasps, just as the Lorp Christ upon the cross is not a work but a treasure placed in the setting of the Word and offered to us in the Word and received by faith. Therefore, those who cry out against us as if we were preaching against faith do commit violence against us. Actually, we insist on faith alone as so necessary that without it nothing can be received or enjoyed. Thus we have considered the three things that must be known about this sacrament, especially that it is God’s ordinance and is to be held in all honor. This alone would be enough, even if baptism were an entirely external thing. Similarly the commandment, “You shall honor father and mother,” refers only to human flesh and blood, yet we look not at the flesh and blood but at God’s commandment in which it is set and on account of which this flesh is called father and mother. In the same way, even if we had nothing more than these words, “Go and baptize,” etc., we would still have to accept it as God’s ordinance and perform it. But here we have not only God’s commandment and injunction, but the promise as well. Therefore it is far more glorious than anything else God has commanded and ordained; in short, it is so full of comfort and grace that heaven and earth cannot comprehend it. However, a special knack belongs here: that each person believe it. For it is not the treasure that is lacking; rather, what is lacking is that it should be grasped and held firmly. In baptism, therefore, every Christian has enough to study and practice all his or her life. Christians always have enough to do to believe firmly what baptism promises and brings—victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God’s grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit with his gifts. In short, the

blessings of baptism are so boundless that if our timid nature considers them, it may well doubt whether they could all be true. Suppose there were a physician who had so much skill that people would not die, or even though they died?% would afterward live eternally. Just think how the world would snow and rain money upon such a person! Because of the throng of rich people

205. Luther’s word fodern may mean both “demand” (forden) and “further” (fordern). Obsopoeus’s Latin translation of the Catechism understood the word here as “demand,” rendering it with the word requirunt. 206. The 1538 Wittenberg edition of the Catechism and the German Book of Concord (1580) add: “would be restoredto life and.”

36

37

38

39

40 41 42 43

462

44 45

46

The Large Catechism

crowding around, no one else would be able to get near. Now, here in baptism there is brought, free of charge, to every person’s door just such a treasure and medicine that swallows up death?” and keeps all people alive. Thus, we must regard baptism and put it to use in such a way that we may draw strength and comfort from it when our sins or conscience oppress us, and say: “But I am baptized! And if I have been baptized, I have the promise that shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body.” This is the reason why these two things are done in baptism; the body has water poured over it, because all it can receive is the water, and in addition the Word is spoken so that the soul may receive it. Because the water and the Word together constitute one baptism, both body and soul shall be saved and live forever: the soul through the Word in which it believes, the body because it is united with the soul and apprehends baptism in the only way it can. No greater jewel, therefore, can adorn our body and soul than baptism, for through it we become completely holy and blessed, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire.

Let this suffice concerning the nature, benefits, and use of baptism as serves the present purpose. [Infant Baptism J2°8 47 48

49

At this point we come to a question that the devil uses to confuse the world through his sects, namely, about infant baptism.?® Do children believe, and is it right to baptize them? To this we reply briefly: Let the simple dismiss this question and leave it to the learned. But if you wish to answer, then reply in this way: That the baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from his own work. God has sanctified many who have been thus baptized and has given them the Holy Spirit. Even today there still are many whose teaching and life attest that they have the Holy Spirit. Similarly by God’s grace we have been given the power to interpret the Scriptures and to know Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Spirit. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, he would not have given any of them the Holy Spirit—or any part of him. In short, all this time down to the present day there would have been no person on earth who could have been a Christian. Because God has confirmed baptism through the bestowal of his Holy Spirit, as we have perceived in some

207. Isaiah 25:7. 208. This heading was not in the original printing. It was placed in the margin in the second edition (1529) and in the German editions of 1530 and 1538, and first inserted in the text in the German Book of Concord (1580).

209. The reference to sects is to groups that denied the propriety of baptizing infants. On infant baptism, see Luther’s Concerning Rebaptism: A Letter of Martin Luther to Two Pastors (1528) (WA 26:144-74; LW 40:225-62).

Baptism

463

of the Fathers, such as St. Bernard,?!? Gerson,?!! John Huss,2!2 and others,?!3

and because the holy Christian church will not disappear until the end of the world, so they?!4 must confess that it is pleasing to God. For he cannot contradict himself, support lies and wickedness, or give his grace or Spirit for such ends. This is just about the best and strongest proof for the simple and unlearned. For no one can take from us or overthrow this article, “I believe in one holy Christian church, the communion of saints,” etc.

51

Further, we say, we do not put the main emphasis on whether the person baptized believes or not, for in the latter case baptism does not become invalid. Everything depends upon the Word and commandment of God. This is a rather subtle point, perhaps, but it is based upon what I have said, that baptism is simply water and God’s Word in and with each other; that is, when the Word accompanies the water, baptism is valid, even though faith is lacking. For my faith does not make baptism; rather, it receives baptism. Baptism does not become invalid if it is not properly received or used, as I have said, for it is not bound to our faith but to the Word. Even though a Jew should come today deceitfully and with an evil purpose, and we baptized him in good faith, we ought to say that his baptism was nonetheless valid. For there would be water together with God’s Word, even though he failed to receive it properly. Similarly, those who partake unworthily of the sacrament?! receive the true sacrament even though they do not

52

Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is absurd. As we said, even if infants did not believe—which, however, is not the case, as we have proved— still the baptism would be valid and no one should rebaptize them. Similarly,

55

believe.

53

54

\

the sacrament is not vitiated if someone approaches it with an evil purpose.

Moreover, that same person would not be permitted to take it again the very same hour, as if not having ment the first time. That would be to blaspheme and in the worst way. How dare we think that God’s Word wrong and invalid because we use it wrongly?

on account of truly received desecrate the and ordinance

that abuse the sacrasacrament should be

Therefore, I say, if you did not believe before, then believg now and confess,

“The baptism indeed was right, but unfortunately I did not receive it rightly.”

I myself, and all who are baptized, must say before God: “I come here in my

faith and in the faith of others, nevertheless I cannot build on the fact that I believe and many people are praying for me. Instead, I build on this, that it is 210. Luther frequently mentioned Bernard of Clairvaux as an example of piety. 211. Luther and other reformers greatly respected John Gerson for his support of conciliarism and his practical theology. 212. John Huss, who had been condemned and executed by the Council of Constance. 213. The 1538 Wittenberg edition of the Catechism and the German Book of Concord (1580)

add: “who were baptized in infancy” 214. Those who oppose infant baptism. 215. Here and in par. 55 and 56, the Lord’s Supper.

56

464

The Large Catechism

your Word and command” In the same way I go to the Sacrament Altar] not on the strength of my own faith, but on the strength of Word. I may be strong or weak; I leave that for God to decide. This however—that he has commanded me to go, eat, and drink, etc., and gives me his body and blood; he will not lie or deceive me.

57

58

59

60

61

62

[of the Christ’s I know, that he

Thus we do the same with infant baptism. We bring the child with the intent and hope that it may believe, and we pray God to grant it faith. But we do not baptize on this basis, but solely on the command of God. Why? Because we know that God does not lie. My neighbor and I—in short, all people—may deceive and mislead, but God’s Word cannot deceive. Therefore only presumptuous and stupid spirits draw the conclusion that where there is no true faith, there also can be no true baptism. Likewise I might argue, “If I have no faith, then Christ is nothing.” Or again, “If [ am not obedient, then father, mother, and magistrates are nothing.” Is it correct to conclude that when people do not do what they should, the thing they misuse has no existence or value? Friend, rather reverse the argument and conclude this: Baptism does have existence and value, precisely because it is wrongly received. For if it were not right in itself, no one could misuse it nor sin against it. The saying goes, “Abusus not tollit, sed confirmat substantiam,”!¢ that is, “Misuse does not destroy the substance, but confirms its existence.” Gold remains no less gold if a harlot wears it in sin and shame. Let the conclusion therefore be that baptism always remains valid and retains its complete substance, even if only one person had ever been baptized and he or she did not have true faith. For God’s ordinance and Word cannot be changed or altered by human beings. But these fanatics are so blinded that they do not see God’s Word and commandment, and they regard baptism as nothing but water in the creek or in the pot, and a magistrate as just another person. And because they see neither faith nor obedience, they believe that these things also have no validity. Here lurks a sneaky, seditious devil who would like to snatch the crown from the rulers and trample it underfoot and would, in addition, pervert and nullify all God’s work and ordinances. Therefore we must be alert and well armed and not allow ourselves to be turned aside from the Word, by regarding baptism merely as an empty sign, as the fanatics dream. Finally,2!7 we must also know what baptism signifies and why God ordained precisely this sign and external ceremony for the sacrament by which we are first received into the Christian community. This act or ceremony consists of

216. A legal maxim, cited also in Concerning Rebaptism (1528) (WA 26:161, 25-26; LW 40:248), where Luther adds: “Gold does not become straw because a thief steals and misuses it.

Silver doesn’t turn into paper if it is dishonestly obtained by a usurer.” 217. Here, after the excursus on infant baptism, Luther resumes his general treatment of baptism with a fourth point. See par. 3, 23, and 32. In this section, Luther alternates using the terms “old Adam” (cf. Rom. 5:12—6:6) and “old creature” (alter Mensch).

Baptism

465

being dipped into the water, which covers us completely,?!® and being drawn out again. These two parts, being dipped under the water and emerging from it, point to the power and effect of baptism, which is nothing else than the slaying of the old Adam and the resurrection of the new creature, both of which must continue in us our whole life long. Thus a Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, begun once and continuing ever after. For we must keep at it without ceasing, always purging whatever pertains to the old Adam, so that whatever belongs to the new creature may come forth. What is the old crea-

66

ture? It is what is born in us from Adam, irascible, spiteful, envious, unchaste,

greedy, lazy, proud—yes—and unbelieving; it is beset with all vices and by nature has nothing good in it. Now, when we enter Christ’s kingdom, this corruption must daily decrease so that the longer we live the more gentle, patient, and meek we become, and the more we break away from greed, hatred, envy, and pride. ’ This is the right use of baptism among Christians, signified by baptizing with water. Where this does not take place but rather the old creature is given free rein and continually grows stronger, baptism is not being used but resis-

ted. Those who are outside of Christ can only grow worse day by day. It is as the proverb says, and it is the truth, “The longer evil lasts, the worse it becomes.”?!? If a year ago someone was proud and greedy, this year such a person is much more so. Vice thus grows and increases in people from youth on. A young child has no particular vices, but becomes vicious and unchaste as he

67

68

69 70

or she grows older. When he or she reaches adulthood, the real vices become

more and more potent day by day. | The old creature therefore follows unchecked the inclinations of its nature if not restrained and suppressed by the power of baptism. On the other hand, when we become Christians, the old creature daily decreases until finally destroyed. This is what it means truly to plunge into baptism and daily to come forth again. So the external sign has been appointed not only so that it may work powerfully on us but also so that it may point to something. Where faith is present with its fruits, there baptism is no empty symbol, but the effect accompanies it; but where faith is lacking, it remains a mere unfruitful sign. Here you see that baptism, both by its power and by its signification, comprehends also the third sacrament, formerly called penance,??® which is really 218. It was still customary in the sixteenth century to immerse the child tismal font (cf. LW 35:29; WA 2:727, 4-19). Another practice, which began tury, was that of infusion, pouring the baptismal water over the child three ~ 219. Luther frequently cited this proverb, also in the form: “The older, it lasts, the worse it is.” See WA 32:451, 33-34; LW 21:184.

three times in the bapin the fourteenth centimes. the stingier; the longer

220. In the Latin (and German), poenitentia (German: Bufle) meant either the sacrament

(penance), or the act of satisfaction enjoined by the priest (penitence), or the inward attitude of repentance. Luther occasionally referred to penance as a sacrament, but in doing so he regarded it as part of baptism, emphasizing the declaration of forgiveness, or absolution, pronounced by the administrator.

71

72 73

74

466 75

76

77 78

79 80

81

82

83

The Large Catechism

nothing else than baptism. What is repentance but an earnest attack on the old creature and an entering into a new life? If you live in repentance, therefore, you are walking in baptism, which not only announces this new life but also produces, begins, and exercises it. In baptism we are given the grace, Spirit, and strength to suppress the old creature so that the new may come forth and grow strong. Therefore baptism remains forever. Even though someone falls from it and sins, we always have access to it so that we may again subdue the old creature. But we need not have the water poured over us again. Even if we were immersed in water a hundred times, it would nevertheless not be more than

one baptism, and the effect and significance would continue and remain. Repentance, therefore, is nothing else than a return and approach to baptism, to resume and practice what has earlier been begun but abandoned. I say this to correct the opinion, which has long prevailed among us, that baptism is something past that we can no longer use after falling back into sin. This idea comes from looking only at the act that took place a single time. Indeed, St. Jerome is responsible for this view, for he wrote, “Penance is the second plank??! on which we must swim ashore after the ship founders,” [the ship] in which we embarked when we entered the Christian community.?2? This takes away the value of baptism, making it of no further use to us. Therefore it is incorrect to say this.??* The ship does not break up because, as we said, it is God’s ordinance and not something that is ours. But it does happen that we slip and fall out of the ship. However, those who do fall out should immediately see to it that they swim to the ship and hold fast to it, until they can climb aboard again and sail on in it as before. Thus we see what a great and excellent thing baptism is, which snatches us from the jaws?2¢ of the devil and makes us God’s own, overcomes and takes away sin and daily strengthens the new person, and always endures and remains until we pass out of this misery into eternal glory. Therefore let all Christians regard their baptism as the daily garment that they are to wear all the time. Every day they should be found in faith and with its fruits, suppressing the old creature and growing up in the new. If we want to be Christians, we must practice the work that makes us Christians, and let those who fall away return to it. As Christ, the mercy seat,?2> does not withdraw

from us or forbid us to return to him even though we sin, so all his treasures 221. Baptism was regarded as the first plank.

_

222. Epistle 130.9 to Demetrias (MPL 22:1115; NPNF, ser. 2, 6:266). See also Epistle 122.4 to Rusticus (MPL 22:1046; NPNF, ser. 2, 6:229); Epistle 147.3 to Fallen Sabinianus (MPL 22:1197; NPNE, ser. 2, 6:291); and Commentary on I[saiah, chaps. 3, 8-9 (MPL 24:65). Luther frequently

quoted this statement from Jerome.

223. The 1538 Wittenberg edition of the Catechism and the German Book of Concord (1580)

add: “or else it was never rightly understood.” 224, Literally, “throat” or “gullet.”

B

:

225. See Romans 3:25 (note: “place of atonement”); Hebrews 4:16.

The Sacrament of the Altar

467

and gifts remain. As we have once obtained forgiveness of sins in baptism, so forgiveness remains day by day as long as we live, that is, as long as we carry the old creature around our necks.

[Fifth Part:] The Sacrament of the Altar As we heard about Holy Baptism, so we must speak about the second sacrament in the same way, under three headings, stating what it is, what its bene-

fits are, and who is to receive it. All this is established from the words Christ

used to institute it. So everyone who wishes to be a Christian and to go to the

sacrament should know them. For we do not intend to admit to the sacrament and administer it to those who do not know what they seek or why they come. The words are these:?26 “Our Lorp Jesus Christ, on the night when he was betrayed, took the bread, gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. “In the same way also he took the cup after supper, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and said, “Take, drink of this, all of you. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” Here, too, we do not want to quarrel and dispute with those who despise and desecrate this sacrament. Instead, as in the case of baptism, we shall first

learn what is of greatest importance, namely, that the chief thing is God’s Word and ordinance or command. It was not dreamed up or invented by some mere human being but was instituted by Christ without anyone’s counsel or deliberation. Therefore, just as the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Creed retain their nature and value even if you never keep, pray, or believe them, so also does this blessed sacrament remain unimpaired and inviolate even if we use and handle it unworthily. Do you think God cares so much about our faith and conduct that he would permit them to affect his ordinance? No, all temporal things remain as God has created and ordered them, regardless of how we treat them. This must always be emphasized, for thus we can thoroughly refute all the babbling of the seditious spirits who, contrary to the Word of God, regard the sacraments as something that we do. Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and

blood

of the Lorp

Christ, in and

under

the bread

and wine, which

we

Christians are commanded by Christ’s word to eat and drink. And just as we said of baptism that it is not mere water, so we say here, too, that the sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine such as is served at the table. Rather, it is bread and wine set within God’s Word and bound to it.

226. Luther conflates the references to the institution of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; and Luke 22:19-20.

468 10

11

12

The Large Catechism

It is the Word, I say, that makes this a sacrament and distinguishes it from ordinary bread and wine, so that it is called and truly is Christ’s body and blood. For it is said, “Accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum,” that is, “When the Word is joined to the external element, it becomes a sacrament 22’ This saying of St. Augustine is so appropriate and well put that he could hardly have said anything better. The Word must make the element a sacrament; otherwise, it remains an ordinary element. Now, this is not the word and ordinance of a prince or emperor, but of the divine Majesty at whose feet all creatures should kneel and confess that it is as he says, and they should accept it with all reverence, fear, and humility. With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and declare: “Let a hundred thousand devils, with all the fanatics, come forward and say, ‘How can

13

14

15 16

17

19

20

bread and wine be Christ’s body and blood?’ etc. Still I know that all the spirits and scholars put together have less wisdom than the divine Majesty has in his littlest finger. Here is Christ’s word: ‘Take, eat, this is my body. ‘Drink of this, all of you, this is the New Testament in my blood, etc. Here we shall take our stand and see who dares to instruct Christ and alter what he has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take the Word away from the elements or view them apart from the Word, you have nothing but ordinary bread and wine. But if the words remain, as is right and necessary, then by virtue of them the elements are truly the body and blood of Christ. For as Christ’s lips speak and say, so it is; he cannot lie or deceive.” Hence it is easy to answer all kinds of questions that now trouble people— for example, whether even a wicked priest can administer the sacrament, and similar questions. Our conclusion is: Even though a scoundrel receives or administers the sacrament, it is the true sacrament (that is, Christ’s body and blood), just as truly as when one uses it most worthily. For it is not founded on human holiness but on the Word of God. As no saint on earth, yes, no angel in heaven can make bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood, so likewise can no one change or alter the sacrament, even through misuse. For the Word by which it was constituted a sacrament is not rendered false because of an individual’s unworthiness or unbelief. Christ does not say, “If you believe or if you are worthy, you have my body and blood,” but rather, “Take, eat and drink, this is my body and blood.” Likewise, when he says, “Do this” (namely, what [ now do, what I institute, what I give you and bid you take), this is as much as to say, “No matter whether you are worthy or unworthy, you have here his body and blood by the power of these words that are connected to the bread and wine.” Mark this and remember it well. For upon these words rest our whole argument, our protection and defense against all errors and deceptions that have ever arisen or may yet arise. Thus we have briefly considered the first part, namely, the essence of this sacrament. Now we come also to its power and benefit, for which purpose the 227. See n. 199 above.

The Sacrament of the Altar

469

sacrament was really instituted. For it is most necessary that we know what we should seek and obtain there. This is clear and easily understood from the words just quoted: “This is my body and blood, given and poured out For You for the forgiveness of sins.” That is to say, in brief, that we go to the sacrament because there we receive a great treasure, through and in which we obtain the forgiveness of sins. Why? Because the words are there, and they impart it to us! For this reason he bids me eat and drink, that it may be mine and do me good as a sure pledge and sign—indeed, as the very gift he has provided for me against my sins, death, and all evils. Therefore, it is appropriately called food of the soul, for it nourishes and strengthens the new creature. For in the first instance, we are born

anew

through baptism. However, our human flesh and blood, as I have said, have not lost their old skin. There are so many hindrances and attacks of the devil and the world that we often grow weary and faint and at times even stumble. Therefore the Lord’s Supper is given as a daily food and sustenance so that our faith may be refreshed and strengthened and that it may not succumb in the struggle but become stronger and stronger. For the new life should be one that continually develops and progresses. But it has to suffer a great deal of opposition. The devil is a furious enemy; when he sees that we resist him and attack the old creature, and when he cannot rout us by force, he sneaks and skulks about at every turn, trying all kinds of tricks, and does not stop until he has finally worn us out so that we either renounce our faith or lose heart??8 and become indifferent or impatient. For times like these, when our heart feels too sorely pressed, this comfort of the Lord’s Supper is given to bring us new strength and refreshment. Here again our clever spirits contort themselves with their great learning and wisdom; they rant and rave, “How can bread and wine forgive sins or strengthen faith?” Yet they have heard and know that we do not claim this of bread and wine—for in itself bread is bread—but of that bread and wine that are Christ’s body and blood and that are accompanied by the Word. These and no other, we say, are the treasure through which such forgiveness is obtained. This treasure is conveyed and communicated to us in no other way than through the words “given and shed for you.” Here you have both—that it is Christ’s body and blood and that they are yours as a treasure and gift. Christ’s body cannot be an unfruitful, useless thing that does nothing and helps no one. Yet, however great the treasure may be in itself, it must be set within the Word and offered to us through the Word, otherwise we could never know of it or seek it. Therefore it is absurd for them to say that Christ’s body and blood are not given and poured out for us in the Lord’s Supper and hence that we cannot have forgiveness of sins in the sacrament. Although the work took place on the cross and forgiveness of sins has been acquired, yet it cannot come to us in any other way than through the Word. How should we know that this took place or 228. A proverbial expression.

21

22

23

24 25 26

27

28

29

30

31

470

32

33

34

35

36

37

The Large Catechism

was to be given to us if it were not proclaimed by preaching, by the oral Word? From what source do they know of forgiveness, and how can they grasp and appropriate it, except by steadfastly believing the Scriptures and the gospel? Now, the whole gospel and the article of the Creed, “I believe in one holy Christian church . . . the forgiveness of sins,” are embodied in this sacrament and offered to us through the Word. Why, then, should we allow such a treasure to be torn out of the sacrament? They??? must still confess that these are the very words that we hear everywhere in the gospel. They can no more say that these words in the sacrament are of no value than they can dare to say that the whole gospel or Word of God apart from the sacrament is of no value. So far we have treated the whole sacrament from the standpoint both of what it is in itself and of what it brings and benefits. Now we must also consider who the person is who receives such power and benefit. Briefly, as we said above about baptism and in many other places, the answer is: It is the one who believes what the words say and what they give, for they are not spoken or preached to stone and wood but to those who hear them, those to whom he says, “Take and eat,” etc. And because he offers and promises forgiveness of sins, it can be received in no other way than by faith. This faith he himself demands in the Word when he says, “given For You” and “shed ror you,” as if he said, “This is why I give it and bid you eat and drink, that you may take it as your own and enjoy it.” All those who let these words be addressed to them and believe that they are true have what the words declare. But those who do not believe have nothing, for they let this gracious blessing be offered to them in vain and refuse to enjoy it. The treasure is opened and placed at everyone’s door, yes, upon the table, but it is also your responsibility to take it and confidently believe that it is just as the words tell you. Now this is the sum total of a Christian’s preparation to receive this sacrament worthily. Because this treasure is fully offered in the words, it can be grasped and appropriated only by the heart. Such a gift and eternal treasure cannot be seized with the hand. Fasting, prayer, and the like may have their place as an external preparation and children’s exercise so that one’s body may behave properly and reverently toward the body and blood of Christ. But the body cannot grasp and appropriate what is given in and with the sacrament. This is done by the faith of the heart that discerns and desires such a treasure. This is enough on this sacrament, as far as is necessary for general teaching purposes. What else there is to say about it belongs at a different time.?* In conclusion, now that we have the right interpretation and teaching concerning the sacrament, there is also great need to admonish and encourage us so that we do not let this great a treasure, which is daily administered and distributed among Christians, pass by to no purpose. What I mean is that those 229. Luther’s opponents in the Sacramentarian cont}éversy, the Zwinglians and Anabaptists. 230. Shortly after this, Luther wrote Admonition concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Lord (1530) (WA 30/2: 595-626; LW 38:91-137).

The Sacrament of the Altar

471

who want to be Christians should prepare themselves to receive this blessed sacrament frequently. For we see that people are becoming lax and lazy about

40

its observance. A great number of people who hear the gospel, now that the

pope’s nonsense has been abolished and we are freed from his compulsion and commands, let a year, or two, three, or more years go by without receiving the sacrament, as if they were such strong Christians that they have no need of it. Others let themselves be kept and deterred from it because we have taught that none should go unless they feel a hunger and thirst impelling them to it. Still others pretend that it is a matter of liberty, not of necessity, and that it is enough if they simply believe. Thus the great majority go so far that they become quite barbarous and ultimately despise both the sacrament and God’s Word. Now it is true, as we have said, that no one under any circumstances should be forced or compelled, lest we institute a new slaughter of souls. Nevertheless, it must be understood that such people who abstain and absent themselves from the sacrament over a long period of time are not to be considered Christians. For Christ did not institute the sacrament for us to treat it as a spectacle, but he commanded his Christians to eat and drink it and thereby remember him.

41

42

Indeed, true Christians who cherish and honor the sacrament should of

43

talk a little about this. As in other matters that have to do with faith, love, and

44

their own accord urge and constrain themselves to go. However, in order that the simple people and the weak, who would also like to be Christians, may be induced to see the reason and the need for receiving the sacrament, we shall

patience, it is not enough just to teach and to instruct, but there must also be daily exhortation, so that on this subject we must be persistent in preaching, lest people become indifferent and bored. For we know and feel how the devil always sets himself against this and every other Christian activity, hounding and driving people from it as much as he can. In the first place, we have a clear text in the very words of Christ, “Do THIs in remembrance of me.” These are words that instruct and command us, urg-

45

ing all those who want to be Christians to partake of the sacrament. Therefore, whoever wants to be a disciple of Christ—it is those to whom he is speaking

here—must faithfully hold to this sacrament, not from compulsion, forced by

humans, but to obey and please the Lord Christ. However, you may say, “But the words are added, ‘as often as you do it’; so he compels no one, but leaves it to our free choice.” Answer: That is true, but it does not say that we should never partake of it. Indeed, precisely his words, “as often as you do it,” imply that we should do it frequently. And they are added because he wishes the sacrament to be free, not bound to a special time like the Passover, which the Jews were obligated to eat only once a year, precisely on the evening of the fourteenth day of the first full moon,?*! without variation of a single day. He means 231. Leviticus 23:5. ,

46

47

472

48

49

The Large Catechism

to say: “I am instituting a Passover or Supper for you, which you shall enjoy not just on this one evening of the year, but frequently, whenever and wherever you will, according to everyone’s opportunity and need, being bound to no special place or time” (although the pope afterward perverted it and turned it back into a Jewish feast).?32

Thus you see that we are not granted liberty to despise the sacrament. For I call it despising when people, with nothing to hinder them, let a long time elapse without ever desiring the sacrament. If you want such liberty, you may just as well take the further liberty not to be a Christian; then you need not believe or pray, for the one is just as much Christ’s commandment as the other. But if you want to be a Christian, you must from time to time satisfy and obey

50

51

52

53

56

this commandment. For such a commandment should always move you to examine yourself and think: “See, what sort of Christian am I? If I were one, I would surely have at least a little desire to do what my Lord has commanded me to do.” Indeed, because we show such an aversion toward the sacrament, people can easily sense what sort of Christians we were under the papacy when we went to the sacrament purely from compulsion and fear of human commandments, without joy and love and even without regard for Christ’s commandment. But we neither force nor compel anyone, nor need anyone do so in order to serve or please us. What should move and induce you is that he desires it, and it pleases him. You should not let yourself be forced by human beings either to faith or to any good work. All we are doing is to urge you to do what you ought to do, not for our sake but for your own. He invites and incites you, and if you want to show contempt for his sacrament, you must answer for it yourself. This is the first point, especially for the benefit of the cold and indifferent, that they may come to their senses and wake up. It is certainly true, as I have found in my own experience, and as everyone will find in his or her own case, that if a person stays away from the sacrament, day by day he or she will become more and more callous and cold and will eventually spurn it altogether. To avoid this, we must examine our heart and conscience and act like a person who really desires to be right with God. The more we do this, the more our heart will be warmed and kindled, and it will not grow entirely cold. But suppose you say, “What if I feel that I am unfit?” Answer: This is my struggle as well, especially inherited from the old order under the pope when we tortured ourselves to become so perfectly pure that God might not find the least blemish in us. Because of this we became so timid that everyone was thrown into consternation, saying, “Alas, you are not worthy!” Then nature and reason begin to contrast our unworthiness with this great and precious blessing, and it appears like a dark lantern in contrast to the bright sun, or as manure 232. At the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) it was decreed that Christians should “receive at

least during Easter time the sacrament of the Eucharist.”

The Sacrament of the Altar

473

in contrast to jewels; then because they see this, such people will not go to the sacrament and wait until they are prepared, until one week passes into another and one half-year into yet another. If you choose to fix your eye on how good and pure you are, to wait until nothing torments you, you will never go. For this reason we must make a distinction here among people. Those who are impudent and unruly ought to be told to stay away, for they are not ready to receive the forgiveness of sins because they do not desire it and do not want to be righteous. The others, however, who are not so callous and dissolute but would like to be good, should not absent themselves, even though in other respects they are weak and frail. As St. Hilary has also said, “Unless a person has committed such a sin that he has to be expelled from the congregation and has forfeited the name of Christian, he should not exclude himself from the sacrament,” lest he deprive himself of life.?3? People never get to the point that they do not retain many common infirmities in their flesh and blood. People with such misgivings must learn that it is the highest art to realize that this sacrament does not depend upon our worthiness. For we are not baptized because we are worthy and holy, nor do we come to confession as if we were pure and without sin; on the contrary, we come as poor, miserable people, precisely because we are unworthy. The only exception would be the person who desires no grace and absolution and has no intention of improving. But those who earnestly desire grace and comfort should compel themselves to go and allow no one to deter them, saying, “I would really like to be worthy, but I come not on account of any worthiness of mine, but on account of your Word, because you have commanded it and I want to be your disciple, regardless of my worthiness.” This is difficult, however, for we always have this obstacle and hindrance to contend with, that we concentrate more upon ourselves than upon the words that come from Christ’s lips. Nature would like to act in such a way that it may rest and rely firmly upon itself; otherwise it refuses to take a step. Let this suffice for the first point. In the second place, a promise is attached to the commandment, as we heard above, which should most powerfully draw and impel us. Here stand the gracious and lovely words, “This is my body, given For you,” “This is my blood, shed For You for the forgiveness of sins.” These words, as I have said, are not preached to wood or stone but to you and me; otherwise he might just as well have kept quiet and not instituted a sacrament. Ponder, then, and include yourself personally in the “you” so that he may not speak to you in vain. For in this sacrament he offers us all the treasures he brought from heaven for us, to which he most graciously invites us in other places, as when he says in Matthew 11[:28]: “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying 233. Gratian, Decretum 111, dist. 2, chap. 15, quoting Hilary: “If a man’s sins are not so great as to require excommunication, he must not exclude himself from the medicine of the Lord’s body.”

The passage, however, is to be found in Augustine, Epistle 54, c. 3 (MPL 33:201; NPNF, ser. 1, 1:301).

:

57 58

59

60 61

62

63

64 65

66

474 67 68

69

70

The Large Catechism

heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.” Surely it is a sin and a shame that, when he so tenderly and faithfully summons and exhorts us for our highest and greatest good, we regard it with such disdain, neglecting it so long that we grow quite cold and callous and lose all desire and love for it. We must never regard the sacrament as a harmful thing from which we should flee, but as a pure, wholesome, soothing medicine that aids you and gives life in both soul and body. For where the soul is healed, the body is helped as well. Why, then, do we act as if the sacrament were a poison that would kill us if we ate of it? Of course, it is true that those who despise the sacrament and lead unchristian lives receive it to their harm and damnation. To such people nothing can be good or wholesome, just as when a sick person willfully eats and drinks what is forbidden by the physician. But those who feel their weakness, who are anxious to be rid of it and desire help, should regard and use the sacrament as a precious antidote against the poison in their systems. For here in the sacra-

71

ment you are to receive from Christ’s lips the forgiveness of sins, which contains and brings with it God’s grace and Spirit with all his gifts, protection, defense, and power against death, the devil, and every trouble. Thus you have on God’s part both the commandment and the promise of the Lord Christ. Meanwhile, on your part, you ought to be induced by your own need, which hangs around your neck and which is the very reason for this command, invitation, and promise. For he himself says [Matt. 9:12], “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick,” that is, those who labor and are burdened with sin, fear of death, and the attacks of the flesh

72 73 74

75

76

and the devil. If you are burdened and feel your weakness, go joyfully to the sacrament and let yourself be refreshed, comforted, and strengthened. For if you wait until you are rid of your burden in order to come to the sacrament purely and worthily, you will have to stay away from it forever. In such a case he pronounces the verdict, “If you are pure and upright, you have no need of me and I also have no need of you.” Therefore the only ones who are unworthy are those who do not feel their burdens nor admit to being sinners. Suppose you say, “What shall I do if I cannot feel this need or if I do not experience hunger and thirst for the sacrament?” Answer: For those in such a state of mind that they cannot feel it, I know no better advice than that they put their hands to their bosom to determine whether they are made of flesh and blood. If you find that you are, then for your own good turn to St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians and hear what are the fruits of your flesh: “Now the works of the flesh (he says) are obvious: adultery, fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these.”2** For this reason, if you cannot feel the need, at least believe the Scriptures. They will not lie to you, since they know your flesh better than you yourself do. 234. Galatians 5:19-20. As he does in his translation of the Bible, Luther follows the reading that includes “murder” in the text, and translates porneia as “adultery, fornication.”

The Sacrament of the Altar

475

Yes, and St. Paul concludes in Romans 7[:18], “For I know that nothing good

dwells within me, that is, in my flesh.” If St. Paul speaks this way of his own

flesh, let us not wish to be better or holier. But the fact that we do not feel it is

all the worse, for it is a sign that ours is a leprous flesh, which feels nothing although it rages with disease and gnaws away at itself. As we have said, even if you are so utterly dead in sin, at least believe the Scriptures, which pronounce this judgment upon you. In short, the less you feel your sins and infirmities, the more reason you have to go to the sacrament and seek its help and remedy. Again, look around you and see whether you are also in the world. If you do not know, ask your neighbors about it. If you are in the world, do not think that there will be any lack of sins and needs. Just begin to act as if you want to become upright and cling to the gospel, and see whether you will not acquire enemies who harm, wrong, and injure you and give you cause to sin and do wrong. If you have not experienced this, then take it from the Scriptures, which everywhere give this testimony about the world. Moreover, you will surely have the devil around you, too. You will not entirely trample him underfoot because our Lord Christ could not entirely avoid him. Now, what is the devil? Nothing else than what the Scriptures call him: a liar and a murderer.??> A liar who entices the heart away from God’s Word and blinds it, making you unable to feel your need or to come to Christ. A murderer who begrudges you every hour of your life. If you could see how many daggers, spears, and arrows are aimed at you every moment, you would be glad to come to the sacrament as often as you can. The only reason we go about so securely and heedlessly is that we neither imagine nor believe that we are in the flesh, in the wicked world, or under the kingdom of the devil. Try this, therefore, and practice it well. Just examine yourself, or look around a little, and cling only to the Scriptures. If even then you still feel nothing, you have all the more need to lament both to God and to your brother or sister. Take the advice of others and ask them to pray for you: never give up until the stone is removed from your heart. Then your need will become apparent, and you will perceive that you have sunk twice as low as any other poor sinner and are desperately in need of the sacrament to combat your misery. This misery, unfortunately, you do not see, unless God grants his grace so that you may become

77 78

79

80 81

82

83

84

more sensitive to it and hungrier for the sacrament. This happens especially

because the devil besieges you and continually lies in wait to trap and destroy you, soul and body, so that you cannot be safe from him for even one hour. How suddenly can he bring you into misery and distress when you least expect it! Let this serve as an exhortation, then, not only for us who are old and advanced in years,2% but also for the young people who must be brought up in Christian 235, John 8:44.

236. Luther was forty-five years old when the Large Catechism was published. In the previous year he had been afflicted with a series of serious illnesses.

85

476

The Large Catechism

teaching and in a right understanding of it. With such training we may more easily instill the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer into the

young so that they will receive them with joy and earnestness, practice them

from their youth, and become accustomed to them. For it is completely useless to try to change old people. We cannot perpetuate these and other teachings unless we train the people who come after us and succeed us in our office and work, so that they in turn may bring up their children successfully. In this way God’s Word and a Christian community will be preserved. Therefore let all heads of a household remember that it is their duty, by God’s injunction and command, to teach their children or have them taught the things they ought to know. Because they have been baptized and received into the people of Christ, they should also enjoy this fellowship of the sacrament so that they may serve us and be useful. For they must all help us to believe, to love, to pray, and to fight against the devil. Here follows an exhortation to confession.®” A Brief Exhortation to Confession

Concerning confession we have always taught that it should be voluntary and purged of the pope’s tyranny. We have been set free from his coercion and from the intolerable burden and weight he imposed upon the Christian community. Up to now, as we all know from experience, there has been no law quite so oppressive as that which forced everyone to make confession on pain of the gravest mortal sin. Moreover, it so greatly burdened and tortured consciences with the enumeration of all kinds of sin that no one was able to confess purely enough. Worst of all, no one taught or understood what confession is and how useful and comforting it is. Instead, it was made sheer anguish and a hellish torture because people had to make confession even though nothing was more hateful to them. These three things have now been removed and made voluntary: that we may confess without coercion or fear; that we are released from the torture of enumerating all sins in detail; finally, that we have the advantage of knowing how to use confession beneficially for the comforting and strengthening of our conscience. Everyone knows this now. Unfortunately, people have learned it only too well; they do whatever they please and take advantage of their freedom, acting as if they should or need not go to confession anymore. For a person quickly understands whatever gives us an advantage and grasps with uncommon ease whatever in the gospel is mild and gentle. But such pigs, as I have said, should not have the gospel or any part of it. Instead, they ought to remain under the pope and submit to being driven and tormented to confess, fast, etc., more than ever before. For anyone who will not believe the gospel, live according to it, and do what a 237. The section on confession was added first in the 1529 revised edition of the Catechism. It was omitted in the Jena edition of Luther’s works and in the German Book of Concord (1580), hence also in several later editions of the Catechism.

Confession

477

Christian ought to do should enjoy none of its benefits. What would happen if you wished to enjoy the gospel’s benefits but did nothing about it and paid no attention to it? For such people we shall provide no preaching, nor will they have our permission to share and enjoy any part of our liberty, but we shall let the pope or his kind bring them back into subjection and coerce them like a true tyrant. The rabble who will not obey the gospel deserve nothing but a jailer like this who is God’s devil and hangman. To the others who hear it gladly, however, we must always preach—exhorting, encouraging, and persuading them not to ignore such a precious and comforting treasure that the gospel offers. Therefore we also want to say something about confession in order to instruct and exhort the simple people. To begin with, I have said that, in addition to the confession that we are discussing here, there are two other kinds, which have an even greater right to be called the common confession of Christians. I refer to the practice of confessing to God alone or to our neighbor alone, asking for forgiveness. These two kinds are included in the Lord’s Prayer when we say, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,” etc. Indeed, the entire Lord’s Prayer is nothing else than such a confession. For what is our prayer but a confession that we neither have nor do what we ought and a plea for grace and a joyful conscience? This kind of confession should and must take place continuously as long as we live. For this is the essence of a genuinely Christian life, to acknowledge that we are sinners and to pray for grace. Similarly the second confession, which all Christians make toward their neigh- 10 bor, is also included in the Lord’s Prayer. We are to confess our guilt before one another and forgive one another before we come to God and ask for forgiveness. Now, all of us are debtors to one another; therefore we should and we may confess publicly in everyone’s presence, no one being afraid of anyone else. For it is true, 11 as the proverb says, “If one person is upright, so are they all”; no one behaves toward God or the neighbor as he or she ought. However, besides the sum total of our sin, there are also individual ones, when a person has provoked someone else to anger and needs to ask for pardon. Thus we have in the Lord’s Prayer a twofold 12 absolution: both our sins against God and against our neighbors are forgiven when we forgive our neighbors and become reconciled with them. Besides this public, daily, and necessary confession, there is also the secret con- 13 fession that takes place privately before a single brother or sister. This comes into play when some particular issue weighs on us or attacks us, eating away at us until we can have no peace nor find ourselves sufficiently strong in faith. Then we may at any time and as often as we wish lay our troubles before a brother or sister, seeking advice, comfort, and strength. This type of confession is not included in the 14 commandment like the other two but is left to all to use whenever they need it. Thus by divine ordinance Christ himself has placed absolution in the mouths of his Christian community and commanded us to absolve one another from sins. 23

238. Matthew 18:15/—19.

478

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

The Large Catechism

So if there is a heart that feels its sin and desires comfort, it has here a sure refuge where it finds and hears God’s Word because through a human being God looses and absolves from sin. Note, then, as I have often said, that confession consists of two parts. The first is our work and act, when I lament my sin and desire comfort and restoration for my soul. The second is a work that God does, when he absolves me of my sins through the Word placed on the lips of another person. This is the surpassingly grand and noble thing that makes confession so wonderful and comforting. In the past we placed all the emphasis on our work alone and were only concerned whether we had confessed purely enough. We neither noticed nor preached the very necessary second part; it was just as if our confession were simply a good work with which we could pay off God. Where the confession was not made perfectly and in complete detail, we were told that the absolution was not valid and the sin was not forgiven. Thereby the people were driven to the point that everyone despaired of confessing that purely (which was, of course, impossible), and no conscience could feel at peace or have confidence in the absolution. Thus they made the precious confession not only useless to us but also burdensome and bitter, to the manifest harm and destruction of souls. We should therefore take care to keep the two parts clearly separate. We should set little value on our work but exalt and magnify God’s Word. We should not go to confession as if we wanted to perform a magnificent work to present to God, but simply to accept and receive something from him. You dare not come and say how upright or how wicked you are. If you are a Christian, I know this well enough anyway; if you are not, I know it even better. But you must do it for this reason: to lament your need and allow yourself to be helped so that you may attain a joyful heart and conscience. No one needs to drive you to confession by commanding it. Rather, we say this: Whoever is a Christian, or would like to be one, has here the reliable advice to go and obtain this precious treasure. If you are not a Christian, and desire no such comfort, we shall leave you to another’s power. Hereby we completely abolish the pope’s tyranny, commandments, and coercion, for we have no need of them. For, as I have said, we teach this: Let those who do not go to confession willingly and for the sake of absolution just forget about it. Yes, and let those who go there relying on the purity of their confession just stay away from it. We urge you, however,

23

to confess and express your needs, not for the purpose of performing a work but to hear what God wants to say to you. The Word or absolution, I say, is what you should concentrate on, magnifying and cherishing it as a great and wonderful treasure to be accepted with all praise and gratitude. 2 If all this were clearly laid out, and along with that if the needs that ought to move and induce us to confession were clearly indicated, there would be no need of coercion or force. Their own consciences would persuade Christians and make them so anxious that they would rejoice and act like poor, miserable beggars who hear that a rich gift of money or clothes is being given out at a certain place; they would hardly need a bailiff to drive and beat them but would run

Confession

479

there as fast as they could so as not to miss the gift. Suppose, now, that the invitation were changed into a command that all beggars should run to the place, with no reason being given and no mention made of what they were to seek or receive there. How else would beggars go but with resentment, not expecting to receive anything but just letting everyone see how poor and miserable they are? Not much joy or comfort would come from this, but only a greater hostility to the command. In the same way the pope’s preachers have in the past kept silence about these wonderful, rich alms and this indescribable treasure; they have simply driven people together en masse just to show what sort of impure and filthy people they were. Who was able under those conditions to go to confession willingly? We, on the contrary, do not say that a person should look to see how full of filthiness they are or should reflect on their condition. Rather we give this advice: If you are poor and miserable, then go and make use of the healing medicine. Those who feel their misery and need will no doubt develop such a desire for confession that they will run to it with joy. But those who ignore it and do not come of their own accord, we let go their way. However, they ought to know that we do not regard them as Christians. Thus we teach what a wonderful, precious, and comforting thing confession is, and we urge that such a precious blessing should not be despised, especially when we consider our great need. If you are a Christian, you need neither my compulsion nor the pope’s command at any point, but you will force yourself to go and ask me that you may share in it. However, if you despise it and proudly stay away from confession, then we must come to the conclusion that you are not a Christian and that you also ought not receive the sacrament. For you despise what no Christian ought to despise, and you show thereby that you can have no forgiveness of sin. And this is a sure sign that you also despise the gospel. In short, we want nothing to do with compulsion. However, if anyone does not hear and heed our preaching and warning, we shall have nothing to do with such a person who ought not have any part of the gospel. If you are a Christian, you should be glad to run more than a hundred miles for confession, not under compulsion but rather coming and compelling us to offer it. For here the compulsion must be reversed; we are the ones who must come under the command and you must come in freedom. We compel no one, but allow ourselves to be compelled, just as we are compelled to preach and administer the sacrament. Therefore, when I exhort you to go to confession, I am doing nothing but exhorting you to be a Christian. If I bring you to this point, I have also brought you to confession. For those who really want to be upright Christians and free from their sins, and who want to have a joyful conscience, truly hunger and thirst already. They snatch at the bread just like a hunted deer, burning with heat and thirst, as Psalm 42[:1] says, “As a deer longs for flowing streams, so my soul longs for you, O God.” That is, as a deer trembles with eagerness for a fresh spring, so I yearn and tremble for God’s Word or absolution and for the sacrament, etc. In this way, you see, confession would be taught properly, and such a desire and love for

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33 34

480

35

The Large Catechism

it would be aroused that people would come running after us to get it, more than we would like. We shall let the papists torment and torture themselves and other people who ignore such a treasure and bar themselves from it. As for ourselves, however, let us lift our hands in praise and thanks to God that we have attained to this knowledge and grace.

[Formula of Concord] Editors’ Introduction to the Formula of Concord Every movement has a period in which its adherents attempt to sort out and organize the fundamental principles on which the founder or founders of the movement had based its new paradigm and proposal for public life. This was true of the Lutheran Reformation. In the late 1520s one of Luther’s early students, John Agricola, challenged first the conception of God’s law expressed by Luther’s close associate and colleague, Philip Melanchthon, and, a decade later, Luther’s own doctrine of the law. This began the disputes over the proper interpretation of Luther’s doctrinal legacy. In the 1530s and 1540s Melanchthon and a former Wittenberg colleague, Nicholas von Amsdorf, privately disagreed on the role of good works in salvation, the bondage or freedom of the human will in relationship to God’s grace, the relationship of the Lutheran reform to the papacy, its relationship to government, and the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. The contention between the two foreshadowed a series of disputes that divided the followers of Luther and Melanchthon in the period after Luther’s death, in which political developments in the empire fashioned an arena for these disputes. In the months after Luther’s death on 18 February 1546, Emperor Charles V finally was able to marshal forces to attempt the imposition of his will on his defiant Lutheran subjects and to execute the Edict of Worms of 1521, which had outlawed Luther and his followers. Military success in the Smalcald War of 1545-47 enabled the emperor to issue a new religious policy for Protestant principalities and cities within the empire at the 1548 imperial diet meeting in Augsburg. The “Augsburg Interim,” while suppressing distinctive Lutheran

teaching, required Protestants to return to obedience to the Roman pontiff

and to restore medieval doctrine and practice corresponding to Erasmian reform proposals of a moral and institutional sort. At the same time, the emperor had awarded the electorate of Saxony, the University of Wittenberg, and much of the territory of the Saxon elector John Frederick to the Lutheran

duke of (eastern) Saxony, Moritz, because Moritz had sided with him in the war against Moritz’s father-in-law, Philip of Hesse, and cousin, John Frederick. When Charles reneged on oral promises that Moritz would not have to abandon his Lutheran faith and insisted that Saxony also submit to the Augsburg Interim, Moritz commissioned his theologians from Wittenberg and Leipzig (in particular, Philip Melanchthon) to assist his secular advisers in drafting a compromise plan that would preserve Luther’s teaching while giving the appearance of compliance with imperial religious policy. This new plan for Saxon religious life was never officially adopted and only partially and selec481

482

Formula of Concord

tively introduced. However, under the label “the Leipzig Interim,” it aroused a storm of protest from many students of Luther and Melanchthon who felt themselves and their faith betrayed by their teacher and his colleagues. Melanchthon and his colleagues in Wittenberg had justified the compromises of the Leipzig Interim on the basis of the principle of adiaphora—things neither commanded nor forbidden in scripture. Thus, this dispute over ecclesias-

tical submission to the power of the state, over the freedom of the church to regulate its own affairs, and over the necessity of confessing the faith boldly and clearly in a time when compromise and concession are being forced on the church received the name “adiaphoristic controversy.” It erupted shortly after the formulation of the Saxon policy in late 1548 and continued for more than a decade (treated in FC X).

In connection with the debate over the so-called Leipzig Interim, the first of a series of disagreements began over the definition of aspects of the doctrine of salvation in the Lutheran Reformation. The Wittenberg professor George Major defended the document’s proposition that “good works are necessary for salvation,” and thereby aroused a storm of criticism from opponents

(later

called

“Gnesio-Lutherans”

[genuine

Lutherans]

by scholars;

Major and other Melanchthon students who remained closer to their preceptor were dubbed “Philippists”). These opponents believed that this proposi-

tion returned to a medieval reliance on works for salvation (FC IV). Out of

the debate over the role of works in salvation and the Christian life arose controversies between these two parties and even among the Gnesio-Lutherans over the uses of the law and the proper definition of the term “gospel” (FC 'V, VI). At the same time, in the early 1550s, both of these parties opposed the interpretation of Luther’s doctrine of justification advanced by Andrew Osiander, a longtime supporter of Luther in the city of Nuremberg, who had been forced to leave the city because of the Augsburg Interim and became professor at the University of Kénigsberg. Osiander, trained in the platonically influenced school of Old Testament interpretation according to Kabbala, believed that justification by grace through faith took place because the divine nature of Christ came to dwell in believers. All of Luther’s other followers held that God justified sinners through the word of forgiveness which conveys the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection to them and elicits trust in Christ (FC I1I). A related controversy regarding human and divine relationships and interaction in regard to salvation—the synergistic controversy—focused on the role of the human will in conversion (FC II). Out of this dispute grew another con-

troversy over the definition of original sin. Matthias Flacius Illyricus, a GnesioLutheran leader, whose contributions in hermeneutics (Key to the Sacred Scripture) and church history (organization of the Magdeburg Centuries) shaped those disciplines for several generations, taught that original sin is the formal substance of the fallen human creature, whose lack of faith depicts the image of Satan, and no longer the image of God (FCI).

Formula of Concord

483

A second series of disputes in the 1550s and 1560s pitted Lutherans against

John Calvin and his followers. Two schools of interpreters of Melanchthon’s

sacramental theology and Christology argued over the nature of the presence of Christ and his body and blood in the Lord’s Supper and related questions of the relationship between the two natures of Christ in his person (1564-74; FC

VII, VIII).

Almost as soon as these controversies began in the early 1550s both theologians and governments in Lutheran lands sought to reconcile differences and reach theological agreement on the issues under dispute. In 1554 (in Naumburg) and again in 1558 (in the Frankfurt Recess formulated largely by Melanchthon) the Evangelical princes of the Holy Roman Empire sought to establish unity through simple doctrinal statements. Gnesio-Lutheran opposition frustrated these attempts at ending disputes through simplistic formulations; governments supporting Gnesio-Lutheran positions issued their own

detailed confessions or confutations of errors instead. The text of the Augsburg Confession itself became an issue dividing the followers of the Wittenberg theologians in Naumburg in 1561. At a diet of Evangelical governments the Lutheran princes were challenged by one of their number, Frederick III of the Palatinate, who was moving in the direction of Calvin’s interpretation of the Lord’s Supper, to permit a broader definition of subscription to the Augsburg Confession than was acceptable to the GnesioLutherans. Attempts by theologians of this party to reconcile with Melanchthon and his circle in 1557 failed as well. This effort was renewed in 1568 and 1569 when Philippist and Gnesio-Lutheran theologians met at Altenburg in colloquy to reconcile their differences; the colloquy ended with the two parties further alienated from each other. Another campaign for concord began in 1569. Duke Christopher of Wiirttemberg, who had supported such plans for establishing concord once again among the Lutherans, sent his chief theological adviser, Jakob Andreae, to assist Martin Chemnitz and Nicholas Selnecker (on loan from Philippist electoral Saxony) in the reformation of the lands of the duke’s cousin, Duke

Julius of Braunschweig-Wolfenbiittel. Christopher commissioned Andreae to negotiate with Evangelical governments in north Germany during his sojourn

at Julius’s court to bring about concord among the theologians and administrations of the Lutheran cities and principalities. Andreae’s attempt to do so through a brief and simple document, his “Five Articles,” failed. However, during this effort he became alienated from the Philippist party and gravitated toward the Gnesio-Lutherans, in part under Chemnitz’s theological influence. In 1573 he issued his Six Sermons on the Disputes Dividing the Theologians of the Augsburg Confession with a call that all Lutherans reconcile on the basis of his formulations in these sermons, which largely favored the Gnesio-Lutheran side. Chemnitz, David Chytraeus of Mecklenburg, and other theologians were asked for their reactions. They requested a more formal theological statement from the theological faculty of Tiibingen, of which Andreae was a member. In

484

Formula of Concord

response to this request Andreae himself wrote the “Swabian Concord” of 1574, casting his formula for concord into the form requested by the North German theologians. Chemnitz and Chytraeus revised his thoughts into the “Saxon-Swabian Concord” of 1575. At the same time the Wiirttemberg government (now led by Christopher’s son, Ludwig) and the governments of Baden and Henneberg established a theological commission that met at the abbey of Maulbronn in January 1576 and produced another formula for concord, the “Maulbronn Formula.”

By this time Elector August of Saxony had discovered that the leading Philippist theologians in his lands—in spite of their efforts to keep the matter secret—had developed Melanchthon’s sacramental theology in a spiritualizing direction. The Formula of Concord itself uses the term “subtle sacramentarians” for this party. Traditionally they have been called “Crypto-Calvinists” according to the polemic of that day; in recent scholarship they are sometimes called “Crypto-Philippists” because they were trying to develop Melanchthon’s theology faithfully and at the same time held “secret” their spiritualizing interpretation of the Lord’s Supper. In 1574 these theologians and lay sympathizers

”?'.'Qé;i"ll .

were ousted from their leadership positions by August, and he invited Andreae to join the loyal Selnecker and others from his own ministerium in restoring a Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper to his lands. In this process he decided to join with Duke Julius and other Lutheran princes in sponsoring a drive for general concord among Lutheran ministeria and principalities. A committee was formed with four theologians; Andreae, Chemnitz, Chytraeus, and Selnecker; and two representatives from electoral Brandenburg, Andrew Musculus and Christopher Korner. This committee, with the aid of members of the electoral Saxon ministerium, took the Swabian-Saxon Concord and the Maulbronn Formula and fashioned from them the “Torgau Book” of 1576. Circulated for critique among the Evangelical ministeria throughout Germany, this document was reworked by these theologians into the “Bergen Book” of 1577, which became the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. Because its treatment of the disputes seemed too long to some of the princes, Andreae was commissioned to summarize it in what became the “Epitome” of the Formula of Concord. The Epitome and Solid Declaration were placed before the ministeria of the Evangelical lands of Germany. Andreae and others worked tirelessly in 1578 and 1579, conducting special colloquies with several ministeria, to win support from their churches, with some success. The Formula found approval by about two-thirds of the Evangelical churches of Germany and was then incorporated as the concluding document of the Book of Concord. The Book of Concord has served the churches that adopted it as a confessional standard for defining public teaching and ecclesiastical life, and its use has spread with the mission of those churches into lands in every inhabited continent. This translation has preserved many of the Latin phrases that the German text employed. (Longer Latin citations are indicated in the footnotes.) At the

Formula of Concord

485

time, technical theological vocabulary had not yet developed in German, and the authors of the Formula of Concord believed that points that hinged on such technical terms had to be made with the aid of the Latin. To provide readers with a better understanding of how the Solid Declaration developed, this translation also provides the textual analysis of the Solid Declaration based on George Fritschl’s reading of the source documents in The Formula of Concord, Its Origin and Contents (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1916). The following designations at the beginning of the paragraphs of the Solid Declaration indicate these sources. 2 = “Swabian Concord” by Jakob Andreae, 1573

b = David Chytraeus’s contributions to the “Saxon-Swabian Concord” of 1573

¢ = Martin Chemnitz’s contributions to the “Saxon-Swabian Concord” of 1573

d ¢ f r

= = = =

“Maulbronn Formula” “Torgau Book,” 1576 “Bergen Book,” 1577 Revisions of the earlier text made at Torgau or Bergen

486

*

Formula of Concord

A THOROUGH, CLEAR, CORRECT, and Final Repetition and Explanation of Certain Articles of the Augsburg Confession on Which Controversy Has Arisen for a Time among Certain Theologians Adhering to This Confession, Resolved and Settled according to the Direction of God’s Word and the Summary Formulation of Our Christian Teaching

[The Epitome] A Summary Epitome of the Articles in Controversy among the Theologians of the Augsburg Confession, Explained and Reconciled in a Christian Manner under the Guidance of God’s Word in the Following Repetition Concerning the Binding Summary, Rule, and Guiding Principle, according to which all teaching is to be judged and the errors which have arisen are to be explained and decided in Christian fashion.! 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone, as it is written, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Ps. 119[:105]), and Saint Paul: “If . .. an angel from heaven should proclaim to you something contrary, . . . let that one be accursed!” (Gal. 1[:8]).

Other writings of ancient or contemporary teachers, whatever their names may be, shall not be regarded as equal to Holy Scripture, but all of them together shall be subjected to it, and not be accepted in any other way, or with any further authority, than as witnesses of how and where the teaching of the prophets and apostles was preserved after the time of the apostles. 2. Immediately after the time of the apostles—in fact, while they were still alive—false teachers and heretics invaded the church. Against them the early church prepared symbola, that is, short, explicit confessions, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal, Christian creed and confession of the orthodox and true church of Christ, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. We pledge ourselves to these and thereby reject all heresies and teachings that have been introduced into the church of God contrary to them. 3. Concerning the division in matters of faith that has occurred in our times, we regard as the unanimous consensus and explanation of our Christian 1. On the background of the concordists’ composition of a “binding summary, rule, and guiding principle,” see SD 526 n. 7 below.

Epitome, Article I: Original Sin

487

faith and confession, especially against the papacy and its false worship, idola-

try, and superstition, and against other sects, as our symbol for this time, the

first, unaltered Augsburg Confession, which was delivered to Emperor Charles V at Augsburg in 1530 during the great diet of the empire, along with the Apology of this Confession and the Articles that were presented at Smalcald in 1537 and were signed at that time by the foremost theologians. And because these matters also concern the laity and the salvation of their souls, we pledge ourselves also to the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther, as both catechisms are found in Luther’s printed works, as a Bible of the Laity, in which everything is summarized that is treated in detail in Holy Scripture and that is necessary for a Christian to know for salvation. All teachings should conform to these directives, as outlined above. Whatever is contrary to them should be rejected and condemned as opposed to the unanimous explanation of our faith. In this way the distinction between the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments and all other writings is preserved, and Holy Scripture alone remains the only judge, rule, and guiding principle, according to which, as the only touchstone, all teachings should and must be recognized and judged, whether they are good or evil, correct or incorrect. The other symbols, however, and other writings listed above are not judges, as is Holy Scripture, but they are only witnesses and explanations of the faith, which show how Holy Scripture has at various times been understood and

interpreted in the church of God by those who lived at the time in regard to articles of faith under dispute and how teachings contrary to the Scripture were rejected and condemned.

L. Concerning Original Sin Status controversiae?

The Chief Question in This Dispute? Whether original sin is really, without any distinction, the corrupted nature, substance, and essence of the human creature, or indeed the most important

and best part of its essence, as the rational soul itself at the height of its devel-

opment and powers? Or whether, even after the fall, there is a distinction between the human substance, nature, essence, body and soul, and original sin,

in such a way that human nature is one thing and original sin, which is imbedded in the corrupted nature and which corrupts this nature, is another?

2. The Latin for “state of the controversy.” 3. On the parties involved in this dispute, see SD I, 531-35 nn.21-22, below.

488

Formula of Concord

Affirmative Theses The Pure Teaching, Faith, and Confession on the Basis of the Guiding Principle and Summary Explanation Set Forth Above 1. We believe, teach, and confess that there is a difference between original sin and human nature—not only as God originally created it pure, holy, and without sin, but also as we have it now after the fall. Even after the fall this nature still is and remains a creature of God. This difference is as great as the difference between the work of God and the work of the devil. 2. We also believe, teach, and confess that we must preserve this difference very carefully because the teaching that there is supposedly no difference between our corrupted human nature and original sin is contrary to the chief articles of our Christian faith on creation, redemption, sanctification, and the

resurrection of our flesh, and it cannot coexist with them. For God created not only the body and soul of Adam and Eve before the fall but also our body and soul after the fall, even though they are corrupted. God also still recognizes them as his own work, as it is written, Job 10[:8], “Your

hands fashioned and made me, together all around.” Furthermore, the Son of God assumed this human nature into the unity of his person—of course, without sin—and what he assumed was not another kind of flesh but our flesh. In this way he became our true brother. Hebrews 2[:14], “Since the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things.” And [2:16, 17], “He did not [assume the nature of] the angels but

of the descendants of Abraham; thus, he had to become like his brothers and ( % Neb 42/5 sisters in every respect,” apart from sin. @W\'%M w i Therefore, Christ also redeemed human nature as his creation, sanctifies it

as his creation, awakens it from the dead, and adorns it in glorious fashion as his creation. But he did not create, assume, redeem, or sanctify original sin. He will also not bring it to life in his elect. He will neither adorn it with glory nor save it. Instead, it will be utterly destroyed in the resurrection.’ From all this, it is easy to distinguish between the corrupted nature and the corruption which is embedded in this nature—through which this nature is corrupted.

3. On the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a slight corruption of human nature, but rather a corruption so deep that there is nothing sound or uncorrupted left in the human body or soul, in its internal or external powers. Instead, as the church sings, “Through Adam’s fall human

4. The concordists followed the Hebrew text. Like the Luther Bible, the NRSV note translates, “did not come to help.” In the Luther Bible the passage is glossed, “Nothing is in me that you have not made or that is not yours.” N 5. The arguments of par. 3-6 summarize one of the chief lines of argumentation used against the followers of Matthias Flacius.

Epitome, Article I: Original Sin

489

nature and our essence are completely corrupted.”® The damage is so indescribable that it cannot be recognized by our reason but only from God’s Word. The damage is such that only God alone can separate human nature and the corruption of this nature from each other. This separation will take place completely through death, at the resurrection, when the nature which we now have will rise and live eternally, without original sin—separated and severed from it—as it is written in Job 19[:26, 27], “I will be covered in my own skin, and in my flesh I shall see God, whom [ shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold.””

10

Negative Theses Rejection of the False Contrary Teaching 1. Therefore, we reject and condemn the teaching that original sin is only a reatus, that is, guilt, which results from someone else’s fault, without being any kind of corruption of our own nature.? 2. Likewise, that evil desires are not sin but are essential characteristics of our nature as it was created, as though the defect or damage discussed above were not truly sin for which the human creature apart from Christ is to be

11

3. Likewise, we also reject the Pelagian error,” which asserts that even after the fall human nature has remained uncorrupted and especially in spiritual matters remains completely good and pure in its naturalia, that is, in its natural powers. 4. Likewise, that original sin is only a slight, insignificant smudge that has been smeared on top of the human nature, a superficial stain, underneath which human nature retains its good powers, even in spiritual matters. 5. Likewise, that original sin is only an external obstacle for these good spiritual powers, and not a loss or lack of them, comparable to smearing a magnet with garlic juice.!® The juice does not take away the magnet’s natural powers but merely interferes with them. Or, it is said that this spot can easily be washed away, like a smudge from the face or paint from the wall.

13

regarded as a child of wrath.

6. Likewise, that in the human being, human nature and its essence are not

completely corrupted but that people still have something good about them,

6. A citation from the hymn of the Nuremberg city secretary, Lazarus Spengler (1523), Lutheran Worship 363, The Lutheran Hymnal 369. 7. According to the Luther Bible. 8. See SD I, nn. 31 and 32, on this and the following thesis. 9. The British monk Pelagius, Augustine’s opponent in the great controversy over grace and works of that time, lent his name to the view that salvation can be accomplished by human creatures apart from, or with the assistance of very little, divine grace. 10. Popular belief of the time.

12

14 15

16

490

17

18

19

20

21

'

Formula of Concord

even in spiritual matters, such as the capability, aptitude, ability, or capacity to initiate or effect something in spiritual matters or to cooperate in such actions. 7. On the other hand, we also reject the false teaching of the Manichaeans,!! when it is taught that original sin is something essential and autonomous that Satan infused into human nature and mixed together with it, as when poison and wine are mixed. 8. Likewise, that not the natural human

being, but something extraneous

and alien within the person commits sin, and thus not human nature but only original sin itself, which is in this nature, stands accused. 9. We!2 also reject and condemn as a Manichaean error when it is taught that original sin is really, without any distinction, the very substance, nature, and essence of the corrupted human being, and thus that there should be no suggestion of a difference between human nature after the fall in and of itself and original sin, nor should they be differentiated from each other in our thinking. [10.] Luther calls this original sin ‘nature-sin), ‘person-sin} ‘essential sin’, but

not in the sense that the nature, person, or essence of the human being in and of itself is original sin, without any distinction between the two. Rather with these expressions he made clear the difference between original sin, which is embedded in human nature, and other sins, which are called actual sins. [11.] For original sin is not a sin that a person commits; rather it is embed-

ded in the human being’s nature, substance, and essence. That means that even if no evil thought ever arose in the heart of the corrupted human being, no idle word were uttered, no evil deed done, nonetheless our nature is corrupted by original sin, which is implanted in us at birth in the sinful seed and which is a source of all other, actual sins, such as evil thoughts, words, and deeds, as it is

written, “Out of the heart come evil intentions . . ” [Matt. 15:19], and, “The

inclination of the human heart is evil from youth” [Gen. 8:21].

22

[12.] It is therefore good to note the different definitions of the word

“nature,” through which the Manichaeans conceal their error and simple people astray.!* For sometimes it means the essence of being, as when we say, “God created human nature.” Sometimes, means the good or bad quality embedded in a thing’s nature or

lead many the human however, it essence, as

when it is said, “It is the nature of the snake to bite,” and, “It is the nature or

11. The non-Christian thinker Mani lent his name to a radical dualism which posited more or less equally powerful divine forces or persons on the side of good and the side of evil. Opponents of Flacius and his followers used the term “Manichaean” to designate his view that original sin is the fallen human nature’s essence in its “formal” dimension, that is, in relationship to God. The

term “formal” was used in its Aristotelian sense of that which determines what a thing is as its design. The opponents’ equation of his views with those of the ancient Manichaeans was based on their fear of where his views could lead, not on Flacius’s actual teaching. 12. The following five paragraphs were considered asingle unit and numbered one through five in the German original. 13. Here “Manichaeans” is used as a designation for the Flacian party.

Epitome, Article II: Free Will

491

quality of the human being to sin; thus human nature is sin.” Here the word “nature” does not mean the substance of the human being but rather something which is embedded in that nature or substance. [13.] Concerning the Latin words substantia and accidens,'* since they are not biblical terms and are words unfamiliar to common people, they should not be used in sermons delivered to the common people, who do not understand them; the simple folk should be spared such words. But in the schools and among the learned these terms are familiar and can be used without any misunderstanding to differentiate the essence of a thing

23

24

from that which in an “accidental” way adheres to the thing. Therefore, these

words are properly retained in scholarly discussion of original sin. For the difference between God’s work and the devil’s work can be made most clear through these words because the devil cannot create a substance but can only corrupt the substance, which God has created, in an “accidental” way, with God’s permission.

I1. Concerning the Free Will Status controversiae

The Chief Question in This Dispute!® Because the human will is found in four dissimilar situations (1. before the fall; 2. after the fall; 3. after new birth; 4. after the resurrection of the flesh),!® the

primary question concerns only the human will and capacity in the second situation: what kind of powers do human beings have after the fall of our first parents, before rebirth, on their own, in spiritual matters? Are they able, with their own powers, before they receive new birth through God’s Spirit, to dispose themselves favorably toward God’s grace and to prepare themselves to accept the grace offered by the Holy Spirit in the Word and the holy sacraments, or not?

Affirmative Theses The Pure Teaching concerning This Article on the Basis of God’s Word 1. On this article it is our teaching, faith, and confession that human reason and understanding are blind in spiritual matters and understand nothing on the basis of their own powers, as it is written, “Those who are natural do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them and they are 14. On these terms, see SD 1, 540 n. 45, below. 15. On the parties involved in this dispute, see SD II, 543—44 nn. 57-60, below.

16. On this distinction, which stems from Augustine, see SD II, 543 n. 55, below.

25

492

Formula of Concord

unable to understand them” [1 Cor. 2:14] when they are asked about spiritual matters. : 2. Likewise, we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerated human will is not only turned away from God but has also become God’s enemy, that it has only the desire and will to do evil and whatever is opposed to God, as it is written, “The inclination of the human heart is evil from youth” [Gen. 8:21]. Likewise, “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not sub-

mit to God’s law—indeed, it cannot” [Rom. 8:7]. As little as a corpse can make itself alive for bodily, earthly life, so little can people who through sin are spiritually dead raise themselves up to a spiritual life, as it is written, “When we were dead through our trespasses, God made us alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:5]. Therefore, we are not “competent of ourselves to claim anything [good] as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3[:5]).

3. However, God the Holy Spirit does not effect conversion without means, but he uses the preaching and the hearing of God’s Word to accomplish it, as it is written (Rom. 1[:16]), the gospel is a “power of God” to save. Likewise, faith comes from hearing God’s Word (Rom. 10[:17]).}7 And it is God’s will

that people hear his Word and not plug their ears. In this Word the Holy Spirit is present and opens hearts that they may, like Lydia in Acts 16[:14}, listen to it and thus be converted, solely through the grace and power of the Holy Spirit, who alone accomplishes the conversion of the human being. For apart from his grace our “willing and exerting,” our planting, sowing, and watering, amount to nothing “if he does not give the growth” [Rom. 9:16; 1 Cor. 3:7]. As Christ

says, “Apart from me, you can do nothing” [John 15:5]. With these brief words he denies the free will its powers and ascribes everything to God’s grace, so that no one has grounds for boasting before God (1 Cor. [9:16]).

Negative Theses Contrary False Teaching Therefore, we reject and condemn all the following errors as contrary to the guiding principle of God’s Word: 1. The mad invention of the philosophers who are called Stoics,!® as well as the Manichaeans, who taught that everything that happens has to happen just so and could not happen in any other way, and that people do everything that they do, even in external things, under coercion and that they are coerced to do evil works and deeds, such as fornication, robbery, murder, thievery, and the like.

17. Cited according to the Vulgate, not the Luther Bible or the NRSV.

18. This ancient philosophical system was used by theologians, especially in Melanchthon’s circle, to designate all views of absolute necessity.

Epitome, Article II: Free Will

493

2. We also reject the error of the crass Pelagians, who taught that human beings could convert themselves to God, believe the gospel, be obedient to God’s law with their whole hearts, and thus merit forgiveness of sins and eternal life out of their own powers apart from the grace of the Holy Spirit. 3. We also reject the error of the Semi-Pelagians, who teach that human beings can initiate their conversion by means of their own powers, but cannot complete it without the grace of the Holy Spirit." 4. Likewise, the teaching that, although human beings are too weak to initiate conversion with their free will before rebirth, and thus convert themselves to God on the basis of their own natural powers and be obedient to God’s law with their whole hearts, nonetheless, once the Holy Spirit has made a beginning through the preaching of the Word and in it has offered his grace, the human will is able out of its own natural powers to a certain degree, even though small and feeble, to do something, to help and cooperate, to dispose and prepare itself for grace, to grasp this grace, to accept it, and to believe the gospel.% 5. Likewise, that the human being, after rebirth, can keep God’s law perfectly and fulfill it completely, and that this fulfilling of the law constitutes our righteousness before God, with which we merit eternal life.?! 6. Likewise, we also reject and condemn the error of the Enthusiasts, who contrive the idea that God draws people to himself, enlightens them, makes them righteous, and saves them without means, without the hearing of God’s Word, even without the use of the holy sacraments.?? ‘ 7. Likewise, that in conversion and new birth God completely destroys the substance and essence of the old creature, especially the rational soul, and creates a new essence of the soul out of nothing. 8. Likewise, when this wording is used without explanation: that the human will resists the Holy Spirit before, in, and after conversion, and that the Holy Spirit is given to those who intentionally and stubbornly resist him. For, as Augustine says, in conversion God makes willing people out of the unwilling and dwells in the willing.?3 Some ancient and modern teachers of the church have used expressions such as, “Deus trahit, sed volentem trahit,” that is, “God draws, but he draws those who are willing”; and “Hominis voluntas in conversione non est otiosa, sed agit ali-

quid,” that is, “The human will is not idle in conversion but also is doing something.” Because such expressions have been introduced as confirmation of the 19. So the concordists understood most late-medieval theologians, such as Gabriel Biel, whose

writings had had wide influence in early-sixteenth-century Germany; including on Luther. 20. A reference to Philippistic synergism, for instance, in the teaching of Johann Pfeffinger and Viktorin Strigel. 21. Against the perfectionism of certain Anabaptist groups and certain elements of Roman Catholic popular piety, particularly within monastic orders. 22. A marginal note designates this the view of “Enthusiasts {[who] are those who await heav-

enly enlightenment of the Spirit without the preaching of God’s Word.” See also CA V.

23. Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1,19, 37 (MPL 44:568; NPNF, ser. 1, 5:389).

10

11

12

13

14 15

16

494

17

18

Formula of Concord

natural free will in conversion contrary to the teaching of God’s grace, we hold that these expressions do not correspond to the form of sound teaching, and therefore it is proper to avoid them when speaking of conversion to God. On the other hand, it is correct to say that in conversion God changes recalcitrant, unwilling people into willing people through the drawing power of the Holy Spirit, and that after this conversion the reborn human will is not idle in the daily exercise of repentance, but cooperates in all the works of the Holy Spirit which he performs through us. 9. Likewise, when Dr. Luther wrote that the human will conducts itself pure passive (that is, that it does absolutely nothing at all), that must be understood respectu divinae gratiae in accendendis novis motibus,* that is, insofar as God’s Spirit takes hold of the human will through the Word that is heard or through the use of the holy sacraments and effects new birth and conversion. For when the Holy Spirit has effected and accomplished new birth and conversion and has altered and renewed the human will solely through his divine power and activity, then the new human will is an instrument and tool of God the Holy Spirit, in that the will not only accepts grace but also cooperates with the Holy Spirit in the works that proceed from it.

19

Therefore, before the conversion of the human being there are efficient causes, the Holy Spirit and God’s Word as the instrument of Spirit, through which he effects conversion; the human creature must Word, but cannot believe and accept it on the basis of its own powers through the grace and action of God the Holy Spirit.?>

only two the Holy hear this but only

1. Concerning the Righteousness of Faith before God Status controversiae

The Chief Question in This Dispute?s

other (Jer. 23[:6]; 1 Cor. 1[:30]; 2 Cor. 5[:21]). Because of this confession, the

24. “Purely passively” and “in respect to divine grace in the creation of new movements.”

-

question arose: According to which nature is Christ our righteousness? Thus, two mutually contradictory errors emerged in some churches.

25. A reference to Melanchthon’s Loci communes of 1535 and 1543, where he counted three Aristotelian factors (Latin: causae)—namely, the Holy Sfifrit, the Word of God, and the will itself—

in describing the Spirit’s action of using the Word on the will to effect conversion and repentance. 26. On the parties involved in this dispute, see SD III, 562 nn. 101-103, below.

—

gy71._»

Our churches unanimously confess on the basis of God’s Word and in accord with the content of the Augsburg Confession that we poor sinners become righteous before God and are saved only through faith in Christ, and that therefore Christ alone is our righteousness. He is truly God and human because in him the divine and human natures are personally united with each

Epitome, Article III: Righteousness

495

The one party held that Christ is our righteousness only according to his divinity, when he dwells in us through faith. In comparison to this divinity

which dwells in us through faith, the sins of all human

creatures are to be

regarded as a drop of water compared to a huge sea. On the other side, some have held that Christ is our righteousness before God only according to his human nature.

Affirmative Theses The Pure Teaching of the Christian Church against Both These Errors 1. Against both of these errors we believe, teach, and confess unanimously that Christ is our righteousness neither according to his divine nature alone nor according to his human nature alone. On the contrary, the whole Christ, according to both natures, is our righteousness, solely in his obedience that he rendered his Father as both God and a human being, an obedience unto death. Through this obedience he earned the forgiveness of sins and eternal life for us, as it is written, “Just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5[:19]).

2. Accordingly, we believe, teach, and confess that our righteousness before God consists in this, that God forgives us our sins by sheer grace, without any

works, merit, or worthiness of our own, in the past, at present, or in the future,

that he gives us and reckons to us the righteousness of Christ’s obedience and that, because of this righteousness, we are accepted by God into grace and regarded as righteous. 3. We believe, teach, and confess that faith alone is the means and instru-

ment through which we lay hold of Christ and, thus, in Christ lay hold of this

“righteousness which avails before God.”?” Because of him “faith is reckoned to us as righteousness” (Rom. 4[:5]).

4. We believe, teach, and confess that this faith is not a mere knowledge of the stories about Christ. It is instead a gift of God, through which in the Word of the gospel we recognize Christ truly as our redeemer and trust in him, so that solely because of his obedience, by grace, we have the forgiveness of sins, are regarded as godly and righteous by God the Father, and have eternal life. 5. We believe, teach, and confess that according to the usage of Holy Scripture the word “to justify” in this article means “to absolve,” that is, “to pronounce free from sin”: “One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord” (Prov. 17[:15]); “Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies” (Rom. 8[:33]). When in place of this the words regeneratio and vivificatio,

27. Citing Romans 1:17 from the Luther Bible.

496

10

11

Formula of Concord

that is “new birth” and “making alive,” are used as synonyms of justification, as happens in the Apology, then they are to be understood in'this same sense. Otherwise, they should be understood as the renewal of the human being and should be differentiated from “justification by faith.” 6. We believe, teach, and confess that in spite of the fact that until death a great deal of weakness and frailty still cling to those who believe in Christ and are truly reborn, they should not doubt their righteousness, which is reckoned to them through faith, nor the salvation of their souls, but they should regard it as certain that they have a gracious God for Christ’s sake, on the basis of the promise and the Word of the holy gospel. 7. We believe, teach, and confess that for the retention of pure teaching concerning the righteousness of faith before God, it is particularly important to hold steadfastly to the particulae exclusivae,?® that is, the following expressions of the holy apostle Paul that completely separate the merit of Christ from our works and give honor to Christ alone. The holy apostle Paul writes, “by grace,” “without merit,” “apart from the law,” “apart from works,” “not through works,” etc. These expressions all mean nothing other than that we become righteous and receive salvation “alone through faith” in Christ. 8. We believe, teach, and confess that although the contrition that precedes justification and the good works that follow it do not belong in the article on justification before God, nevertheless, a person should not concoct a kind of faith that can exist and remain with and alongside an evil intention to sin and to act against the conscience. Instead, after a person has been justified by faith, there then exists a true, living “faith working through love” (Gal. 5[:6]). That means that good works always follow justifying faith and are certainly found with it, when it is a true and living faith. For faith is never alone but is always accompanied by love and hope.

Antithesis or Negative Theses Rejection of Contrary Teaching Therefore we reject and condemn all the following errors:

1. That Christ is our righteousness only according to the divine nature,

etc.?? 2. That Christ is our righteousness only according to the human nature, etc.0 3. That in texts from the prophets and apostles, when they speak of the righteousness of faith, the words “to justify” and “to be justified” are not supposed to mean “to pronounce free from sin” or “to be pronounced free from 28. “exclusive terms.” 29. The position of Andrew Osiander. 30. The position of Francesco Stancaro.

Epitome, Article IV: Good Works

497

sin” and “to receive the forgiveness of sins.” Instead they mean to be made righteous before God in fact on account of the love and virtues which are infused by the Holy Spirit and through the works which result from this infusion.?! 4. That faith should look not only to the obedience of Christ but also to his divine nature, as it dwells in us and produces results, and that through this indwelling our sins are covered.> : 5. That faith is the kind of trust in Christ’s obedience that can exist and remain in a person who does not truly repent, demonstrates no love resulting from this faith, and perseveres in sin against the conscience. 6. That not God himself but only the gifts of God dwell in believers. 7. That faith saves because renewal, which consists in love toward God and the neighbor, has begun in us through this faith. 8. That faith has the primary role in justification, but at the same time renewal and love also constitute a part of our righteousness before God in this way, that although they are not the most important cause of our righteousness, nevertheless, our righteousness before God cannot be complete or perfect without such love and renewal. 9. That believers are both justified before God and receive salvation through the righteousness of Christ reckoned to them and through the new obedience which has begun in them, or partly through the reckoning of Christ’s righteousnessto them and partly through this new obedience which has begun in them. 10. That the promise of grace is made our own through faith in the heart and through the confession of the mouth and through other virtues. 11. That faith does not justify without good works, that is, that good works are necessarily required for righteousness, and without their presence a person cannot be justified.*’

V. Concerning Good Works Status controversiae The Chief Question in the Controversy over Good Works* Regarding churches:

the teaching

on

good

works

two

controversies

arose

in some

31. The concordists’ summary of the teaching of the Roman Catholic party, for example, in the Augsburg Interim and at the Council of Trent. See SD III, 563, n. 107; 567-69, nn. 114-118; 570-71, nn. 122-128; 573, nn. 131-133.

32. The position of Andrew Osiander. 33. Points 7—11 represent views which Lutherans had criticized in Roman Catholic theological writings of the period. 34, On the parties involved in this dispute, see SD IV, 574-75, nn. 137-140, below.

16

17

18

19 20

21

22

23

498

Formula of Concord

First some theologians split over the following expressions. The first party wrote: good works are necessary for salvation; it is impossible to be saved without good works; and no one has ever been saved without good works. Against this position the other party wrote: good works are harmful to salvation. Later a split occurred among some theologians over the two words “necessary” and “free.” One party argued that the word “necessary” should not be used in regard to new obedience, which does not flow from necessity and compulsion but rather from a spontaneous spirit. The other party retained the word “necessary” because such obedience is not subject to our discretion, but rather reborn human beings are bound to render such obedience. From this semantic argument a further controversy developed over the

substance of the matter, when one party argued that the law should not be

preached at all among Christians but people should be admonished to do good

works only on the basis of the holy gospel. The other party contradicted this position.

Affirmative Theses The Pure Teaching of the Christian Churches concerning This Controversy As a thoroughgoing explanation and disposition of this dispute, it is our teaching, faith, and confession: 1. That good works follow from true faith (when it is not a dead faith but a living faith), as certainly and without doubt as fruit from a good tree. 2. We also believe, teach, and confess that at the same time, good works must be completely excluded from any questions of salvation as well as from the article on our justification before God, as the apostle testifies in clear terms,

“So also David declares that salvation pertains to that person alone to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works, saying, ‘Blessed are those whose

iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered’” (Rom. 4[:6-8]),%> and also,

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own

“a,

‘

1'%‘250

doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast”

10

(Eph. 2[:8-9]). 3. We also believe, teach, and confess that all people, particularly those who have been reborn and renewed through the Holy Spirit, are obligated to do good works. 4. In this sense the words “necessary,” “should,” and “must” are used correctly, in Christian fashion, also in regard to the reborn; in no way is such use contrary to the pattern of sound words and speech. 5. Of course, the words necessitas, necessarium (“necessity” and “neces-

sary”) are not to be understood as a compulsion when they are applied to the reborn, but only as the required obedience, which they perform out of a spon35. Cited according to the Luther Bible, with quotation from Psalm 32:1.

Epitome, Article IV: Good Works

499

taneous spirit—not because of the compulsion or coercion of the law— because they are “no longer under the law, but under grace” [Rom. 6:14].

6. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said that

“the reborn do good works from a free spirit,” that is not to be understood as if it were up to the discretion of the reborn human beings to do good or not to do good as they wish, and that they would nevertheless retain their faith even as they deliberately persist in sin. 7. This is, of course, not to be understood in any other way than as the Lord Christ and his apostles themselves explain it, that is, regarding the liberated spirit, which acts not out of fear of punishment, like a slave, but out of the love

11

12

of righteousness, as children (Rom. 8[:15]).

8. However, in the elect children of God this spontaneity is not perfect but is encumbered with great weakness, as St. Paul complains about himself in

13

9. Of course, because of Christ, the Lord does not reckon this weakness against his elect, as it is written, “There is therefore now no condemnation for

14

10. We also believe, teach, and confess that not our works, but only God’s Spirit, working through faith, preserves faith and salvation in us. Good works are a testimony of his presence and indwelling.

15

Romans 7[:14-25] and Galatians 5[:17].

those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8[:1]).

Negative Theses False and Contrary Teaching 1. Accordingly, we reject and condemn the following manner of speaking: when it is taught and written that good works are necessary for salvation; or that no one has ever been saved without good works; or that it is impossible to be saved without good works.*® 2. We also reject and condemn the bald expression that “good works are harmful to salvation” as offensive and harmful to Christian discipline.?” For particularly in these last times it is no less necessary to admonish the people to Christian discipline and good works and to remind them how necessary it is that they practice good works as a demonstration of their faith and their gratitude to God than it is to admonish them that works not be mingled with the article on justification. For people can be damned by an Epicurean delusion about faith just as much as by the papistic, Pharisaic trust in their own works and merit. 3. We also reject and condemn the teaching that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are not lost through intentional sin, but that the saints and elect

36. The terminology advocated by George Major. 37. Luther’s expression, which Nicholas von Amsdorf used in the Majoristic controversy.

16

17 18

19

500

Formula of Concord

retain the Holy Spirit even when they fall into adultery and other sins and persist in them. |

\Y%

Concerning Law and Gospel Status controversiae

The Chief Question in This Dispute?® Whether the preaching of the holy gospel is really not only a preaching of grace, which proclaims the forgiveness of sins, but also a preaching of repentance and rebuke, which condemns unbelief (something condemned not in the law but only by the gospel).

Affirmative Theses

A% O

The Pure Teaching of God’s Word 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction between law and gospel is to be preserved with great diligence in the church as an especially glorious light, through which the Word of God, in accord with Paul’s admonition, is properly divided.* 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the law is, strictly speaking, a divine teaching which gives instruction regarding what is right and God-pleasing and condemns everything that is sin and contrary to God’s will. 3. Therefore, everything that condemns sin is and belongs to the proclamation of the law. 4. However, the gospel is, strictly speaking, the kind of teaching that reveals what the human being, who has not kept the law and has been condemned by it, should believe: that Christ has atoned and paid for all sins and apart from any human merit has obtained and won for people the forgiveness of sins, “the righteousness which avails before God,”*? and eternal life. 5. However, because the word “gospel” is not used in just one sense in the Holy Scripture—the reason this dispute arose in the first place—we believe, teach, and confess that when the word “gospel” is used for the entire teaching of Christ, which he presented in his teaching ministry, as did his apostles in theirs (it is used in this sense in Mark 1[:15], Acts 20[:24]), then it is correct to

say or to write that the gospel is a proclamation of both repentance and the forgiveness of sins. 38. On the parties involved in 39. See 2 Timothy 2:15, where ing” is translated “rightly dividing” 40. Romans 1:17 according to

this dispute, see SD V, 581-82 nn. 154-155, below. in the Luther Bible and its marginal notation “rightly explainlaw and gospel. the Luther Bible.

Epitome, Article V: Law and Gospel

501

6. When, however, law and gospel are placed in contrast to each other—as when Moses himself is spoken of as a teacher of the law and Christ as a preacher of the gospel—we believe, teach, and confess that the gospel is not a proclamation of repentance or retribution, but is, strictly speaking, nothing else than a proclamation of comfort and a joyous message which does not rebuke nor terrify but comforts consciences against the terror of the law, directs them sole-

ly to Christ’s merit, and lifts them up again through the delightful proclamation of the grace and favor of God, won through Christ’s merit. 7.In regard to the disclosure of sin: the veil of Moses [2 Cor. 3:13-16] hangs in front of the eyes of all people as long as they only hear the preaching of the law and nothing of Christ, and thus they never learn to recognize the true nature of their sin from the law. Instead, they either become presumptuous hypocrites, like the Pharisees, or they despair, like Judas. Therefore Christ takes the law in his hands and interprets it spiritually (Matt. 5[:21-48]; Rom. 7{:14]). Thus, God’s wrath, in all its enormity [Rom. 1:18], is revealed from heaven

upon all sinners; through this revelation they are directed to the law, and only then do they learn properly to recognize their sin through the law. Moses would never have been able to wring this acknowledgment out of them. Therefore, it is true that the proclamation of the suffering and death of Christ, God’s Son, is a sobering and terrifying proclamation and testimony of God’s wrath. Through it people now are really led into the law, after the veil of Moses is taken away from them, so that they now really recognize what great things God demands from us in the law (none of which we can keep), and that we therefore should seek all our righteousness in Christ. 8. Nonetheless, as long as all of this (that is, Christ’s suffering and death) proclaims God’s wrath and terrifies people, it is still not, strictly speaking, the preaching of the gospel, but the preaching of Moses and the law and is thus an alien work of Christ, through which he comes to his proper function, which is the preaching of grace, comforting, and making alive. This, strictly speaking, is the preaching of the gospel.

10

Negative Thesis Contrary Teaching, to Be Rejected 1. Accordingly, we reject and regard it as incorrect and harmful when it is taught that the gospel is, strictly speaking, a proclamation of repentance or retribution and not exclusively a proclamation of grace. For in this way the gospel is again made into a teaching of the law, the merit of Christ and the Holy Scriptures are obscured, Christians are robbed of true comfort, and the door is opened again to the papacy.*!

41. See SD V, 586 below.

11

502

Formula of Concord

VI Concerning the Third Use of the Law Status controversiae

The Chief Question concerning This Controversy*? The law has been given to people for three reasons: first, that through it external discipline may be maintained against the unruly and the disobedient; second, that people may be led through it to a recognition of their sins; third, after they have been reborn—since nevertheless the flesh still clings to them—that precisely because of the flesh they may have a sure guide, according to which they can orient and conduct their entire life. In this connection a dispute occurred among a few theologians over the third use of the law. It concerned whether the law is to be urged upon the reborn Christians or not. The one party said yes, the other no.

Affirmative Theses The Correct Christian Teaching concerning This Controversy 1. We believe, teach, and confess that, although people who truly believe in

Christ and are genuinely converted to God have been liberated and set free

from the curse and compulsion of the law through Christ, they indeed are not for that reason without the law. Instead, they have been redeemed by the Son of God so that they may practice the law day and night (Ps. 119[:1]). For our first parents did not live without the law even before the fall. This law of God was written into the heart, for they were created in the image of God.*? 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the proclamation of the law is to be diligently impressed not only upon unbelievers and the unrepentant but also upon those who believe in Christ and are truly converted, reborn, and justified through faith. 3. For even if they are reborn and “renewed in the spirit of their minds” (Eph. 4:23], this rebirth and renewal is not perfect in this world. Instead, it has only begun. Believers are engaged with the spirit of their minds in continual

battle against the flesh, that is, against the perverted nature and character which clings to us until death and which because of the old creature is still lodged in the human understanding, will, and all human powers. In order that people do not resolve to perform service to God on the basis of their pious imagination in an arbitrary way of their own choosing, it is necessary for the Jaw of God constantly to light their way. Likewise, it is necessary so that the old creature not act according to its own will but instead be compelled against its 42. On the parties involved in this dispute, see SD VI, 587 nn. 165-166, below. 43, Genesis 1:26.

Epitome, Article VII: Holy Supper

503

own will, not only through the admonition and threats of the law but also with

punishments and plagues, to follow the Spirit and let itself be made captive (1 Cor. 9[:27]; Rom. 6[:12]; Gal. 6[:14]; Ps. 119[:1]; Heb. 13[:21]).44

4. Concerning the difference between the works of the law and the fruits of the Spirit, we believe, teach, and confess that the works performed according to the law remain works of the law and should be so called, as long as they are coerced out of people only through the pressure of punishment and the threat of God’s wrath. 5. The fruits of the Spirit, however, are the works that the Spirit of God, who dwells in believers, effects through the reborn; they are done by believers (insofar as they are reborn) as if they knew of no command, threat, or reward. In this manner the children of God live in the law and walk according to the law of God—what St. Paul in his epistles calls the law of Christ and the law of the mind. And yet they are “not under the law but under grace” (Rom. 7[:23] and 8[:1, 14]).

6. Therefore, for both the repentant and unrepentant, for the reborn and those not reborn, the law is and remains one single law, the unchangeable will of God. In terms of obedience to it there is a difference only in that those people who are not yet reborn do what the law demands unwillingly, because they are coerced (as is also the case with the reborn with respect to the flesh). Believers, however, do without coercion, with a willing spirit, insofar as they are born anew, what no threat of the law could ever force from them.

Negative Theses False and Contrary Teaching 1. Therefore, we reject as contrary teaching and error, which harm Christian discipline and true piety, the teaching that the law should be preached in the way and extent described above only among unbelievers, non-Christians, and the unrepentant, not among Christians and those who truly believe in Christ. VII.

Concerning the Holy Supper of Christ Although those who teach Zwinglian doctrine are not to be counted among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession—since they separated themselves from this confession immediately, at the time it was presented—we, nonethe-

44, Here it is clear how intensively the concordists wrestled with the practical problems of the application of law and gospel at the parish level.

504

Formula of Concord

less, want to report on this controversy because they are insinuating themselves and spreading their error under the name of this Christian confession.* Status controversiae

The Chief Issue between Us and the Teaching of the Sacramentarians on This Article

In the Holy Supper are the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ truly and essentially present, distributed with the bread and wine, and received by mouth by all those who avail themselves of the sacrament—whether they are worthy or unworthy, godly or ungodly, believers or unbelievers—to bring believers comfort and life and to bring judgment upon unbelievers? The sacramentarians say no; we say yes. To explain this controversy, it must first of all be noted that there are two kinds of sacramentarians. There are the crude sacramentarians,*® who state in plain language what they believe in their hearts: that in the Holy Supper there is nothing more than bread and wine present, nothing more distributed and received with the mouth. Then there are the cunning sacramentarians,*’ the most dangerous kind, who in part appear to use our language and who pretend that they also believe in a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this takes place spiritually, through faith. Yet, under the guise of such plausible words, they retain the former, crude opinion, that nothing more than bread and wine is present in the Holy Supper and received there by mouth. For “spiritually” means to them nothing other than “the spirit of Christ” that is present, or “the power of the absent body of Christ and his merit.” The body of Christ, according to this opinion, is, however, in no way or form present, but it is only up there in the highest heaven; to this body we lift ourselves into heaven through the thoughts of our faith. There we should seek his body and blood, but never in the bread and wine of the Supper.

45. Although this article focuses chiefly on the “Crypto-Philippist” party within “Lutheran” ranks, above all in electoral Saxony, the concordists combine specific polemic directed against the Crypto-Philippists’ writings and positions with a repetition of the rejection of the teachings of Ulrich Zwingli and Heinrich Bullinger of Zurich, John Calvin and Theodore Beza of Geneva, the

theologians at the court of Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate in Heidelberg, and other “Calvinist” or Reformed theologians. On the parties involved in this dispute, see SD VII, 592 n.172, below. 46. A reference to the theologians of Geneva, Zurich, Heidelberg, and other centers of Reformed teaching. 47. The “Crypto-Philippists.”

Epitome, Article VII: Holy Supper

505

Affirmative Theses The Confession of Pure Teaching concerning the Holy Supper, against the Sacramentarians*® 1. We believe, teach, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, truly distributed and received with the bread and wine. 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the testament of Christ are not to be understood in any other way than the way they literally sound, that is, not that the bread symbolizes the absent body and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that they are truly the true body and blood of Christ because of the sacramental union. 3. Concerning the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess that neither human effort nor the recitation of the minister effect this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that it is to be attributed solely and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ. 4. In addition, we believe, teach, and hold with one accord that in the use of the Holy Supper the words of Christ’s institution may under no circumstances be omitted but must be spoken publicly, as it is written, “The cup of blessing that we bless .. ”

(1 Cor. 11 [10:16]). This blessing takes place through

the pronouncement of the words of Christ. 5. The reasons for our position against the sacramentarians on this matter are those which Dr. Luther set forth in his Great Confession: “The first [reason

10 11

for his position] is this article of our faith, that Jesus Christ is true, essential,

natural, complete God and human being in one person, undivided and inseparable. The second, that the right hand of God is everywhere.” Christ, really and truly placed at this right hand of God according to his human nature, rules presently and has in his hands and under his feet everything in heaven and on earth. No other human being, no angel, but only Mary’s son, is so placed at the right hand of God, and on this basis he is able to do these things. “The third, that the Word of God is not false or deceitful. The fourth that God has and knows various ways to be present at a certain place, not only the single one.... ., which the philosophers call ‘local’” or spatial.#®

48. In these affirmative theses the concordists set forth their summary of Luther’s teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper. See SD VII, 598 nn. 191-193; 600, n. 197; 609-11, nn. 216-220. These theses emphasize the real sacramental presence of Christ’s body and blood with the elements of the sacrament, the oral reception (manducatio oralis), and the reception of Christ’s body and blood by unbelievers and believers alike (manducatio impiorum or indignorumy; the last point rests on the Lutheran conviction that the words of consecration, by virtue of Christ’s command and promise, not the faith of the believer, render Christ’s body and blood present. 49. Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:326, 29-327, 20; LW 37:214). Luther uses the Latin locale for any substance restricted to a fixed and definite space not shared with any other substance.

12

13 14

506

Formula of Concord 6. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are

received not only spiritually through faith but also orally with the bread and wine, though not in Capernaitic fashion but rather in a supernatural, heavenly way because of the sacramental union of the elements.>® The words of Christ clearly demonstrate tles did this. For it Likewise, Saint Paul the body of Christ”

this, when Christ said, “take, eat, and drink,” and the aposis written, “and they all drank from it” (Mark 14[:23]). says, “The bread, which we break, is a Communion with [1 Cor. 10:16], that is, who eats this bread eats the body of

Christ. The leading teachers of the ancient church—Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, and others—unanimously testify to this.>! 7. We believe, teach, and confess that not only those who truly believe and

are worthy, but also the unworthy and unbelievers receive the true body and blood of Christ, though they do not receive life and comfort, but rather judgment and damnation, if they do not turn and repent. For though they reject Christ as a savior, they still must, against their will, accept him as a harsh judge, who is just as much present to exercise and visit judgment upon unrepentant guests as he is to bestow life and comfort upon the hearts of those who truly believe and are worthy guests. 8. We believe, teach, and confess that there is only one kind of unworthy guest, those who do not believe.>? Of them it is written, “Those who do not believe are condemned already” [John 3:18]. The unworthy use of the holy sacrament increases, magnifies, and aggravates this condemnation (1 Cor.

11[:27, 29]).

9. We believe, teach, and confess that no genuine believers—no matter how weak—as long as they retain a living faith, receive the Holy Supper as condemnation. For Christ instituted this supper particularly for Christians who are weak in faith but repentant, to comfort them and to strengthen their weak faith. 10. We believe, teach, and confess that the entire worthiness of the guests at the table of his heavenly meal is and consists alone in the most holy obedience and perfect merit of Christ. We make his obedience and merit our own through true faith, concerning which we receive assurance through the sacrament. Worthiness consists in no way in our own virtues, or in internal or external preparations.

50. The sacramentarians charged that as the people in Capernaum interpreted Christ’s words as referring to a physical eating (John 6:58), so the Lutheran doctrine meant that communicants “tear the flesh of Christ with their teeth and digest it as other food.” Some even condemned the Lutheran teaching as “cannibalistic.” ) 51. The references are listed below, SD VII, 603~4 n. 200 and 605 n. 203. 52. Martin Bucer had distinguished “unworthy” believers (indigni) from “ungodly” nonbelievers (impii). The concordists here reject that distinction.

Epitome, Article VII: Holy Supper

507

Negative Theses The Contrary, Condemned Teaching of the Sacramentarians On the other hand, we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles, which oppose and are contrary to the teaching presented here, the simple belief and confession regarding the Supper of Christ: 1. The papal transubstantiation, when it is taught in the papacy that bread and wine in the Holy Supper lose their substance and natural essence and thus cease to exist, in such a way that the bread is transformed into the body of Christ and only its outward form remains.> 2. The papal sacrifice of the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead.>* 3. That the laity are given only one of the sacramental elements and that against the clear words of the testament of Christ the chalice is kept from them and they are robbed of the blood of Christ.> 4. When it is taught that the words of Christ’s testament ought not to be understood or believed simply as they sound, but that they are an obscure expression, the meaning of which must be sought in other passages. 5. That the body of Christ in the holy sacrament is not received orally with the bread, but only bread and wine are received by mouth; the body of Christ, however, is received only spiritually, through faith. 6. That the bread and wine in the Holy Supper are no more than distinguishing marks, through which Christians recognize each other. 7. That the bread and wine are only representations, similes, and symbols of the far-distant body and blood of Christ. 8. That the bread and wine are no more than a reminder, a seal, or a guarantee, through which we are assured that when faith soars into heaven, it will participate there in the body and blood of Christ as truly as we eat and drink bread and wine in the Supper. 9. That the assurance and confirmation of our faith in the Holy Supper take place only through the outward signs of bread and wine, and not through the true body and blood of Christ present there. 10. That in the Holy Supper only the power, effect, or merit of the absent body and blood of Christ are distributed. 11. That the body of Christ is enclosed in heaven, so that it can in no way be present at the same time in many or all places on earth where his Holy Supper is being conducted. 12. That Christ could not have promised the essential presence of his body and blood in the Holy Supper, nor could he make that possible, because the 53. Council of Trent, Session 13, chaps. 4, 5, canons 2, 4, 6. 54. Council of Trent, Session 22, chap. 2, canon 3. 55. Council of Trent, Session 21, chap. 1, canons 1-3.

56. Par. 25-37 represent views of either Zwinglian, Calvinist, or “Crypto-Philippist” theologians; see references in SD VII, 612-15 nn. 227-240, below.

21

22

23 24 25

26

27 28

29

30

31

32

33

508

Formula of Concord

nature and characteristics of the assumed human nature would not permit or allow that. 34

35

13. That God, even on the basis of his total omnipotence (a dreadful state-

ment!), cannot possibly make his body to be essentially present in more than one place at one particular time. 14. That not the almighty words of the testament of Christ, but rather faith, effects and creates the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper.

36

37 38

39 40

41

42

15. That believers should not look for the body of Christ in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper but should instead lift their eyes from the bread to heaven and look there for the body of Christ. 16. That unbelieving, unrepentant Christians do not receive the true body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper but only the bread and wine. 17. That the worthiness of the guests at this heavenly meal consists not only in true faith in Christ but indeed also in people’s outward preparation.’’ 18. That those who truly believe, who have and retain a true, living, pure faith in Christ, can receive this sacrament to their judgment, simply because

they are still imperfect in their outward way of life.

19. That the outward, visible elements of bread and wine in the holy sacra-

ment should be adored. 20. Likewise, we commend to the proper judgment of God all impudent, sarcastic, blasphemous questions and expressions, which we will not recite for the sake of propriety and which the sacramentarians utter in a crude, carnal, Capernaitic, and detestable manner, blasphemously, and with great offense concerning the supernatural, celestial mysteries of this sacrament. 21. We also hereby completely condemn the Capernaitic eating of the body of Christ. It suggests that his flesh is chewed up with the teeth and digested like other food. The sacramentarians maliciously attribute this view to us against the witness of their own conscience, despite our many protests. In this way they make our teaching detestable among their hearers. On the contrary, on the basis of the simple words of Christ’s testament, we hold and teach the true, but supernatural, eating of the body of Christ and the drinking of his blood. Human reason and understanding cannot grasp this, but our understanding must be taken captive by obedience to Christ here as in all other articles of faith. Such a mystery cannot be grasped except by faith and is revealed alone in the Word. VIIL

Concerning the Person of Christ Out of the controversy regarding the Holy Supper there arose a disagreement between the theologians of the Augsburg Confession who teach purely and the 57. Par. 38—40 return to criticize certain Roman Catholic practices.

Epitome, Article VIII: The Person of Christ

509

Calvinists (who also led some other theologians astray) over the person of Christ, the two natures in Christ, and their characteristics. Status controversiae

Chief Issues of Disagreement in This Dispute®® The chief question was whether on the basis of the personal union the divine and human natures—and likewise the characteristics of each—are intimately linked with each other within the person of Christ, in reality (that is, in fact and in truth), and to what extent they are intimately linked? The sacramentarians contended that the divine and human

natures are

united in the one person in such a way that neither nature in reality (that is, in fact and in truth) shares with the other what is unique to that nature.> Instead, they have only the name in common. For they say that unio simply “causes the names to be held in common,” that is, the personal union results in nothing more than the sharing of their names. That is to say, God is called a human being and the human being God. In other words, they claim that God has nothing to do with humanity, and humanity has nothing to do with the divinity or with its majesty and characteristics in reality (that is, in fact and in truth). Dr. Luther and those who supported him defended the opposite position against the sacramentarians.

Affirmative Theses The Pure Teaching of the Christian Church on the Person of Christ To explain and settle this dispute according to the guidance of our Christian faith, we teach, believe, and confess the following;: 1. That the divine and human natures in Christ are personally united, and

therefore, that there are not two Christs (one the Son of God and the other the

58. On the parties involved in this dispute, see SD VII, 592 n. 172, below. The controversies over the Lord’s Supper and over Christology in the period after Luther’s death are so intimately intertwined that they cannot be separated. 59. These views were represented in various forms in works published by electoral Saxon theologians in the early 1570s: the Von der person und Menschwerdung unsers HERRN Jhesu Christi/Der waren christlichen Kirchen Grundfest (On the person and the incarnation of Christ . .. a firm basis) (2d ed., 1571); the Dresdener Abschied (Dresden Recess) of 10 October 1571; and the Exegesis per-

spicua & ferme integra controuersiae de sacra coena of 1574. Although it was seldom directly cited, Martin Chemnitz’s De duabus naturis in Christo (On the two natures in Christ) (1570; 2d ed.,

1578) had developed the ideas expressed in the position of the concordists. This position repre-

sents the concordists’ interpretation of Luther’s Christology; see SD VIII, 617-24 and nn. 250-278.

The concordists laid out their defense of their christological teaching on the basis of patristic sources in the Catalog of Testimonies, which was published with some editions of the Book of Concord in 1580.

510

|

Formula of Concord

Son of Man), but one single Son of God and Son of Man (Luke 1[:31-35]; Rom. 9[:5]). ’

2. We believe, teach, and confess that the divine and human natures are not blended together into one essence. Neither is one transformed into the other. Rather, each retains its own essential characteristics, which never become the characteristics of the other nature. 3. The characteristics of the divine nature are: that it is almighty, eternal, infinite, present everywhere (according to the characteristics of the nature and its natural essence, in and of itself), all-knowing, etc. These never become the

characteristics of the human nature. 4. The characteristics of the human nature are: being a bodily creature, being flesh and blood, being finite and circumscribed, suffering, dying, ascending, descending, moving from one place to another, suffering from hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like. These never become characteristics of the divine nature.

5. Since both natures are personally united (that is, united in one person),

we believe, teach, and confess that this union is not a connection or association

of the sort that neither nature shares things with the other personally (that is, because of the personal union), as if two boards were glued together, with neither giving the other anything or receiving anything from the other. Instead, here is the most complete Communion, which God truly has with this human being; out of this personal union and out of the most complete and most indescribable communion that results from it flows everything human that can be ascribed to and believed about God and everything divine that can be ascribed to and believed about the human Christ. The ancient teachers of the church have explained this union and communion of the natures using similes of a glowing iron and of the union of body and soul in the human being. 10 11

6. Therefore, we believe, teach, and confess that God is a human being and

a human being is God.®® That could not be if the divine and human natures had absolutely no communion with each other in fact and in truth. For how

could the human being, Mary’s son, be called, or be, the Son of the most high

God in truth if his humanity was not personally united with God’s Son, in reality, that is in fact and in truth, but instead shared only the name “God”

gy

with him?

7. Therefore, we believe, teach, and confess that Mary did not conceive and give birth to a child who was merely, purely, simply human, but she gave birth to the true Son of God. Therefore, she is rightly called and truly is the Mother of God. ' 60. Literally, “daf® Gott Mensch und Mensch Gott sei,” clearly reflecting the traditional Latin statement, “Deus sit homo, et homo sit Deus.” This phrase is open to variation in translation. This interpretation takes into account the discussions and disagreements among Lutherans in the period leading up to the Formula. The circle around Martin Chemnitz insisted that abstractions in descriptions of the personal union be avoided, as the following passages make clear.

Epitome, Article VIII: The Person of Christ

511

8. Therefore, we also believe, teach, and confess that no mere human being suffered, died, was buried, descended into hell, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and was exalted to the majesty and almighty power of God for us, but rather it was a human being whose human nature has such a profound, indescribable union and communion with the Son of God, that this human nature is one person with the Son of God. 9. Thus, the Son of God truly suffered for us—to be sure, according to the characteristics of the human nature, which he had assumed into the unity of his divine person and made his own, so that he could suffer and be our high priest for our reconciliation with God, as it is written, “They crucified the Lord

13

14

of glory,” and, “With God’s bloodS! we have been redeemed” (1 Cor. 2[:8]; Acts 20[:28]). :

10. Therefore, we believe, teach, and confess that the Son of Man in reality, that is, in fact and in truth, was exalted to the right hand of the almighty majesty and power of God according to his human nature, because he was assumed into God, when he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of his mother and was personally united with the Son of the Almighty. 11. According to the personal union he always possessed this majesty, and yet dispensed with it in the state of his humiliation. For this reason he grew in stature, wisdom, and grace before God and other people [Luke 2:52]. Therefore, he did not reveal his majesty at all times but only when it pleased him, until he completely laid aside the form of a servant [Phil. 2:7} (but not his human nature) after his resurrection. Then he was again invested with the full

15

16

use, revelation, and demonstration of his divine majesty and entered into his

glory, in such a way that he knows everything, is able to do ent for all his creatures, and has under his feet and in his heaven, on earth, and under the earth, not only as God but ture, as he himself testifies, “All authority in heaven and

everything, is hands all that also as human on earth has

presis in creabeen

given to me” [Matt. 28:18], and St. Paul writes: He ascended “above all the

heavens, so that he might fill all things” can exercise this power of his, he can do 12. Therefore, he is able—it is very and blood, present in the Holy Supper,

[Eph. 4:10]. As present everywhere he everything, and he knows all things. easy for him—to share his true body not according to the manner or char-

acteristic of the human nature, but according to the manner and characteristic

of God’s right hand, creed. This presence same time it is a true “This is, is, my body,”

as Dr. Luther says in [his explanation of] our Christian is not an earthly nor a Capernaitic presence, but at the and essential presence, as the words of his testament say, etc.5?

61. The translation of the Luther Bible, based on a substantial manuscript tradition, considered the more difficult reading as the original. 62. For example, in Luther’s That These Words of Christ, “This Is My Body,” Etc., Still Stand Firm (1527) (WA 23:131-37; LW 26:326-30; LW 37:214-16).

37:55-59);

Confession

concerning

Christ’s

Supper

(1528)

(WA

17

512 18

Formula of Concord

Through this our teaching, faith, and confession the person of Christ is not

divided, as Nestorius did. (He denied the communicatio idiomatum,® that is,

the true communion of the characteristics of the two natures in Christ, and thus divided his person, as Luther explains in his book On the Councils and the Church.)®* Nor are the natures with their characteristics mixed together with each other into one essence, as Eutyches falsely taught. Nor is the human nature denied or destroyed in the person of Christ, and neither nature is transformed into the other. Rather, Christ is and remains for all eternity God and

human being in one inseparable person, which is the highest mystery after the mystery of the Holy Trinity, as the Apostle testifies [1 Tim. 3:16]. In this mystery lie our only comfort, life, and salvation.

Negative Theses Contrary False Teaching concerning the Person of Christ 19 20

21

22

23

24 25

26 J’""‘Q‘é"f B F

27

Accordingly, we reject and condemn the following erroneous articles as contrary to God’s Word and our simple Christian creed,’® when it is taught:5° 1. That God and the human being in Christ are not one person, but there is one person, the Son of God, and another person, the Son of Man, as Nestorius foolishly asserted. 2. That the divine and human natures are mixed together with each other into one essence and that the human nature is transformed into divinity, as Eutyches fantasized. 3. That Christ is not true, natural, and eternal God, as Arius held. 4, That Christ did not have a true human nature, with body and soul, as Marcion contrived. 5. That the personal union creates only common titles or name s.67 6. That it is only an expression or modus loquendi, that is, only a matter of words or a way of speaking, when it is said: God is a human being, a human being is God; for the deity has nothing in common with the humanity, and the humanity nothing with the deity in reality, that is, in fact. 7. That it is merely a communicatio verbalis, that is, nothing more than a figure of speech, when it is said that the Son of God died for the sins of the world or that the Son of Man has become almighty. 8. That the human nature in Christ became an infinite essence in a manner like that of the deity and is present everywhere in the same way the divine 63. Communication of attributes or characteristics. 64. On the Councils and the Churches (1539) (WA 50:584-95; LW 41:95-106).

65. Andreae had argued in his earliest approach to concord on the basis of the Apostles’ Creed as well as Scripture; cf. his Six Christian Sermons. . 66. For specific references to Calvinist and “Crypto-Philippist” works in which these positions may be found, see SD VIII, 628-29, nn. 288-291; 633-35, nn. 301-304. 67. Cited first in Latin, then translated.

e

oS &

E= 9 &

P

Epitome, Article VIII: The Person of Christ

513

nature is present, on the basis of some sort of essential, shared power and characteristic, which has been separated from God and poured out into the human nature. 9. That the human nature has been made the same as the divine nature in its substance and essence or in its essential attributes and has become equal

28

with it.

10. That the human nature of Christ is spatially extended into all parts of heaven and earth (an idea that should not be applied to the divine nature

29

either).

11. That it is impossible for Christ, because of the characteristics of the

30

human nature, to be in more than one place at the same time—much less to be

bodily present in all places. 12. That only the mere humanity suffered for us and redeemed us, and that the Son of God in fact had no communion with the humanity in the suffering, as if it had not affected him at all. 13. That Christ is present with us on earth in Word, in the sacraments, and in all times of need only according to his deity, and that such presence has absolutely nothing to do with his human nature; and that after he redeemed us through his suffering and death, he has nothing more to do with us on earth according to the human nature. 14. That the Son of God, who assumed the human nature, after he laid aside

the form of a servant does not perform all the works of his omnipotence in, through, and with his human nature, but only a few and exclusively in the place in which his human nature is spatially present. 15. That he is not at all capable of exercising his omnipotence and other characteristics of his divine nature according to his human nature, contrary to the express words of Christ, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been

31

32

33

34

given to me” [Matt. 28:18], and St. Paul: “In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2[:9]).

16. That to him [Christ] has indeed been given greater power in heaven and

on earth, that is, greater and more than all angels and other creatures, but he

does not share in the omnipotence of God; moreover, such divine power has not been given to him. In this way they invent a media potentia, that is, a kind of power between God’s almighty power and the power of other creatures, which is given to Christ according to his humanity through the exaltation, and which is less than God’s almighty power and greater than the power of other creatures.

17. That according to his human spirit Christ has a fixed limit on how much he can know, and that he cannot know more than is appropriate and necessary for him to know in the exercise of his office as judge.

68. Par. 27-29 try to answer objections of Lutheran theologians such as Tilemann Hesshus.

36

514 37

38

39

Formula of Concord

18. That Christ does not yet have perfect knowledge of God and all his

works, although it is, of course, written, that in him “are hidden all the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge” [Col. 2:3].

19. That it is impossible for Christ, according to his human spirit, to know what has existed from eternity, what is happening at the present time everywhere in the world, and what will be in the future in eternity. 20. When anyone teaches and so interprets and blasphemously perverts the

passage in Matthew 28[:18] (“All authority . . . has been given to me”) that in

the resurrection and his ascension all power in heaven and on earth was restored or again returned to Christ according to the divine nature—as though in the state of humiliation he had laid it aside and forsaken it even according to his deity.

Such teaching not only perverts the word of Christ’s testament but prepares the way for the return of the accursed Arian heresy, that finally denies the eternal divinity of Christ. In this way Christ is completely lost, along with our salvation, if such false teaching is not contradicted on the basis of the firm foundation of God’s Word and our simple Christian creed.

IX. Concerning Christ’s Descent into Hell Status controversiae

The Chief Issue regarding This Article Among some theologians committed to the Augsburg Confession there has been some dispute regarding this article: when and in what manner the Lord Christ descended into hell, according to our simple Christian creed, and

whether it took place before or after his death. Also, whether he descended only

in his soul, or only in his deity, or with body and soul, bodily and spiritually. Also, whether this article of faith belongs to the suffering of Christ or to his glorious victory and triumph. Since this article, as is true of the previous article, cannot be comprehended by reason or understanding, but must be grasped alone by faith: 'x‘»"?‘é‘f X

3

It is our unanimous counsel that there should be no dispute over this issue

but it should be believed and taught on the simplest level as Dr. Luther of blessed memory explained this article in a most Christian manner in his sermon at Torgau in 1533.70 There he cut off all unprofitable, unnecessary questions and admonished all godly Christians to a simple Christian faith. _ For it is enough that we know that Christ descended into hell and destroyed hell for all believers and that he redeemed them from the power of death, the devil, and the eternal damnation of hellish retribution. How that happened we 69. On the background of this article, see SD IX, 634-35 n. 305, below. 70. WA

37:62-67.

Epitome, Article X: Ecclesiastical Practices

515

should save for the next world, where not only this matter but many others,

which here we have simply believed and cannot comprehend with our blind

reason, will be revealed.

X.

Concerning Ecclesiastical Practices Which Are Called Adiaphora or Indifferent Matters’! A dispute also occurred among theologians of the Augsburg Confession over ceremonies or ecclesiastical practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden in God’s Word but that were introduced in the churches for the sake of good order and decorum. Status controversiae

On the Chief Controversy regarding This Article The chief question concerned a situation of persecution, in a case in which confession is necessary, when the enemies of the gospel refuse to come to terms with us: the question was whether, in that situation, in good conscience, certain ceremonies that had been abolished (as in themselves indifferent matters

neither commanded sure and demand of such ceremonies and yes, the other said no

nor forbidden by God) could be revived under the presthe opponents, and whether compromise with them in indifferent matters would be proper? The one party said to this question.

Affirmative Theses The Proper, True Teaching and Confession concerning This Article 1. To settle this dispute, we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that ceremonies or ecclesiastical practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden

in God’s Word, but have been established only for good order and decorum, are in and of themselves neither worship ordained by God nor a part of such wor-

ship. “In vain do they worship me” with human precepts (Matt. 15[:9]). 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the community of God in every place and at every time has the authority to alter such ceremonies according to its own situation, as may be most useful and edifying for the community of God. 3. Of course, all frivolity and offense must be avoided, and special consideration must be given particularly to those who are weak in faith.

71. On the parties ipvolved in this dispute, see SD X, 635~36 nn. 308-309, below.

516

Formula of Concord

4. We believe, teach, and confess that in a time of persecution, when an unequivocal confession of the faith is demanded of us, we dare not yield to the opponents in such indifferent matters. As the Apostle wrote, “Stand firm in the freedom for which Christ has set us free, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” [Gal. 5:1]. And: “Do not put on the yoke of the others; what partnership is there between light and darkness?” [2 Cor. 6:14]. “So that the truth of

the gospel might always remain with you, we did not submit to them even for a moment” [Gal. 2:5]. For in such a situation it is no longer indifferent matters that are at stake. The truth of the gospel and Christian freedom are at stake. The confirmation of open idolatry, as well as the protection of the weak in faith from offense, is at stake. In such matters we can make no concessions but must

offer an unequivocal confession and suffer whatever God sends and permits the enemies of his Word to inflict on us. 5. We also believe, teach, and confess that no church should condemn another because the one has fewer or more external ceremonies not commanded by God than the other has, when otherwise there is unity with the other in teaching and all the articles of faith and in the proper use of the holy sacraments, according to the well-known saying, “Dissonantia iejunii non dissolvit consonantiam fidei,”* 9« “Dissimilarity in fasting is not to disrupt unity in faith »72

Negative Theses False Teaching concerning This Article Therefore, we reject and condemn as incorrect and contrary to God’s Word:"3

10

1 Ssghy

7t 12

1. When anyone teaches that human commands and prescriptions in the church are to be regarded in and of themselves as worship ordained by God or a part of it. 2. When anyone imposes such ceremonies, commands, and prescriptions upon the community of God with coercive force as if they were necessary, against its Christian freedom, which it has in external matters. 3. Likewise, when anyone teaches that in a situation of persecution, when

public confession is necessary, one may comply or come to terms with the enemies of the holy gospel in these indifferent matters and ceremonies. (Such actions serve to damage God’s truth.) 4. Likewise, when such external ceremonies and indifferent matters are abolished in a way that suggests that the community of God is not free at all times, according to its specific situation, to use one or more of these ceremonies in Christian freedom, as is most beneficial to the church.

72. Irenaeus, cited in Eusebius, Church History V, 24, 13 (MPG 20:506; NPNF, ser. 2, 1:243).

73. These positions summarize the Gnesio-Lutheran understanding of what Melanchthon and other electoral Saxon theologians were attempting in the so-called Leipzig Interim.

Epitome, Article XI: Election

517

XI. Concerning the Eternal Predestination and Election of God On this article there has been no public conflict among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession.”* However, because it is an article of comfort when properly treated, it is also explained in this document so that no offensive dispute may arise in the future.

1

Affirmative Theses The Pure, True Teaching concerning This Article 1. First of all, the difference between praescientia and praedestinatio, that is, between God’s foreknowledge and his eternal election, must be carefully noted.

2. God’s foreknowledge is nothing else than that God knows all things before they happen, as it is written, “God in heaven reveals mysteries. He has disclosed to King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in future times” (Dan. 2[:28]).

3. This foreknowledge extends equally over godly people and evil people, but it is not a cause of evil. It is not the cause of sins, when people act wrongly (sin proceeds originally from the devil and the wicked, perverted human will), nor of human corruption, for which people are responsible themselves. Instead, God’s foreknowledge provides order in the midst'of evil and sets lim-

2

3

4

its to it. It determines how long evil can continue and determines also that

everything, even if it is evil in itself, serves the welfare of God’s elect.

4. Praedestinatio, however, or God’s eternal election, extends only to the

5

righteous, God-pleasing children of God. It is a cause of their salvation, which

God brings about. He has arranged everything that belongs to it. Our salvation is so firmly grounded on it [cf. John 10:26-29] that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” [Matt. 16:18]. 5. This election is not to be probed in the secret counsel of God but rather is to be sought in the Word, where it has also been revealed. 6. However, the Word of God leads us to Christ, who is the “Book of Life” [Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5], in whom are inscribed and chosen all who shall be eter-

nally saved, as it is written, “He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world” [Eph. 1:4]. 7. This Christ calls all sinners to himself and promises them refreshment. He is utterly serious in his desire that all people should come to him and seek help for themselves [cf. Matt. 11:28]. He offers himself to them in the Word. He desires them to hear the Word and not to plug their ears or despise his Word. To this end he promises the power and activity of the Holy Spirit, divine assistance in remaining faithful and attaining eternal salvation. 74. On the background of this article, see SD XI, 641, n. 318, below.

6 7

8

518

Formula of Concord

8. Therefore we are to make judgments regarding our election to eternal life neither on the basis of reason nor on the basis of God’s law. Such a course of action would lead us either into a wild, irresponsible, Epicurean life, or into despair—and would awaken harmful thoughts in human hearts. Whenever people follow their reason, they can hardly escape such reflections as these: “As long as God has chosen me for salvation, I cannot be condemned no matter what I do!” or, “I have not been chosen for eternal life, so it does not help when I do good; everything is really in vain.” 10

9. Instead, the true meaning of election must be learned from the holy

gospel of Christ. It clearly states, “God imprisoned all in unbelief that he may be merciful to all,” and that he wants no one to be lost but rather that everyone

repent and believe on the Lord Christ [Rom. 11:32; 1 Tim. 2:4; cf. Ezek. 33:11; 18:23].

11

10. This teaching is useful and comforting for all those who are concerned about the revealed will of God and follow the order which St. Paul observed in the Epistle to the Romans. There he first of all points people to repentance, acknowledgment of their sins, and then to faith in Christ and obedience to

God before he speaks of the mystery of God’s eternal election. 12

11. That “many are called and few are chosen” [Matt. 20:16] does not mean

that God does not want to save everyone. Instead, the reason for condemnation lies in their not hearing God’s Word at all or arrogantly despising it, plugging their ears and their hearts, and thus blocking the Holy Spirit’s ordinary path, so that he cannot carry out his work in them; or if they have given it a hearing, they cast it to the wind and pay no attention to it. Then the fault lies not with God and his election but with their own wickedness [cf. 2 Peter 2:9-15; Luke 11:47-52; Heb. 12:15-17, 25].

13

12. A Christian should only think about the article of God’s eternal election to the extent that it is revealed in God’s Word. The Word holds Christ before our eyes as the “Book of Life,” which he opens and reveals for us through the preaching of the holy gospel, as it is written, “Those whom he has chosen, he also called” [Rom. 8:30]. In Christ we are to seek the Father’s eter-

nal election. He has decreed in his eternal, divine counsel that he will save no one apart from those who acknowledge his Son Christ and truly believe in him. We should set aside other thoughts, for they do not come from God but rather from the imagination of the evil foe. Through such thoughts he approaches us to weaken this glorious comfort for us or to take it away completely. We have a glorious comfort in this salutary teaching, that we know how we have been chosen for eternal life in Christ out of sheer grace, without any merit of our own,

10:28-29]. For he with mere words. holy sacraments. of them, comfort the devil.

and that no one can tear us out of his hand

[John

has assured us that he has graciously chosen us not only He has corroborated this with an oath and sealed it with the In the midst of our greatest trials we can remind ourselves ourselves with them, and thereby quench the fiery darts of

Epitome, Article XI: Election

519

13. Along with this we should strive as diligently as possible to live according to God’s will and to “confirm our calling,” as Saint Peter admonishes [2 Peter 1:10]. We should especially abide by the revealed Word that cannot and

14

14. This short explanation of God’s eternal election gives God his honor fully and completely. On the basis of his pure mercy alone, without any merit of ours at all, he saves us “according to the purpose of his will” [Eph. 1:11]. In addition, no one is given reason either for faintheartedness or for a reckless, wild life.

15

will not fail us.

Antitheses or Negative Theses False Teaching regarding This Article Accordingly, we believe and maintain that those who present the teaching of God’s gracious election to eternal life either in such a way that troubled Christians cannot find comfort in it but are driven to faintheartedness or despair, or in such a way that the impenitent are strengthened in their arrogance, are not preaching this teaching according to the Word and will of God but rather according to their own reason and at the instigation of the accursed

16

devil, because (as the Apostle testifies) “whatever was written was written for

our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the comfort of the Scriptures we might have hope” [Rom. 15:4]. Therefore, we reject the following errors: 1. When it is taught that God does not want all peopleto repent and believe the gospel. 2. Likewise, that when God calls us to himself, he does not seriously intend that all people should come to him.

3. Likewise, that God does not desire that everyone should be saved, but

rather that without regard to their sins—only because of God’s naked decision,

17 18

19

intention, and will—some are designated for damnation, so that there is no

way that they could be saved.

4. Likewise, that the cause of God’s election does not lie exclusively in God’s

mercy and the most holy merit of Christ but that there is also a cause in us, because of which God has chosen us for eternal life. These are blasphemous, horrible, and erroneous teachings, which take away from Christians all the comfort that they have in the holy gospel and in the use of the holy sacraments. Therefore, these errors dare not be tolerated in the church of God. This is the brief and simple explanation of the contested articles which for a time theologians of the Augsburg Confession taught and discussed in ways that contradicted each other. From this every simple Christian can recognize, according to the direction of God’s Word and the simple catechism, what is

correct and incorrect. For here we have set forth not only the pure teaching but

20

21

22

"

i

520 have also exposed and rejected contrary, erroneous

Formula (’f(fr)nmnl teaching. In this

Way the offensive divisions that had arisen are completely resolved. May the almj God and Father of our Lord Jesus grant the grace of his Holy Spirit, [h;uh:‘/

may all be one in him [John 17:20-21 | and steadfastly remain in this (;hri:ti:/e n and God-pleasing unity.

XIIL.

Concerning Other Factions and Sects That Never Subscribeq to the Augsburg Confession So that such heretical groups and sects may not tacitly be associated wit}, us

because we have not taken notice of them in the previous explanation of our

teaching,”® we wish here at the end to list only the simple statements of do.. trine in which they err and teach contrary to our Christian faith and confes. sion, as we have presented it in detail.

The Erring Articles of the Anabaptists The Anabaptists are divided among themselves into many different factions, and some advocate many errors, others few. In general, however, they proclaim the kind of teaching that cannot be tolerated or permitted either in the church,

in public affairs and temporal government, or in domestic life.

Intolerable Teachings in the Church 1. That Christ did not receive his body and blood from the Virgin Mary but brought them with him from heaven. 2. That Christ is not true God but merely has more gifts of the Holy Spirit than any other holy person.

3. That Christ but This rests [Col. 2:23] 4. That

our righteousness before God rests not only upon the merit of also in our renewal and thus in the godliness of our own way of life. for the most part upon our own special, self-selected spirituality and is fundamentally nothing else than a new monasticism. children who are not baptized are not sinners in God’s sight but

instead are righteous and innocent. In their innocence, because they yet come into full exercise of their reason, they are saved without (which in their opinion children do not need). They reject therefore teaching of original sin and everything connected with it. 5. That children should not be baptized until they attain the use and can confess their faith themselves.

have not baptism the entire of reason

75. On the background of the composition of this article and the positions rc[""""")"ml by

these “factions and sects,” see SD X11, 656-59 nn. 330-333,

below

Epitome, Article XII: Other Factions

521

6. That the children of Christians, because they are born to Christian and believing parents, are holy without and before baptism and are God’s children. This is also the reason why the Anabaptists do not regard infant baptism as important, nor do they encourage it, against the express words of God’s promise, which only extends to those who keep his covenant and do not despise it (Gen. 17[:4-8, 19-21]).

7. That a congregation in which sinners are still found is not a true Christian congregation. 8. That no one should attend worship or hear a sermon in the houses of worship in which papal Masses were previously held and recited. 9. That no one should have anything to do with the ministers of the church who preach the gospel according to the Augsburg Confession and condemn the preaching and errors of the Anabaptists; that no one should serve these ministers or do any work for them, but should flee and avoid them as perverters of God’s Word.

10

11

Intolerable Articles in Public Affairs 1. That service in government is not a God-pleasing walk of life in the New

12

Testament.

2. That a Christian cannot fill or carry out functions in the government with a good, clear conscience. ‘ 3. That a Christian may not make use of the functions of government against the wicked in appropriate situations, nor may the subjects of the government call upon it to use the power it possesses and has been given by God for protection and defense. 4, That Christians may neither swear an oath with good conscience nor pay homage with an oath to their prince or lord. 5. That in the period of the New Testament, governmental authority may

13

14

15 16

not execute criminals without harming its conscience.

Intolerable Articles in Domestic Life 1. That a Christian may not own or possess private property with a good

conscience, but rather is bound to surrender all to the community. 2. That a Christian may not be an innkeeper, merchant, or arms-maker

17 18

with good conscience.

3. That married people may divorce for the sake of faith and abandon the other marriage partner, and then marry another who shares the same faith.

19

522

Formula of Concord

Erroneous Articles of the Schwenckfelders™s 20 21

1. That all those who hold that Christ is a creature according to the flesh have no correct knowledge of the reigning king of heaven, Christ. 2. That the flesh of Christ assumed all divine attributes through the exaltation in such a way that in status and essential dignity he, Christ, as a human being, is equal to the Father and the Word in all respects: in power, might, majesty, and glory, that from now on the two natures in Christ share one

essence, one set of characteristics, one will, and the same glory, and that the

22

23 24 25 26

27

flesh of Christ is a part of the essence of the Holy Trinity. 3. That the church’s ministry, the Word as it is proclaimed and heard, is not

a means through which God the Holy Spirit teaches human beings the saving knowledge of Christ and effects conversion, repentance, faith, and new obedi-

ence in them. 4. That the water of baptism is not a means through which God the Lord seals our adoption as children and effects new birth. 5. That bread and wine in the Holy Supper are not means through which and with which Christ distributes his body and blood. 6. That a Christian, who is truly reborn through the Holy Spirit, can keep and fulfill the law of God perfectly in this life. 7. That a congregation which does not practice public exclusion [of sinners] or has no regular process for excommunication is not a true Christian congregation.

8. That a minister of the church who is not personally and truly renewed, reborn, righteous, and godly may not effectively teach other people or distribute a proper, true sacrament to them.

Errors of the New Arians 28

® fi'é:/f.’} i

2

29

That Christ is not true, essential God by nature, of one eternal divine essence with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, but that he is merely adorned with divine majesty under and alongside God the Father. ‘

Errors of the Antitrinitarians This is a completely new sect, never before heard of in Christendom. It believes, teaches, and confesses that there is not a single, eternal, divine essence

of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but as God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three different persons, so each individual person also has its own distinct essence, separated from the other persons of the Godhead. Either all three—like three different human beings who in all other ways are completely separate from each other in their essences—would have equal 76. Followers of Caspar Schwenckfeld.

Epitome, Article XII: Other Factions

523

power, wisdom, majesty, and glory; or, they are in essence and characteristics not equal, so that only the Father is the real, true God. These and articles like them and whatever other further errors are attached to these and follow from them, we reject and condemn as incorrect, false, heretical, and opposed to the Word of God, the three creeds, the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and the Catechisms of Luther. All godly Christians, of higher or lower social station, should avoid them if they hold the welfare of their souls and their salvation dear. To demonstrate that this is our teaching, faith, and confession, as we want to account for it on the Last Day before the just Judge, our Lord Jesus Christ, and

as we want to say or write nothing contrary, either in secret or publicly, but intend to remain in this teaching by the grace of God, we have upon careful consideration, in true fear of God and invoking him, subscribed with our own hands, done at Bergen, 29 May 1577. DR. JaAkoB ANDREAE subscribed DRr. NICHOLAS SELNECKER subscribed DRr. ANDREW MuscuLus subscribed DRr. CHRISTOPHER KORNER subscribed Davip CHYTRAEUS DRr. MARTIN CHEMNITZ

30

31

524

Formula of Concord

[The Solid Declaration] A GENERAL, CLEAR, CORRECT, and Definitive Repetition and Explanation of Certain Articles of the Augsburg Confession, Concerning which Controversy Has Arisen for a Time among Certain Theologians, Here Resolved and Settled according to the Direction of God’s Word and the Summary Formulation of our Christian Teaching. By the Almighty’s special grace and mercy the teaching of the chief articles of our Christian religion (which had been hideously obscured by human teaching and regulations under the papacy) was purified and elucidated anew on the basis of God’s Word by Dr. Luther, of blessed and holy memory.! He condemned the errors, abuses, and idolatry of the papacy. However, the opposition regarded this genuine Reformation as a new teaching, as if it were totally contrary to God’s Word and established Christian practices. They attacked this Reformation vigorously but without foundation and brought charges against it filled with the wildest lies and accusations. This caused the Christian electors, princes, and estates,? who had at that time accepted the pure teaching of the holy gospel and had reformed their churches in Christian fashion according to the Word of God, to arrange for the presentation of a Christian confession

composed on the basis of God’s Word at the great imperial assembly in Augsburg in 1530.% They submitted it to Emperor Charles V as their clear and unequivocal Christian confession of what is held and taught in the Christian, Evangelical churches, regarding the most important articles of the faith—particularly regarding those that had become matters of controversy between them and the pope’s adherents. This elicited a churlish reaction from their opponents, but, praise God, this confession has endured to this day, without being refuted or overturned. ‘ Once again we wholeheartedly confess our adherence to this same Christian Augsburg Confession, solidly based as it is in God’s Word, and we

remain faithful to its simple, clear, unequivocal meaning, which its words

1. The authors of the Formula of Concord reflected the widespread belief among Lutherans of their day that Luther had been a special instrument in God’s hands for the restoration of the gospel in the church. They replaced his authority as a chief interpreter of the Bible with their own collection of documents, but their high regard for his insight, wisdom, and historical role reveals itself often in the Formula. 2. The political authorities in the territories of the Reformation within the Holy Roman Empire. 3. For the authors of the Formula of Concord the Augsburg Confession was the fundamental expression of the proper interpretation of scripture.

Solid Declaration

525

intend.* We regard this confession as a pure, Christian creed, which (after the Word of God) should guide true Christians in this time, just as in earlier times Christian creeds and confessions were formulated in God’s church when major controversies broke out. To these documents the faithful teachers and their hearers confessed their adherence at those times with heart and mouth. By the grace of the Almighty we, too, are resolved to abide faithfully until our end in this oft-cited Christian confession, as it was delivered to Emperor Charles in 1530. We do not intend to deviate in the least from this Confession either in this document or in any other, nor do we intend to submit any other, new

confession. Although the Christian teaching in this Confession has remained practical-

ly unchallenged (apart from the charges of the papists), at the same time it can-

not be denied that certain theologians have deviated from certain highly significant and vital articles of faith.” They either never had been or indeed did not remain faithful to a correct understanding of these articles of faith. Instead, they even dared to import an alien interpretation into this teaching while wanting to appear as adherents of the Augsburg Confession and to appeal to it and praise it. Because of this, onerous and harmful divisions arose within the pure® Evangelical churches just as even at the time of the holy apostles horrible errors arose in the same way among those who wanted to be called Christians and boasted of their adherence to the teaching of Christ. Thus, some wanted to

become righteous and be saved through the works of the law (Acts 15[:1-29]); some denied the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15[:12]); some did not believe that Christ was the true, eternal God [1 John 2:22-23]. The holy apos-

tles had to confront such teachers sharply in their sermons and writings, although at that time, such highly significant errors and serious controversy would involve a great deal of offense, both to unbelievers and to those weak in the faith. Similarly, in our day our opponents, the papists, gloat over the divisions that have arisen among us, in the unchristian and futile hope that this disunity would lead to the final downfall of the pure teaching. Those who are weak in the faith do take offense because of these controversies: some doubt whether the pure teaching exists among us in view of these divisions, and some do not know which group among us they should support regarding the articles of faith under dispute. For these controversies are not merely misunderstandings or

semantic arguments, where someone might think that one group had not suf-

4. The authors of the Formula here issued a decision in the controversy over the proper, authoritative text of the Augsburg Confession, deciding for the original version, as printed in 1531, the invariata (unrevised) against the variata (revised), which contained revisions composed by

Philip Melanchthon during the decade following that original publication. 5. It became necessary to compose a “formula of concord” because of the internal controversies among the followers of Luther and Melanchthon in the 1550s through the 1570s, as described in the introduction. 6. “Pure” in reference to the teaching of the church conveys the sense of “unadulterated” and “effective,” as the word is applied to food and medicine in modern English.

526

10

Formula of Concord

ficiently grasped what the other group was trying to say or that the tensions were based upon only a few specific words of relatively little consequence. Rather, these controversies deal with important and significant matters, and they are of such a nature that the positions of the erring party neither could nor should be tolerated in the church of God, much less be excused or defended. Therefore, necessity demands explanation of these disputed articles on the basis of God’s Word and reliable writings, so that those with a proper Christian understanding could recognize which position regarding the points under dispute is in accord with God’s Word and the Christian Augsburg Confession and which is not, and so that Christians of good will, who are concerned about the truth, might protect and guard themselves from the errors and corruptions that have appeared among us. Concerning the Binding Summary,” Basis, Rule, and Guiding Principle, How All Teaching Is to Be Judged in Accord with God’s Word and How the Errors That Have Arisen Are to Be Explained and Decided in Christian Fashion. Fundamental, enduring unity in the church requires above all else a clear and binding summary and form in which a general summary of teaching is drawn together from God’s Word, to which the churches that hold the true Christian religion confess their adherence. For this same purpose the ancient church always had its reliable creeds, which were not based upon private writings but on such books as were set forth, approved, and accepted in the name of the churches that confessed their adherence to a single teaching and religion. For this reason we have made this mutual declaration with hearts and mouths that we intend to create or accept no special or new confession of our faith. Rather, we confess our adherence to the publicly recognized writings that have been regarded and used as creeds or common confessions in all the churches of the Augsburg Confession at all times: before the disputes arose among those who

7.1n 1561, in his manuscript summary of the controversies that beset the German Evangelical churches at the time (published in 1594 by Chemnitz’s successor in Braunschweig, Polycarp Leyser, under the title, De controversiis quibusdam, quae superiori tempore, circa quosdam Augustanae Confessionis Articulos, motae & agitatae sunt; Iudicium), Martin Chemnitz had insisted that the churches needed a guiding set of hermeneutical principles—a “correct form and organized summary”—for the adjudication of disputes over the proper interpretation of scripture and that such principles should be given legal force within churches through the adoption of documents collected in a corpus doctrinae (literally, body of doctrine). Some churches had already begun this practice; for example, the Gnesio-Lutherans of ducal Saxony had adopted a Book of Confutation in 1559, and Philippists had brought together a collection of documents by Melanchthon in the Corpus doctrinae Misnicum or Philippicum, published in 1560. To avoid the impression that the Formula of Concord was being written in opposition-to the Melanchthonian collection, the concordists decided at Torgau to avoid the term corpus doctrinae. The entire Formula of Concord,

however, may be seen as the binding summary, basis, rule, and guiding principle according to which, like a corpus doctrinae, the public teaching of churches was to be set.

Solid Declaration

527

had confessed their adherence to the Augsburg Confession and during the time when, everywhere and in all articles of faith, they had remained in agreement with the pure teaching of the divine Word as Dr. Luther of blessed memory had explained it. 1. First, we confess our adherence to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments, as to the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which

alone is the one true guiding principle, according to which all teachers and teaching are to be judged and evaluated. 2. Since in ancient times the true Christian teaching as it was correctly and soundly understood was summarized on the basis of God’s Word in short articles or chief parts against the adulterations of heretics, we confess our adherence, secondly, to the three ecumenical creeds, the Apostles, the Nicene, and the Athanasian, as the glorious confessions of the faith—succinct, Christian, based upon God’s Word, in which all the heresies that had at that time arisen within the Christian churches were clearly and thoroughly refuted. 3. Third, in these last times our merciful God, by his special grace, has through the faithful ministry of that most outstanding man of God, Dr. Luther, once again brought to light out of the horrible darkness of the papacy the truth of his Word. This teaching, drawn from and in accord with the Word of God, is summarized in the articles and chief parts of the Augsburg Confession in opposition to the adulterations of the papacy and other sects. For these rea-

3

4

s

sons, we confess our adherence to the first, unaltered edition of the Augsburg

Confession. We do so not because it was produced by our theologians but because it is taken from God’s Word and is firmly and solidly grounded in it. We confess our adherence to it—precisely as it was set forth in written form in 1530 and presented to Emperor Charles V in Augsburg by some Christian electors, princes, and estates of the Roman Empire as a general confession of the reformed® churches—as our creed for this age. This symbol distinguishes our reformed churches from the papists and other condemned sects and heresies. We appeal to it just as it was custom and tradition in the ancient church for Jater synods, Christian bishops, and teachers to appeal to the Nicene Creed and confess adherence to it. 4. Fourth, as far as the genuine and true meaning of the Augsburg Confession is concerned, a detailed Apology was prepared after the presentation of the Confession [to the emperor] and was published in 1531. This was done so that we might give a more complete explanation and defense against the papists and so that we might forestall the possibility that under the name of the Augsburg Confession someone might surreptitiously undertake to insinuate into the church errors already rejected by the Confession itself. We therefore unanimously confess our adherence to this Apology because in it the

8. For the authors of the Formula of Concord, “reformed” designated those churches which had introduced reforms for which Luther had called.

6

528

Formula of Concord

Augsburg Confession is not only expounded and defended but also supported with clear, irrefutable testimonies from Holy Scripture. |

5. Fifth, we confess our adherence also to the articles that were presented at

Smalcald in the great assembly of theologians in 1537,? and were approved and accepted there, as they were first composed and printed. They were intended to be delivered at the Council in Mantua, or wherever it would be held, as an explanation of the Augsburg Confession, in the name of the most illustrious and illustrious electors, princes, and estates, who resolved to abide by them through God’s grace. In these articles this teaching of the Augsburg Confession was repeated and certain articles of God’s Word are more extensively explained. In addition, we had to set forth the basis and reason why we departed from the papist errors and idolatry and why we should have no fellowship with them—and also why we could reach no compromise with the papacy and did not intend to do so. 6. Sixth, since these highly significant matters also concern the common people, the laity (who, for the sake of their salvation, must distinguish between pure and false teaching), we also pledge ourselves unanimously to the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther, as they were written by him and incorporated into his collected works,!? because they have been unanimously approved and accepted by all the churches of the Augsburg Confession and are officially used in the churches, schools, and homes, and because these Catechisms summarize Christian teaching from God’s Word for the simple laity in the most correct and simple, yet sufficiently explicit fashion. These writings, accepted officially and universally among us, have always been regarded in churches and schools that teach purely as the summary and model of the teaching that Dr. Luther of blessed memory had thoroughly set forth in his writings, on the basis of God’s Word, against the papacy and other sects. We likewise intend to appeal to and rely on the detailed expositions of his teaching in his doctrinal and polemical writings, but in the manner and fashion in which he himself did in the Latin preface of his collected works!! with a necessary and Christian admonition. There he expressly made the distinction that God’s Word alone ought to be and remain the only guiding principle and

9. By 1577 German Evangelical theologians included automatically Melanchthon’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope with Luther’s Smalcald Articles as one document. 10. This comment rejects revisions of Luther’s catechism by the electoral Saxon “CryptoPhilippist” party. Such revisions furthered its spiritualizing view of the Lord’s Supper. The appeal to Luther’s “collected works” probably refers specifically to the Jena edition. The first collection of “Luther’s Works” appeared in 1520. From 1539 scholars in Wittenberg worked on a massive edition of Luther’s published writings, which appeared in seven Latin (1545-61) and twelve German (1539-61) volumes. After the Smalcald War, Gnesio-Lutheran reservations about elements of this

Wittenberg edition gave rise to a second “complete edition,” the Jena edition, in four Latin

(1556-58) and eight German (1555-59) volumes. This became the more widely used edition in the

sixteenth century and is the edition that the Formula itself cites.

11. The reference is to the edition of 1545 (WA 54:179-87; LW 34:327-38).

Solid Declaration

529

rule of all teaching and that no person’s writing can be put on a par with it, but that everything must be totally subject to God’s Word. This does not mean that other good, useful, pure books that interpret Holy

10

Scripture, refute errors, and explain the articles of faith are to be rejected.

Insofar as they are in accord with this model for teaching, they should be regarded and used as helpful interpretations and explanations. Speaking of this summary of our Christian teaching in this way only indicates that there is a unanimously and commonly held, reliable form for teaching to which all our churches commonly pledge themselves. The extent to which all other writings are to be approved and accepted shall be judged and evaluated on the basis of and according to this form, for it is taken from God’s Word. For we assembled the writings mentioned above (the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms) as a carefully considered summary of our Christian teaching because these writings have always been regarded as the common and universally accepted position of our churches, as subscribed by the leading learned theologians of that time and received by all Evangelical churches and schools. We have also included them because, as was stated above, they were all written and issued before the disputes arose among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession. For this reason they were regarded as being impartial, and no party involved in controversy could or should reject them. No one who adheres to the Augsburg Confession sincerely can object to these writings but will gladly accept and support them as witnesses.!? So no one can blame us for using these writings to explain and reach decisions concerning the disputed articles of faith. Just as we base our teaching on God’s Word as the eternal truth, we present and cite these writings as testimonies of the truth and as the unanimous, correct understanding of our predecessors who steadfastly held to the pure teaching.!?

11

12

13

Antitheses or False Teaching in the Disputed Articles'* In order to preserve pure teaching and fundamental, lasting, God-pleasing unity in the church, it is necessary not only to present the pure, beneficial teaching correctly, but also to censure those who contradict it and teach other

doctrines (1 Tim. 3[:9]; Titus 1{:9]). For, as Luther states, true shepherds are

to do both: pasture or feed the sheep and ward off the wolves, so that they may

12. Since 1555 the acceptance of the Augsburg Confession guaranteed an inferior but legal status within the Holy Roman Empire; those who did not adhere to the Augsburg Confession, or to the papacy, were outside the law. Therefore, accepting the Augsburg Confession was critical. 13. The concordists here define the purpose of their collection of confessional documents: to define the content of the belief of the churches of the Augsburg Confession. They are doing so through a new corpus doctrinae, although they explicitly rejected that term at Torgau in order to avoid a sense of competition with the Corpus doctrinae Philippicum. 14. The sixteenth-century practice of condemning false teaching in confession of the faith rests on models in the ancient church.

14

530

15

16

Formula of Concord

flee from other voices (John 10[:4b-5, 16b]) and “separate the precious from the vile” (Jer. 15[:19, Vulgate]). '

Thus, we have come to fundamental, clear agreement that we must steadfastly maintain the distinction between unnecessary, useless quarrels and disputes that are necessary. The former should not be permitted to confuse the church since they tear down rather than edify. The latter, when they occur, concern the articles of faith or the chief parts of Christian teaching; to preserve the truth, false teaching, which is contrary to these articles, must be repudiated. To be sure, the writings we have mentioned provide clear and correct instruction on each and every article of our Christian religion under dispute for Christian readers, who yearn for and love divine truth. These writings make clear what they should accept and hold as correct and true on the basis of God’s Word (the prophetic and apostolic writings) and what they should reject, flee, and avoid as false and untrue. Nevertheless, in order to hold on to the truth in an even clearer and more understandable form and to distinguish it from all errors—and so that nothing remain hidden or concealed under commonly used words—we have clearly and expressly reached mutual agreement on an explanation of the most important articles that have come into

be made obvious—to the exclusion of all incorrect, dubious, suspicious, and

condemned teachings, no matter where or in what books they may be found, or who may have written or wanted to accept them.!” We have done this in order to give everyone a reliable warning against the errors that are dissemi15. This same concern, that “Lutherans” represent the catholic and orthodox consensus of Christian teaching, is also evident in the Augsburg Confession. 16. An approximate number, indicating the quarter-century that began with the Smalcald War (1546-47) and the Augsburg and so-called Leipzig Interims (1548). 17. Controversy had also divided Lutherans regarding the citation of Melanchthon’s works and the use of his name and authority. Some Gnesio-Lutherans favored explicit warning against elements of his later theology. Some Philippists found it intolerable not to accord him equal status

ES

19

2. Second, that we reject and condemn all sects and heresies that are reject-

ed in the writings mentioned above. 3. Third, because of the divisions that have arisen in the past twenty-five years!S as a result of the Interim and for other reasons among some theologians of the Augsburg Confession, it was our desire to set forth and explain our faith and confession in regard to each specific controversy clearly, straightforwardly, and unequivocally, in theses and antitheses (that is, as correct teaching and its opposite), so that the foundation of the divine truth in all these articles may

R S AL

18

SR

17

controversy at this time, and we have clearly explained each individually. In this way there may be a reliable public witness, not only for our contemporaries but also for following generations, regarding what our churches unanimously hold fast and have decided concerning these controverted articles, namely: 1. First, that we reject and condemn all heresy and error that was rejected and condemned in the first, ancient, orthodox church on the true and firm foundation of holy, divine Scripture.!®

Solid Declaration, Article I: Original Sin

531

nated from time to time in certain theologians’ writings, so that no one may be seduced by the reputation of any individual. The Christian readers will want to examine and compare this explanation (as far as is necessary) with the writings enumerated above. From such a comparison they will actually find that what was confessed at the beginning, explained later at various times, and repeated by us in this document regarding each article in the general summary of our religion and faith contains no contradictions. Instead, it presents the simple, unchangeable, reliable truth. Moreover, they will find that we do not lurch from one teaching to another, as our opponents falsely allege, but that we earnestly desire to be found faithful to the Augsburg Confession (as it was originally presented) and to its straightforward and intended Christian meaning. By God’s grace we shall persist steadfastly and firmly in this confession against all adulterations of the truth that have arisen.

L.

Concerning Original Sin aFirst,!8 a dispute took place among some theologians of the Augsburg Confession regarding original sin!® and its true meaning. One party contended that because “through Adam’s fall the whole human nature and essence is corrupted,”?? after the fall the corrupted creature’s nature, substance, essence,

even the noblest, most important part of its essence—the rational soul at its highest level and with its most foremost powers—is original sin itself, and has

been called nature-sin or person-sin, because it is not a thought, word, or deed but the nature itself, out of which, as the root, all other sins arise. Moreover, there is therefore after the fall, because nature has been corrupted by sin,

absolutely no difference at all between human nature or the human essence and original sin.!

with Luther. The concordists here warn readers to judge all books by their content, not by their author. 18. The ordering of the Formula’s articles referred to with this “first” is thematic, not chronological. The Formula roughly follows the outline of the Augsburg Confession: Articles I and II parallel CA II; Articles III-VI parallel CA IV—VT; Article VII parallels CA X (with FC VIII and IX following from FC VII); Article X parallels CA XV; and Article XI parallels CA XVIIL The earliest form of Article I is found in Jakob Andreae’s Six Christian Sermons 81-84. 19. The German term for the Latin peccatum originale, original sin, is “inherited sin.” Luther and his students also employed the term “root sin” for original sin. 20. A citation from the hymn of the Nuremberg city secretary, Lazarus Spengler (1523), Lutheran Worship 363. 21. The leader of this party was the Croatian-Italian student of Luther and Melanchthon,

Matthias Flacius (Illyricus). In a debate over the freedom of the will with his colleague at the University of Jena, Viktorin Strigel, in the presence of Duke John Frederick the Middler of Saxony at Weimar in 1560, Flacius, against his own better judgment, employed the Aristotelian terminology of Strigel to describe original sin. Strigel insisted that original sin be described as an Aristotelian “accident,” that is, a characteristic which does not belong to the defining “essence” of a thing. Using terminology from the system of logic and rhetoric which Melanchthon developed

20

532

Formula of Concord

a0On the contrary, the other party taught that original sin is not actually the nature, substance, or essence of the human being, that is of the human body or soul, which even now, after the fall, are and remain God’s creation and creature in us. Rather, they taught that original sin is something situated in the nature, body, soul, and all the powers of the human being, namely, a horrible, deepseated, indescribable corruption of this nature. They acknowledged, therefore, that human beings lack the righteousness with which they were originally created, that in spiritual matters they have died to the good, and that they have perversely turned toward all evil. They taught that on account of this corruption and inborn sin, which is embedded in human nature, all actual sins flow

from the heart. Thus, they insisted on preserving the distinction between the corrupted human nature and its essence—or between the body and soul (which are still God’s work and creation in us even after the fall) on the one

hand, and, on the other, original sin (which is an activity of the devil, through which human nature has been corrupted).? aThis controversy regarding original sin is not an idle quarrel. On the contrary, if this teaching is correctly drawn from God’s Word and distinguished from all Pelagian?® and Manichaean? errors, then (as the Apology says [II, 33; IV, 45-46, 156-58]) people will better recognize and praise all the more the benefits of the Lord Christ and his precious merit, as well as the gracious work of the Holy Spirit. God will also be honored when his work and creation are correctly distinguished from the devil’s work, through which human nature

has been corrupted. *Therefore, in order both to explain this dispute in a

Christian way, according to God’s Word, and to maintain correct, pure teaching on original sin, we want to set forth theses and antitheses (that is, proper teaching and its contrary) in short statements from the writings mentioned above.

out of Aristotelian sources, Flacius distinguished between a “formal essence” and a “material essence.” In order to emphasize the seriousness of original sin, he taught that it has become the “formal” or forming essence or substance of the fallen human being; in the material essence, the

8

sinner retains human characteristics of rationality and will, but the formal substance of the fallen

human is original his death in 1575 Irenaeus, Joachim 22. Not only

sin. In this connection he taught that the sinner is “in the image of Satan.” After his position continued to be defended by Cyriakus Spangenberg, Christopher Magdeburg, and others. the Philippist party but also many of Flacius’s friends among the Gnesio-

Lutherans (including Simon Musaeus, Tilemann Hesshus, Johannes Wigand, Joachim Mérlin, and

his associate Martin Chemnitz) were alienated from him by his position on original sin, because they feared it deprived the fallen human being of humanity itself. The implications they saw in Flacius’s falsely labeled “Manichaean” position are presented clearly in FC I. Much of this article reproduces a memorandum Chemnitz had written in 1571 for the city of Regensburg, where the ministerium was sharply divided by this issue. ‘ 23. The British monk Pelagius, Augustine’s opponent in the great controversy over grace and works of that time, lent his name to the view that salvation can be accomplished by human beings apart from, or with the assistance of very little, divine grace. 24. The non-Christian thinker Mani lent his name to a radical dualism that posited more or less equally powerful divine forces or persons on both the side of good and the side of evil.

Solid Declaration, Article I: Original Sin

533

“fFirst of all, it is true that not only should Christians regard and recognize as sin the actual violation of God’s commandments in their deeds, but they should also perceive and recognize that the horrible, dreadful, inherited disease corrupting their entire nature is above all actual sin and indeed is the “chief sin.” It is the root and fountainhead of all actual sins. “Luther calls this a “nature-sin” or “person-sin,”? in order to indicate that even if a human being

6

thinks, says, or does nothing evil (which is, of course, after the fall of our first parents, impossible for human nature in this life), nevertheless, our entire

nature and person is sinful, that is, totally and thoroughly corrupted in God’s sight and contaminated by original sin as with a spiritual leprosy. Because of this corruption and on account of the fall of the first human beings, God’s law accuses

and

condemns

human

nature

and the human

person. Therefore,

Luther concludes, we are “by nature children of wrath” [Eph. 2:3], of death, and of damnation, if we are not redeemed from them through Christ’s merit. Second, it is also clear and true, as the nineteenth article of the Augsburg Confession teaches, that God is not a creator, author, or cause of sin. Instead,

by the instigation of the devil, “through one human being, sin” (which is a work of the devil) “came into the world” (Rom. 5[:12]; 1 John 3[:8]). To this

day and in this state of corruption, God does not create and make sin in us, but along with human nature, which God still in this day and age creates in human beings, original sin is transmitted through carnal conception and birth from father and mother through the sinful seed. Third, as the Smalcald Articles say [III, 1], “reason does not recognize” and

knows nothing about the nature of this inherited defect. Instead, it must be Jearned and “believed on the basis of the revelation of the Scripture.” This is summarized in the Apology [1I, 2-50] under these headings: f]. That this inherited defect is guilt, which causes us all to stand in God’s disfavor and to be “children of wrath by nature” because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, as the Apostle testifies in Romans 5[:12]. and for the sake of brevity we refer to it at this point.

129. A general summary of Osiander’s position. 130. A rejection of Stancaro’s position. 131. Osiander’s position as stated in his Confession of 1551; the Prussian reaction to the Torgau Book compared this with the position of the Council of Trent, Session V1, canon 11. 132. An explicit condemnation of Osiander’s position; see also Council of Trent, Session VI, chaps. 6, 16, canons 7, 9; cf. Examination of Trent I, 553-64. 133. Council of Trent, Session VI, chap. 15, canon 28. 134. An idea rejected in Peter Lombard’s Sentences 1, d. 14, but defended by Thomas Aquinas. Stancaro allegedly held this view. In refuting Osiander’s position, the Hamburg ministerium said that there is no indwelling of the Trinity in believers but only an indwelling of the divine power. 135. His “greater” Galatians commentary, published in 1535, found in WA 40/1 and LW 26-27.

59

60 61 62

63

64 65

66

67

574

Formula of Concord

-

IV. Concerning Good Works

arA dispute over good works arose among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession.!*® One party used the following language: “Good works are necessary for salvation.” “It is impossible to be saved without good works.” And: “No one is saved apart from good works.”13” They explained that they used these expressions because good works are demanded from those who believe in Christ as fruits of faith and because faith without love is dead, although this love is not the cause of salvation. The other party, in contrast, argued that good works are indeed necessary—not for salvation, however, but for other reasons.!3® They therefore held that the preceding propositions and ways of speaking conform not to the model of sound teaching and expression but rather to the teaching of the papists (which always was and still is opposed to the teaching of our Christian faith; for we confess that only faith justifies and saves). Hence they held that these propositiones are not to be tolerated in the church of God in order not to diminish the merit of Christ, our Savior, and in order to retain for believers the firm and certain promise of salvation.

In this controversy a few also advanced this provocative proposition or expression that “good works are harmful for salvation.”!** Some also argued that good works are performed not by necessity but freely, because they are not coerced by the fear and punishment of the law but rather flow from a free spir136. Jakob Andreae’s Six Christian Sermons, 77-81.

137. This controversy was named the Majoristic controversy because these proposals had been affirmed by Melanchthon’s student and colleague, George Major, in his public defense of ideas expressed in the so-called Leipzig Interim, which he had helped write. Melanchthon had used such language in the second edition of the Loci communes (1535) (CR 21:479) and had defended simi-

lar expressions in a dispute in 1535 over the teaching of his colleague, Caspar Cruciger Sr., that good works are a sine qua non for salvation. Major had served as rector in Magdeburg alongside the first Evangelical superintendent of the Magdeburg church, Nicholas von Amsdorf, in the late 1520s, at a time when Roman Catholic opponents in the city had argued that the Lutherans deserved death because they denied that good works are necessary for salvation. Thus, Amsdorf could only believe that Major consciously and intentionally was embracing an important part of the Roman Catholic objection to Luther’s teaching when he advocated the use of these statements. Major found support from most Philippists, prominently Justus Menius, a pastor in ducal Saxony, and his ideas remained the focus of sharp dispute at the Altenburg Colloquy in 1568-69. 138. Amsdorf represented this view, supported in his 1552 attack almost immediately by Matthias Flacius, Nicholas Gallus, Joachim Westphal, Johannes Wigand, and others.

139. This view, advanced by Amsdorf in a 1559 treatise, was frequently expressed by Luther, particularly in the 1510s and 1520s, as a way of rejecting reliance on works for salvation (cf. WA 1:102, 20-21; 2:503, 2830 [LW 27:240]; 650, 1-8; 7:29, 31-34; 10/1/1: 397, 9-11 [LW 52:113]; 451, 21; 10/3:373, 37-374, 2; 387, 12-14; 14:634, 32-35 [LW 9:102]; 22:364, 17-18, 25-32; 39/1:347,

27-29; 354, 7-8). No one else advanced the proposition, and it attracted surprisingly little response from Philippists, who only occasionally complained publicly that the proposition would undermine public order (e.g., at the Colloquy at Altenburg). Cyriakus Spangenberg did defend Amsdorf’s use of the phrase in the 1570s.

Solid Declaration, Article

IV: Good Works

575

it and joyous heart. Against this position another party argued that good works are necessary. eThis latter dispute initially arose over the words necessitas and libertas (that

4

is, necessary and free), because particularly the word necessitas (necessary) not

only refers to the eternal, unchanging order, according to which all human beings are obliged and bound to obey God, but also at the same time refers to coercion, with which the law forces people to do good works. ¢Later this became not only a semantic argument but there was also a violent argument and dispute over the teaching itself, when some contended that

new obedience in the reborn is not necessary because of the order of God mentioned above.!40 “To explain this disagreement in a Christian manner and according to the guidance of God’s Word, and, by God’s grace, to arrive at a complete settlement, we believe, teach, and confess as follows:

“First, there is no argument among our people on the following points: that it is God’s will, order, and command that believers shall walk in good works; that true good works are not those which people invent for themselves or that take their form according to human tradition but rather are those that God himself has prescribed and commanded in his Word; that true good works are not performed out of our own natural powers, but they are performed when a person is reconciled with God through faith and renewed through the Holy Spirit, or, as Paul says, “created” anew, “in Christ Jesus for good works” [Eph. 2:10]. There is also no argument about how and why believers’ good works are pleasing and acceptable to God, even though they are impure and imperfect in this flesh. We agree that this is so for the sake of the Lord Christ through faith, because the person is acceptable to God. *For works that belong to the maintenance of outward discipline are also demanded of the unbelievers and unconverted and are performed by them. Even though such works are praiseworthy in the world’s sight and are rewarded by God in this world with temporal benefits, nonetheless, because they do not proceed from true faith, they are sin in God’s sight. That is, they are tarnished with sins and are regarded by God as sin and impure because of the corrupted human nature and because the person who performs them is not reconciled with God. For “a bad tree cannot bear good fruit” [Matt. 7:18], as it is also written in Romans 14[:23], “Whatever does

not proceed from faith is sin.” For a person must be acceptable to God beforehand (and that alone because of Christ), before that person’s works are at all pleasing to him.

140. These terms were at the heart of the dispute in Frankfurt an der Oder in the late 1550s between Andrew Musculus and his Philippist colleague, Abdias Praetorius. Musculus did not teach the position here condemned, and it is not clear why he would have permitted the committee composing the Formula to describe what seems to be a summary of his own position in this way.

6

576

10

Formula of Concord

aTherefore, faith must be the mother and the source of those truly good and God-pleasing works, which God wants to reward in this world and the next. For this reason St. Paul calls them true fruits of faith or of the Spirit [Gal. 5:22; Eph. 5:9]. fFor, as Dr. Luther writes in the preface to St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, “Faith is a divine work in us which changes us and makes us to be born anew of God [John 1:12-13]. It kills the old ‘Adam’ and makes us altogether differ-

11

12

13

W

‘

S

14

ent people, in heart and spirit and mind and all powers; and it brings with it the Holy Spirit. O, it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing good works incessantly. It does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is asked, it has already done them, and is constantly doing them. Whoever does not do such works, however, is an unbeliever, who gropes and looks around for faith and good works, but knows neither what faith is nor what good works are. Yet such a person talks and talks, with many words, about faith and good works. Faith is a living, daring confidence in God’s grace, so sure and certain that the believer would stake life itself on it a thousand times. fThis knowledge of and confidence in God’s grace makes people glad and bold and happy in dealing with God and with all creatures. And this is the work which the Holy Spirit performs in faith. Because of it, without compulsion, a person is ready and glad to do good to everyone, to serve everyone, to suffer everything, out of love and praise to God, who has shown this grace. Thus, it is impossible to separate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate heat and light from fire”!! Because on these points there was no dispute among us, we will not treat them at length but will simply and clearly explain only those points under dispute and their relation to each other. “First, concerning necessity or freedom in regard to good works, it is clear that the Augsburg Confession [VI, XX] and its Apology [IV, 141, 189, 200, 214] often use and repeat expressions like “good works are necessary” or “it is necessary to do good works, which necessarily should follow faith and reconciliation,” and, “it is necessary that we should do and must do the good works that God commands.” In the same way the Holy Scripture itself uses words like “necessity;” “necessary,” and “necessarily” and “should” and “must” to describe what we are bound to do according to God’s order, command, and will, as in Romans 13[:5, 6, 9]; 1 Corinthians 9[:9]; Acts 5[:29]; John 15[:12]; 1 John 4[:11].142

15

‘Therefore, some improperly reject and condemn such expressions or propositiones, in their Christian and proper sense.!*> They should properly be introduced and used to reject and condemn the illusion of Epicurean security, 141. WADB

7:10, 6-23; 11, 6-23; LW 35:370-71.

142. This reflects Melanchthon’s position, expressed at the 1557 Colloquy of Worms, CR 9:405ff.,, and in the Frankfurt Recess of 1558; cf. CR 9:473ft., 496ff.

143. In the Eisenach Synod of 1556, called to reject the Majoristic opinions of Justus Menius, Flacius and Wigand argued this position, asserting, for example, that good works are theoretically

Solid Declaration, Article IV: Good Works

577

since many construct for themselves a dead faith or illusory faith, which exists

without repentance or good works. As if true faith and the evil intention to remain and continue in sin could exist in a single heart at the same time! That is impossible. Or, as if they can have and retain true faith, righteousness, and

salvation while being and remaining at the same time a rotten, unfruitful tree that bears no good fruits—yes, even when they remain in sin against their conscience or intentionally give themselves over to sin! This is improper and

wrong. ‘Here, however, this difference must also be kept in mind: that it should

be understood when as coercion but only are bound.!** God’s to obey its Creator.

the word “necessary” is used, it should not be understood as the order of the unchangeable will of God, to which we command also indicates this when it enjoins the creature “In other cases (as in 2 Cor. 9[:7], in the Epistle of Saint

Paul to Philemon, and in 1 Peter 5[:2]), “from necessity” means what is wrung

16

17

from people against their will, through coercion or in some other way, that they act outwardly, as a pretense, but indeed without and against their own

will. For God does not want to have such hypocritical works. Instead, the peo-

ple of the New Testament are supposed to be a willing people (Ps. 110[:3]), and “to sacrifice with a free will” (Ps. 54[:6]), not reluctantly or under compulsion, “but from obedient hearts” (2 Cor. 9[:7]; Rom. 6[:17]). “For “God loves a cheer-

ful giver” (2 Cor. 9[:7]). In this sense and meaning it is right to say and teach that those whom the Son of God has freed do true good works freely or from a free and willing spirit. Chiefly on the basis of this interpretation some conducted a discussion of the spontaneity of good works. ‘Here once again the distinction that Paul makes in Romans 7[:22, 23] should be noted: I am willing and “I delight in the law of God in my inmost

18

19

self,” but in my flesh I find “another law,” which is not only unwilling and

reluctant but also does battle against the law of my mind. In regard to the reluctant, recalcitrant flesh, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9[:27], “I punish my

body and enslave it,” and in Galatians 5[:24] and Romans 8[:13], “Those who

belong to Christ have crucified,” indeed killed, their “flesh with its passions and desires” and activities. “But we reject and condemn as false the view that good works are a matter of freedom for the faithful, in the sense that they have free choice whether they want or wish to do them or refrain from doing them

20

or even to act against God’s law while nevertheless still retaining faith, God’s favor, and grace.

This latter phrase means that, reminded and awakened through visible signs in the same manner as through the preached Word, our faith rises up and ascends above all the heavens, where it truly and essentially, but still only spiritually, receives and enjoys the body of Christ which is present in heaven—indeed, Christ himself together with all his benefits.!”® For, just as the bread and wine are here on earth and not in heaven, so the body of Christ is now in heaven and not on earth; therefore, in the Supper, they say, nothing else is received orally than bread and wine. ¢In the beginning they alleged that the Lord’s Supper is only an outward sign through which Christians can be identified and in which nothing other than mere bread and wine (which are the bare signs of the absent body of Christ) are distributed.!”” When this just did not hold water, they then confessed that the Lord Christ is truly present in his Supper, but per communicationem idiomatum,'’® that is, only according to his divine nature but not with his body and blood.!”* ¢Later on, when they were constrained by Christ’s own words to confess that the body of Christ is present in the Supper, they understood this and explained this as meaning nothing other than a spiritual presence. That meant that he is present with his power, his activity, his benefits, to be enjoyed through faith, because through the Spirit of Christ, which is omnipresent, our bodies, in which the Spirit of Christ dwells here on earth, are united with Christ’s body, which is in heaven.!8 174. Article XXV of the Consensus Tigurinus (Zurich Consensus) of 1549 (BSRK, 163; JPH,

56), a common confession on the Lord’s Supper composed by theologians from Zurich and Geneva. It is cited first in Latin and translated into German. 175. The limitation of the presence of Christ to a matter of faith is reflected, for example, in Exegesis perspicua, 23—41. ' 176. Common usage in Reformed confessions, including Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession of 1566 (translation: The Creeds of Christendom, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977], 1:396-420), the Heidelberg Catechism (translation: The Heidelberg Catechism with Commentary [Philadelphia and Boston: United Church Press, 1963]), the Consensus Tigurinus (translation: JPH, 45-61), and Calvin’s Institutes (translation: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, Library of Christian Classics 20, 21 [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960]).

177. The expression of Zwingli in his Account of the Faith (Fidei ratio) and of the Consensus Tigurinus. 178. “Through the communication of attributes” or “characteristics.” 179. The position of the Grundfest, 9-17; cf. 77-80. 180. Consensus Tigurinus V, VI (BSRK, 160; JPH, 51-52).

594

Formula of Concord

bIn this way many important people were deceived through these magnificent, alluring words. For they pretended and boasted that they held no other opinion than that the Lord Christ is present in his Supper in a true, essential, and living way. However, they understood that presence only as a presence according to his divine nature, not the presence of his body and blood, which are now supposedly in heaven and nowhere else. In the Supper, with the bread and wine, he gives us his true body and blood to eat (but to be enjoyed in a spiritual manner through faith, not orally through the mouth).!8! bFor they understand the words of the Supper, “Take, eat, this is my body;” not in a real sense, literally, but as figurative speech.!®? They interpret the words as though eating the body of Christ means nothing other than faith, and as though body means nothing other than symbolum (that is, a sign or figure) of Christ’s body, which is not in the Supper on earth but is only in heaven. They interpret the word “is” as follows: the body of Christ is united with the bread sacramentally or in a figurative manner, so that no one will imagine that the reality is joined to the symbols in such a way that Christ’s body is even now present on earth in some invisible and incomprehensible way.!8> That is, the body of Christ is sacramentally or symbolically united with the bread in such a way that faithful, godly Christians enjoy Christ’s body, which is above in heaven, spiritually through faith, as certainly as they eat the bread with their mouths. PHowever, they continue to curse and condemn as a horrible blasphe-

my the teaching that Christ’s body in the Supper is essentially present here on earth, although in an invisible and incomprehensible way, and is orally received with the consecrated bread also by hypocrites and counterfeit Christians.!84 bOn the contrary, the Augsburg Confession

10

11

[X] teaches on the basis of

God’s Word regarding the Lord’s Supper that “the true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine in the Holy Supper and are distributed and received there.” It rejects the contrary teaching (namely, that of the sacramentarians, who at the same time presented their own confession in Augsburg, which stated that the body of Christ, because it had ascended into heaven, is not truly and essentially present here on earth in the sacrament). PThis position is also clearly set forth in Dr. Luther’s Small Catechism [“Lord’s Supper,” 2] in the following words: the Sacrament of the Altar “is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.” ®In the

Apology [X, 1, 3] it is not only even more clearly explained, but it is also confirmed using passages of Paul from 1 Corinthians 10 and from Cyril, with these words, “The tenth article [of the Augsburg Confession] is accepted [by the 181. 182. 183. pretation

Exegesis perspicua, 17-23, 59-63. The position of Zwingli and Bullinger. This sentence translates a Latin definition of unknown origin. What follows is an interof the same in German.

184. Calvin, Institutes 1V, 17, 26; Consensus Tigurinus XXVI (BSRK, 163; JPH, 56).

Solid Declaration, Article VII: Holy Supper

595

authors of the Roman Catholic Confutation of the Augsburg Confession]. In it we confess that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present and that they are truly distributed with the visible elements of bread and wine to those who receive the sacrament. For since Paul says, “The

bread that we break is a sharing of the body of Christ’ [1 Cor. 10:16], it follows that the bread would not be a sharing of the body of Christ but of the Spirit of Christ, if Christ’s body were not truly present but only the Holy Spirit. We know that not only the Roman church but also the Greek church teach the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.” Cyril is also cited to the effect that Christ also dwells in us bodily in the Supper through the sharing of his flesh.!8> bLater on, when those who had presented their own confession regarding this article at Augsburg wished instead to affirm the confession of our churches, the following formula concordiae, that is, “Articles of a Christian Agreement between the Saxon and South German Theologians,” was drafted in Wittenberg in 1536 and signed by Dr. Martin Luther and other theologians from both sides:!86 b“We have heard how Martin Bucer has explained his own position and that of the other preachers who came with him from the [South German] cities regarding the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: b“They confess, in the words of Irenaeus,'®” that there are two things in this sacrament, one heavenly and one earthly. Therefore, they hold and teach that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, distributed, and received. Although they do not believe in a tran-

12

13

14

substantiation (that is, in an essential transformation of the bread and wine

into the body and blood) and they do not hold that the body and blood of Christ are localiter, that is, spatially enclosed in the bread or are permanently united in some other way apart from reception!®® in the sacrament, they nevertheless admit that through the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. °For they do not hold that the body of Christ is present apart from reception—for example, when the bread is laid aside and kept in the tabernacle or carried about and put on display in the procession, as happens in the papacy. 185. Cyril of Alexandria, on the Gospel of John, X, 2 (MPG 74:341). Here the authors of the Formula provide a fresh German translation of the quarto edition of the Apology, independent of Jonas’s German version that was based on the octavo edition.

186. The “Formula Concordiae” or “Wittenberg Concord” on the Lord’s Supper, reached in meetings in Wittenberg in 1536 between Luther and his associates on the one side, and South German theologians, led by Martin Bucer and colleagues from Strasbourg, who had taken a mediating stance between Zwingli and Luther on the Lord’s Supper. The Genevan and Zurich circles interpreted the “Wittenberg Concord” in a more open way than did the concordists. 187. Adversus Haeresios 1V; 18, 5 (MPG 7:1028-29; ANF 1:486).

188. The German translation of the Wittenberg Concord used here employs the word Niessung, “reception,” although the Latin translation of the Formula of 1584 employs usum, “use,” reflecting the rule set forth in par. 85, “nihil habet rationem sacramenti extra usum a Christo insti-

15

596 16

Formula of Concord

b“Second, they hold that the institution of this sacrament, as it was performed by Christ, is effective throughout Christendom and that its power does not rest upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister who distributes the sacrament, nor upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the one who receives it because, as St. Paul says, even the unworthy receive the sacrament. Thus, they hold that the body and blood of Christ are truly distributed even to the unworthy and that the unworthy truly receive the body and blood when the sacrament is conducted according to Christ’s institution and command. But they receive it to judgment, as St. Paul says [1 Cor. 11:27-32], for they misuse the holy sacrament because they receive it without true repen-

17

18

19

20

21

22

tance and without faith. For it was instituted to testify that the grace and benefits of Christ are applied to those who truly repent and find comfort through faith in Christ and that these are the ones incorporated into Christ and washed in Christ’s blood.” bIn the following year, the most prominent of the theologians committed to the Augsburg Confession, from all of Germany, assembled at Smalcald and deliberated on what parts of our church’s teaching should be presented in the council. By common consent Dr. Luther drafted the Smalcald Articles, to which each and every one of these theologians subscribed. In them the proper and correct position was expressed briefly and comprehensively, with words that agreed with Christ’s words most exactly. YEvery subterfuge and loophole was thereby plugged for the sacramentarians, who had interpreted the Wittenberg Concord of the previous year (the previously mentioned articles of unity) to their own advantage, namely, that these words supposedly meant that the body of Christ, together with all Christ’s benefits, are not distributed with the bread in any other way than they are with the word of the gospel and that the sacramental union means nothing more than the spiritual presence of the Lord Christ through faith.!3° PThe words of the Smalcald Articles [II, 6] state simply

that “the bread and the wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, which are not only offered to and received by upright Christians but also by evil ones.” dDr. Luther explained and confirmed this position in greater detail on the basis of God’s Word in the Large Catechism [“Lord’s Supper,” 12-19], where he wrote, “Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of Christ, in and under the bread and wine that we Christians are commanded by Christ’s word to eat and drink.” 9Shortly thereafter, “It is the Word, I say, that makes this a sacrament and distinguishes it from ordinary bread and wine, so that it is called and truly is Christ’s body and blood.” dShortly thereafter: “With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and declare: ‘Let a hundred thousand devils, with all the fanatics, come forward and tutum” (the sacrament has no purpose outside the use instituted by Christ), which holds that the sacrament exists only in relation to its use as instituted by Christ. 189. For example, in the Exegesis perspicua, 17-23.

Solid Declaration, Article VII: Holy Supper

597

say, “How can bread and wine be Christ’s body and blood?” Still I know that all the spirits and scholars put together have less wisdom than the divine Majesty has in his littlest finger. Here is Christ’s word: “Take, eat, this is my body.” “Drink of this, all of you, this is the New Testament in my blood,” etc. Here we shall take our stand and see who dares to instruct Christ and alter what he has spoken. It is true, indeed, if you take the Word away from the elements or view them apart from the Word, you have nothing but ordinary bread and wine. But if the words remain, as is right and necessary, then by virtue of them the elements are truly the body and blood of Christ. For as Christ’s lips speak and say, so it is; he cannot lie or deceive.

d“Hence it is easy to answer all kinds of questions that now trouble people—for example, whether even a wicked priest can administer the sacrament and similar questions. Our conclusion is: Even though a scoundrel receives or administers the sacrament, it is the true sacrament (that is, Christ’s body and blood) just as truly as when one uses it most worthily. For it is not founded on human holiness but on the Word of God. As no saint on earth, yes, no angel in heaven can make bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood, so likewise can no one change or alter the sacrament, even through misuse. d“For the Word by which it was constituted and instituted a sacrament is not rendered false because of an individual’s unworthiness or unbelief. Christ does not say, ‘If you believe or if you are worthy, you have my body and blood, but rather, “Take, eat and drink, this is my body and blood. dLikewise, when he says, ‘Do this’ (namely, what I now do, what I institute, what I give you and bid you take), this is as much as to say, ‘No matter whether you are worthy or unworthy, you have here his body and blood by the power of these words that are connected to the bread and wine” Mark this and remember it well. For upon these words rests our whole argument, our protection and defense against all errors and deceptions that have ever arisen or may yet arise.” dThese are the words of the Large Catechism, which confirms, on the basis of God’s Word, the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Holy Supper. This presence is to be understood as valid not only for those who believe and are worthy, but also for those who do not believe and are unworthy. dBecause this man of great insight foresaw through the Holy Spirit that after his death some would want to raise the suspicion that he had deviated from this teaching and from other Christian articles,'* he added the following protestation to his Great Confession: d“T see that schisms and errors are increasing proportionately with the passage of time, and that there is no end to the rage and fury of Satan. Hence lest any persons during my lifetime or after my death appeal to me or misuse my writings to confirm their error, as the sacramentarian and baptistic fanatics are 190. Rumors to this effect had been widely circulated by sacramentarian theologians, particularly the Calvinists in Heidelberg, in the early 1560s, occasioning a rejoinder from Chemnitz’s close friend,

Joachim

Morlin,

Heidelberg) of 1565.

Wider

die

Heidelberger

Landliige

(Against

the

defamation

from

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

598

30

31

32

33

34

Formula of Concord

already beginning to do, I desire with this treatise to confess my faith before God and all the world, point by point. I am determined to abide by it until my death and (so help me God!) in this faith to depart from this world and to appear before the judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ. ¢Hence if anyone

shall say after my death, ‘If Luther were living now, he would teach and hold

this or that article differently, for he did not consider it sufficiently; etc., let me say once and for all that by the grace of God I have most diligently traced all these articles through the Scriptures, have examined them again and again in the light thereof, and have wanted to defend all of them as certainly as I have now defended the Sacrament of the Altar. 41 am not drunk or irresponsible. I know what I am saying, and I well realize what this will mean for me before the Last Judgment at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let no one make this out to be a joke or idle talk; I am in dead earnest, since by the grace of God I have learned to know a great deal about Satan. If he can twist and pervert the Word of God, what will he not be able to do with my or someone else’s words?”%! dLuther of blessed memory also added to this protestation the following article, among others: He says, “In the same way I also say and confess that in the Sacrament of the Altar the true body and blood of Christ are orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even if the priests who distribute them or those who receive them do not believe or otherwise misuse the sacrament. It does not rest on human belief or unbelief but on the Word and ordinance of God—unless they first change God’s Word and ordinance and misinterpret them, as the enemies of the sacrament do at the present time. They, indeed, have only bread and wine, for they do not also have the words and instituted ordinance of God but have perverted and changed it according to their own imagination.”!%? bMore than all others, Dr. Luther understood the true, correct interpretation of the Augsburg Confession, and he remained committed to it and defended it to the end. He repeated his belief regarding this article with great ardor shortly before his death in his Last Confession, in the following words, when he wrote: “I regard them all as being part of the same cake” (that is, as sacramentarians and fanatics), “as indeed they are. For they do not want to believe that the Lord’s bread in the Supper is his true, natural body which the godless person or Judas receives orally just as well as St. Peter and all the saints. Whoever (I say) does not want to believe that should not trouble me . . . and should not expect to have fellowship with me. That is final”!%? bFrom these explanations, particularly from the explanation of Dr. Luther as the foremost teacher of the Augsburg Confession, anyone who understands the language and loves truth and peace can without doubt perceive what the 191. Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:499, 15-500, 26; LW 37:360-61). 192. Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:506, 21-29; LW 37:367). 193. Brief Confession concerning the Holy Sacrament (1544) (WA 54:155, 29-156, 38:304).

5; LW

Solid Declaration, Article VII: Holy Supper

599

proper and correct interpretation and position of the Augsburg Confession in regard to this article has always been. PThe reason for using the formula “under the bread,” “with the bread,” “in the bread” alongside the words of Christ and of St. Paul that the bread in the Supper “is the body of Christ” [Matt. 26:26; Luke 22:19; Mark 14:22; 1 Cor. 11:24] or “the sharing of the body of Christ” [1 Cor. 10:16] is to reject the papistic transubstantiation and to point to the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and the body of Christ. "In the same way, this expression, verbum caro factum est [“the Word became flesh”], is repeated and explained in several ways, through phrases with the same meaning: “the Word lived among us” [John 1:14], or “in Christ the whole fullness of deity dwells

35

36

bodily” [Col. 2:9], or “God was with him” [Acts 10:38], or “God was in Christ” [2 Cor. 5:19], and similar phrases. They all mean that the divine essence is not

transformed into the human nature, but that the two unaltered natures are personally united. ®*Many of the foremost ancient teachers—Justin, Cyprian, Augustine, Leo, Gelasius, Chrysostom, and others—used this comparison for the words of Christ’s testament, “This is my body.”!** Just as in Christ two distinct, unaltered natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper two essences, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here on earth in the action of the sacrament, as it was instituted. ®This union of Christ’s body and blood with the bread and wine, however, is not a

37

38

personal union, as is the case with the two natures in Christ. Rather, as Dr.

Luther and our people called it in the Articles of Agreement of 1536 (men-

tioned above) and in other places, it is a sacramentalis unio (that is, a sacramental union). With this expression they wanted to indicate that, although

they also use the formae “in pane,” “sub pane,” “cum pane” (that is, these various ways of speaking: “in the bread,” “under the bread,” “with the bread”), nevertheless, they accept the words of Christ in their proper sense, as they read. In the propositio (that is, in the words of Christ’s testament) “hoc est corpus meum” (“this is my body”), there is not figurata praedicatio (that is, not a figurative, embellished expression or a metaphorical formulation) but an inusitata [unique expression].!?> PAs Justin says, “We do not receive this as ordinary

bread and as an ordinary beverage, but just as Jesus Christ, our Savior, became

flesh through God’s Word and had flesh and blood for the sake of our salvation, so we believe that the meal consecrated by him through Word and prayer is the flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.”19¢

194. Justin Martyr, Apology 1:66 (MPG 6:427, 430; ANF 1:185); Cyprian, Epistles 63, 4,5 (MPL 4:387-89; ANF 1:359-60); Pseudo-Augustine, Quaestiones ex Novo Testamento (MPL 25:278-79); Leo, On Fasting 6 (MPL 54:452; NPNF, ser. 2, 12:201-2); Gelasius, Epistolae genuinae 1, 541-42; Chrysostomus, Epistola ad Caesarium (MPG 52:758).

195. In the Apology of the Book of Concord (1584), Selnecker explained that the term inusitata (unique) was chosen because they could find no German parallel to this mode of expression. 196. Justin Martyr, Apology 1:66 (MPG 6:427-30; ANF 1:185).

39

600

40 41

42

43

Formula of Concord

bLikewise, Dr. Luther in his Great Confession and especially in his Brief Confession on the Supper defended the formula that Christ used in the first Supper with great zeal and seriousness.!%’ bBecause Dr. Luther must deservedly be regarded as the foremost teacher of the churches that subscribe to the Augsburg Confession, since his entire teaching in sum and content was set down in the articles of the Augsburg Confession and presented to Emperor Charles V, the actual intention and meaning of the Augsburg Confession should not and cannot be derived more properly and better from any other place than from Dr. Luther’s doctrinal and polemical writings. bIn the same way, the position of Luther recounted here is based upon the unique, firm, immovable, indubitable rock of truth from the Words of Institution in the holy, divine Word, and was so understood, taught, and propagated by the holy evangelists and apostles and their disciples and hearers. bFor our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is our only teacher; concerning him this weighty command was given from heaven to all human beings, “Hunc audite” (“listen to him”)

44

45

[Matt. 17:5]. He was not a mere human being or

angel. He was not only truthful, wise, and powerful. He is the eternal truth and Wisdom itself, and almighty God. He knows very well what to say and how to say it, and he can accomplish through his power everything that he has said and promises, and can make it happen, as he says, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” [Luke 21:33], and, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” [Matt. 28:18]. bThis reliable, almighty Lord, our creator and redeemer Jesus Christ, spoke these words, which established and instituted the Supper, concerning the bread that he had consecrated and distributed, “Take and eat, this is my body which is given for you,” and concerning the chalice or wine, “This is my blood of the New Testament, which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins” [Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:19-20]. He spoke these words deliberately and carefully at his Last Supper, as he began his bitter suffering and death for our sins, in that last, sad hour. Thereby he instituted this most holy sacrament, which is to be used until the end of the world with great reverence and in all obedience. It is to be a continual memorial of his bitter suffering and death and of all his benefits, a seal of the New Testament, a comfort for all troubled hearts, and a continual bond and union of Christ’s people with Christ their head and among themselves. bBecause of all these things, we are bound to interpret and construe these words of the eternal, reliable, and almighty Son of God, our Lord, creator, and redeemer Jesus Christ, not as embellished, figurative, exotic expressions, as would appear in line with our reason. Instead, we should accept the words as they stand, in their proper, clear sense, with simple faith and appropriate obedience and not permit ourselves to be drawn away from this position by any 197. WA 26:261-509; LW 37:161-372; WA 54:141-67; LW 38:287-319.

Solid Declaration, Article VII: Holy Supper

601

objection or human counterargument spun out of human reason, no matter how attractive it may appear to our reason.

bWhen Abraham heard God’s Word regarding the sacrifice of his son, he certainly had reason enough to debate whether this word from God should be understood literally or according to some more tolerable and acceptable interpretation. For this word obviously contradicted not only all reason and divine and natural law but also the most important article of the faith, regarding the promised seed, Christ, who was to be born of Isaac. Nevertheless, as he had done previously, when the promise of the blessed seed that was to come from Isaac was given to him (although it appeared impossible to his reason), he honored God by believing him and came to this most unshakable conclusion and believed that God can do what he promises. Therefore, in this case, too, he understood and believed God’s Word and command plainly, simply, and as the words read literally, and he commended

46

the matter to God’s omnipotence and wisdom, which, he knew, had more ways

and means of fulfilling the promise concerning the seed of Isaac than he could comprehend with his blind reason. PTherefore, in all humility and obedience we, too, should simply believe the clear, firm, plain, and solemn words and command of our creator and redeemer, without any doubt or argument, whether it makes sense to our reason or is possible. For this Lord, who is the incomprehensible wisdom and truth himself, has spoken these words, and he certainly can effect and accomplish everything that he promises. bAll the circumstances of the institution of this Supper testify that these

47

48

words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which are in themselves so simple,

clear, plain, firm, and beyond doubting, can and should be understood in no other way than in their usual, proper, commonly accepted meaning. For since Christ gave this command at the table during supper, there is no doubt that he was speaking about real, natural bread and natural wine and also about oral eating and drinking. There can be no metaphora (that is, a change in the mean-

ing) of the word “bread,” as if the body of Christ were a spiritual bread or a

spiritual meal for the soul. ®Christ himself also gives the assurance that this is no metonymia (that is, in a similar manner, no change of meaning) of the word

49

“body”—he was not speaking of a sign of his body, or of a symbol, or of a figurative body, or of the power of his body and its benefits, which he won with the sacrifice of his body. On the contrary, he was speaking of his true, essential

body, which he gave into-death for us, and of his true, essential blood, which

was poured out for us on the tree of the cross for the forgiveness of sins. bNow there is no more faithful and more reliable interpreter of the words of Jesus Christ than the Lord Christ himself. He understands his own words and his heart and intention best. Given his wisdom and intelligence, he best understands how they are to be explained. Here, in the institution of his last will and testament and this enduring covenant and agreement, he did not use flowery language but rather the most appropriate, simple, unambiguous, and plain words. He also didso in all articles of faith and in every other institution of the

50

602

Formula of Concord

signs of his covenant-and grace, or sacraments, such as circumcision, the vari-

51

52

53

ous sacrifices in the Old Testament, and Holy Baptism. Moreover, so that there can be absolutely no misunderstanding, he explained this more clearly with the words, “given for you, poured out for you” "He lets his disciples retain the simple, proper understanding of the words, and he commands them to teach all nations and to hold to everything that he commanded them, the apostles. bTherefore all three evangelists (Matt. 26[:26]; Mark 14[:22]; Luke 22[:19]) and St. Paul, who after Christ’s ascension received the same account (1 Cor.

11[:25]), were in complete agreement. With the same words and syllables they repeated these clear, simple, certain, and reliable words of Christ, “This is my body;” in just the same way, referring to the bread that he had blessed and distributed, without any interpretation or alteration. PTherefore, regarding the other part of the sacrament there is no doubt that the words of Luke and Paul, “This cup is the New Testament in my blood,” can have no other meaning than that which St. Matthew and Mark give [Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24], “This (name-

54

55

ly, what you are drinking through the mouth from this cup) is my blood of the New Testament, through which I am establishing, sealing, and confirming this testament of mine, this new covenant of the forgiveness of sins, with you people. » bThus, the repetition, confirmation, and explanation of Christ’s words that Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 10[:16] (“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not

a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?”) are to be most diligently and seriously regarded as a special, clear witness to the true, essential presence and distribution of Christ’s body and blood in the Supper. From these words we learn clearly that not only the cup, which Christ blessed in the first Supper, and not only the bread, which Christ broke and distributed, but also the bread and the cup which we break and bless are a sharing of the body and blood of Christ. This means that all those who eat this bread and drink from this cup truly receive and share the true body and blood of Christ. ®For if the body of Christ were not truly and essentially present but only present and enjoyed in its power and effect, the bread would have to have been called a sharing not of the body, but of the spirit, power, and benefits of Christ, as the Apology argues and concludes.!® bThus, if Paul were only speaking of a spiritual sharing of Christ’s body through faith, as the sacramentarians pervert the passage, then he would not say “the bread” but “the spirit” or “faith” is the sharing of the body of Christ. But he says the bread is the sharing of the body of Christ, so that all who receive the consecrated bread are also sharing the body of Christ. Therefore, he must be speaking not of a spiritual reception but of a sacramental or oral reception of Christ’s body, by both godly and godless Christians alike.

198. Ap X, 1, according to the quarto edition. This interpretation is lacking in Jonas’s translation and in the later octavo edition.

Solid Declaration, Article VII: Holy Supper

603

bThe purpose and context of this entire discourse of St. Paul [1 Cor. 10:1433] make this clear. He was discouraging and warning those who ate from the

57

sacrifices to idols and who practiced fellowship with heathen worship of the

devil and at the same time went to the table of the Lord and shared Christ’s body and blood. He warned them so that they would not receive his body and blood to their judgment and damnation. For all who share the consecrated bread broken in the Supper also share Christ’s body. Therefore St. Paul cannot be speaking of spiritual sharing with Christ, which no one can misuse, and about which there is no need to warn people. bTherefore also our revered Fathers and predecessors, such as Luther and

other pure teachers of the Augsburg Confession, explained this passage of Paul with words that agree completely with Christ’s words, when they wrote that the bread which we break is the body of Christ and is distributed or shared among those who receive the bread that is broken. bWe remain united in our commitment to this simple, well-founded explanation of this wonderful testimony in 1 Corinthians 10, and we are justifiably astonished that some can be so audacious that they now cite this passage, which they themselves formerly used against the sacramentarians, as a basis for their own error: that in the Supper the body of Christ is received only spiritually. They write, “The bread is the sharing of the body of Christ (that is, it is that through which we share in the body of Christ, which is the church), or it is the means through which we believers are united with Christ, just as the Word of the gospel, when grasped in faith, is a means through which we are united spiritually with Christ and incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the church”1%? bFor Paul expressly teaches in 1 Corinthians 11[:27] that “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner” is sinning not only against bread and wine and not only against a sign or symbol or figure of the body and blood. Such a person is “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” Jesus Christ and dishonors, misuses, and desecrates Christ, who is present there, just as those Jews did who in fact really seized the body of Christ and put him to death. The ancient Christian Fathers and teachers of the church unanimously understood and explained this passage in this way. Paul means that not only the pious, godly, and faithful Christians but also the unworthy, godless hypocrites, such as Judas and his kind, who participate in no spiritual sharing with Christ and who go to the table of the Lord without true repentance and conversion to God, also receive the true body and blood of Christ orally in the sacrament. Thus, they sin grievously by eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ unworthily.20° 199. This text was written first in Latin and then translated into German in the text of the Formula. The origins of this reference are unknown. 200. At Torgau the concordists inserted, and then at Bergen excised, quotations from Basil, De baptismo 1, 3, 3 (MPG 31:1578); Chrysostom, In epistolam 1. ad Corinthios homilia XXVII, 5 (MPG

58

59

60

604 61

62

Formula of Concord

bSo there is a twofold eating of Christ’s flesh.?0! First, there is a spiritual kind of eating, which Christ treats above all in John 6[:35-58]. This occurs in no other way than with the Spirit and faith in the proclamation of and meditation on the gospel, as well as in the Supper. It is in and of itself useful, salutary, and necessary for all Christians at all times for their salvation. Without this spiritual reception even the sacramental or oral eating in the Supper is not only not salutary but also harmful and damning. brThis spiritual eating, however, is nothing other than faith—namely, hearkening to, accepting with faith, and applying to ourselves God’s Word, which presents Christ to us as true God and a true human being along with all his benefits (God’s grace, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and eternal life). These

he won for us with his flesh, which he gave into death for us, and with his blood, which he poured out for us. Moreover, this faith means relying firmly upon this comfort (that we have a gracious God and eternal salvation for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ) with unshakable assurance and trust, holding on

63

64

65 66

to this assurance in every difficulty and tribulation. bThe other kind of eating of Christ’s body is oral or sacramental, when all who eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine in the Supper receive and partake of the true, essential body and blood of Christ orally. Believers receive it as a certain pledge and assurance that their sins are truly forgiven and that Christ dwells in them with his power. Unbelievers receive it, too, but in their case as judgment and condemnation. "As the Words of Institution of Christ expressly state: while at the table during the Supper, he distributed natural bread and wine to his disciples and called them his true body and his true blood. Then he said, “Eat and drink.” Under these circumstances, such a command cannot be understood in any other way but as eating and drinking orally, though certainly not in a crude, fleshly, Capernaitic?*? manner, but supernaturally and incomprehensibly. To that command the Lord Christ afterward added a second command regarding another, spiritual eating, when he later said, “Do this in remembrance of me,” and thereby demanded faith.

bFor this reason, in harmony with these words of Christ’s institution and St. Paul’s explanation, all the ancient Christian teachers teach expressly, with one accord, and with the entire holy Christian church, that the body of Christ is not

61:229; NPNF, ser. 1, 12:160-61); Pseudo-Augustine, Contra Fulgentium V, 8 (MPL 43: app., 766); and Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas IV (MPL 43:181; NPNF, ser. 1, 4:466-67); Epistola 43 (MPL 33:171; NPNF, ser. 1, 1:284); Contra Donatistas post collationem VII, 9; XX, 27 (MPL 43:658, 669); and Sermo 71 de verbis Domini, Quisquis blasphemaverit 11, 17 (MPL 38:453). Cf. the

Catalog of Testimonies for the use of patristic argumentation in support of the Christology that lies behind this point.

201. Cf. Chemnitz, The Lord’s Supper (De coena Domini) (1561), 161-63; similar treatments of

this topic are found in the works of Hesshus and Selnecker. 202. The technical term in medieval theology for a purely natural, physical eating of Christ’s body. The term arises from the reaction by natives of Capernaum to Christ’s words regarding eating his flesh (John 6:52-65).

Solid Declaration, Article VII: Holy Supper

605

only received spiritually through faith, which takes place also apart from the sacrament, but also orally, and this not only by believing, godly Christians, but also by the unworthy, unbelieving, false, and evil Christians.?*® It would be too long to list these here, and so for the sake of welcome brevity we refer Christian readers to our detailed account of them. brFrom such accounts it is clear how improperly and poisonously the sacramentarian enthusiasts ridicule the Lord Christ, St. Paul, and the whole church by calling this oral partaking and the partaking of the unworthy duos pilos caudae equinae et commentum, cuius vel ipsum Satanam pudeat, as they also call the doctrine of Christ’s majesty excrementum Satanae, quo diabolus sibi ipsi et hominibus illudat.2%* It is so horrible to say such things that a godly Christian should be ashamed to translate such words. bJt is essential to explain with great diligence who the unworthy guests at this Supper are,2%> namely, those who go to the sacrament without true contrition or sorrow over their sins and without true faith or the good intention to improve their lives. With their unworthy eating of Christ’s body they bring down judgment upon themselves, that is, temporal and eternal punishments, and they become guilty of Christ’s body and blood. brThe true and worthy guests, for whom this precious sacrament above all was instituted and established, are the Christians who are weak in faith, fragile

and troubled, who are terrified in their hearts by the immensity and number of their sins and think that they are not worthy of this precious treasure and of the benefits of Christ because of their great impurity, who feel the weakness of their faith and deplore it, and who desire with all their heart to serve God with a stronger, more resolute faith and purer obedience. ®As Christ says, “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest” [Matt. 11:28], and, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick” [Matt. 9:12]. “God’s power is made mighty in the weak” [2

Cor. 12:9],29 and Romans 14[:1, 3], “Welcome those who are weak in faith . . .

203. The Torgau Book had added references here, removed at Bergen, to Theodoret, Interpretatio epistolae I. ad Corinthios (MPG 82:318); Chrysostom, Sermo 3 in Epheseos 1 (MPG 62:28; NPNF, ser. 1, 12:63); In epistolam L. ad Corinthios hom. 27, 5 (MPG 61:281; NPNF, ser. 1, 12:160-61); and other works: Cyprian, De lapsis XVI, XII (MPL 4:479-80; ANF

1:441-43); Leo,

Sermo 91 de jejunio (MPL 54:452; NPNF, ser. 2, 12:201-2); Gregory the Great, Dialogi IV, 58 (MPL

77:425); XL Homilia in evangelia 22, 7 (MPL 76:117-18); Augustine, Epistola 54 (118), 6, 8 (MPL

33:203; NPNF, ser. 1, 1:302); and an unidentified quotation from Ambrose. 204. These expressions, found in the works of Theodore Beza and Peter Martyr Vermigli, mean, “two hairs of a horse’s tail and an invention of which even Satan himself would be ashamed,” and “Satar’s dung, by which the devil amuses himself and deceives people.” 205. The definition of worthy and unworthy guests had become an issue in the discussions that led to the Wittenberg Concord. Some outside the Wittenberg circle employed a threefold distinction: worthy communicants who have strong faith, unworthy who have weak faith, and the impious, who have no faith.

206. Luther’s translation and the NRSV diverge.

67

68

69

70

606

Formula of Concord

for God has welcomed them.” For “whoever believes in the Son of God,” whether weak or strong in faith, “has eternal life” [John 3:16]. 71

bMoreover, this worthiness consists not in a greater or lesser weakness or strength of faith, but rather in the merit of Christ, which the troubled father

with his weak faith (Mark 9[:24]) possessed, just as did Abraham, Paul, and 72

73 74

75

others who have a resolute, strong faith. bThis is sufficient discussion of the true presence of Christ’s body and blood and the two ways of partaking of them: spiritually by faith and by mouth (which both the worthy and the unworthy experience). bMisunderstanding and division has also arisen among some teachers of the Augsburg Confession regarding consecration and the common rule that there is no sacrament outside its use according to Christ’s institution.2%” ®In this question, we have reached the following unanimous, amicable agreement among ourselves, namely, that no human words or works create the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Supper, whether it be the merit or the speaking of the minister or the eating and drinking or the faith of the communicants. Instead, all this should be ascribed solely to the almighty power of God and to the words, institution, and arrangement of our Lord Jesus Christ. bFor the true and almighty words of Jesus Christ, which he spoke in the first institution of the Supper, were not only effective in the first Supper; they remain so. They retain their validity and power and are still effective, so that in all places in which the Supper is observed according to Christ’s institution and his words are used, the body and blood of Christ are truly present, distributed and received on the basis of the power and might of the very same words that Christ spoke in the first Supper. For wherever what Christ instituted is observed and his words are spoken over the bread and cup and wherever the consecrated bread and cup are distributed, Christ himself exercises his power

76

through the spoken words, which are still his Word, by virtue of the power of the first institution. He wills that his Word be repeated, Pas Chrysostom says in his Sermon on the Passion, “Christ prepares this table himself and blesses it; for no human being makes the bread and wine, which are set before us, the body and blood of Christ. Rather Christ himself, who was crucified for us, does that. The words are spoken by the mouth of the priest, but when he says, ‘This is my body; the elements that have been presented in the Supper are consecrated by God’s power and grace through the Word. Just as the saying ‘be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth’ [Gen. 1:28] was said only once and yet is continually effective in nature, causing it to grow and multiply, so these words were said once. But they are powerful and do their work in our day and until his return, so that in the Supper as celebrated in the church his true body and blood are present.”?%8 207. Johann Saliger, pastor in Liibeck and Rostock in the 1560s, held that the elements remained the body and blood of Christ after their use for the sacrament itself. His position was rejected by his colleagues in Liibeck and Rostock. 208. John Chrysostom, De proditione Iudae 1, 6 (MPG 49:380).

Solid Declaration, Article VII: Holy Supper

607

bAnd Luther says: “This command and institution of his have the power to accomplish this, that we do not distribute and receive simply bread and wine but his body and blood, as his words indicate: ‘This is my body, this is my blood.” So it is not our work or speaking but the command and ordinance of Christ that make the bread the body and the wine the blood, beginning with the first Lord’s Supper and continuing to the end of the world, and it is administered daily through our ministry or office.”20? bLikewise, “Here, too, if I were to say over all the bread there is, “This is the body of Christ, nothing would happen, but when we follow his institution and command in the Supper and say, “This is my body, then it is his body, not because of our speaking or our declarative word, but because of his command in which he has told us to speak and to do and has attached his own command and deed to our speaking.”?!° bIndeed, in the administration of the Holy Supper the Words of Institution are to be clearly and plainly spoken or sung publicly in the congregation, and in no case are they to be omitted. *This is done, first, so that Christ’s command, “Do this,” may be obeyed. ®Second, it is done so that Christ’s words will arouse, strengthen, and confirm the hearers’ faith in the nature and benefits of this sacrament (that is, the presence of Christ’s body and blood and the forgiveness of sins, and all the benefits that have been won for us by Christ’s death and the shedding of his blood, which are given to us in his testament). °Third, it is done so that the elements of bread and wine are sanctified and consecrated in this holy practice, whereby Christ’s body and blood are offered to us to eat and to drink, as Paul says [1 Cor. 10:16], “The cup of blessing that we bless . . .” This of course takes place in no other way than through the repetition and recitation of the Words of Institution. bBut?!! this “blessing” or the recitation of the Words of Institution of Christ by itself does not make a valid sacrament if the entire action of the Supper, as Christ administered it, is not observed (as, for example, when the consecrated bread is not distributed, received, and eaten but is instead locked up [in the tabernacle], made into a sacrifice, or carried around in a procession). ®On the contrary, Christ’s command, “Do this,” must be observed without division or confusion. For it includes the entire action or administration of this sacra-

77

78

79 80 81

82

83

84

ment: that in a Christian assembly bread and wine are taken, consecrated, dis-

tributed, received, eaten, and drunk, and that thereby the Lord’s death is proclaimed, as St. Paul presents the entire action of the breaking of the bread or its distribution and reception in 1 Corinthians 10[:16]. bIn order to preserve this true Christian teaching on the Holy Supper and to avoid and eliminate many kinds of idolatrous abuses and perversions of this 209. WA 38:240, 8—14; LW 38:199. 210. WA 26:285, 14-18; LW 37:184.

211. Par. 83-85 are from the Wismar Agreement of 5 October 1569, which Chytraeus wrote in the controversy over Saliger’s position on a real presence apart from sacramental use.

85

608

Formula of Concorg -Urg

testament, this useful rule and guide is taken from the Words of Institutio.

nothing has the character of a sacrament apart from the use [usus) ingtitut:i

by Christ or the divinely instituted action [actio]. (That is, when Chrisy imti( tution is not observed as he established it, there is no sacrament.)2!2 ;. rul; 86

dare not be rejected in any way, but it can and should be followed anq pre.

served in the church of God with great benefit.?'* *The usus or actio (that is

the practice or administration) does not refer primarily to faith or to the omi

partaking, but to the entire external, visible administration of the Supper, 4

Christ established the administration of the Supper: the consecration, or Words of Institution, and the distribution and reception or oral partaking of the consecrated bread and wine, Christ’s body and blood. YApart from this

practice it is not to be regarded as a sacrament—for example, when in the papistic Mass the bread is not distributed but is made into a sacrifice, or

enclosed [in a tabernacle], or carried about in a procession, or displayed for adoration. It is the same way with baptismal water. When

it is used to conge-

crate bells or to heal leprosy or when it is exhibited in some other way for adoration, it is no sacrament or baptism. For this rule was initially used against

such papistic abuses and was explained by Dr. Luther himself.2!4 88

bBeside this, however, we must remember

that the sacramentarians have

also perverted this beneficial and necessary rule in a perfidious and wicked

way, interpreting it so as to deny the true, essential presence and the oral partaking of Christ’s body, which both worthy and unworthy recipients receive here on earth. They refer this rule to the usus fidei, that is, to the spiritual and inward practice of faith, as if the sacrament did not exist for the unworthy and

as if the partaking of Christ’s body took place only spiritually through faith or as if faith made Christ’s body present in the Holy Supper, and therefore the unworthy, unbelieving hypocrites did not receive the body of Christ because it

is not present for them.?!®

89

bFaith does not make the sacrament, but only the true Word and institution

of our almighty God and Savior Jesus Christ, which Word is always powerful and remains efficacious in Christendom. The worthiness or unworthiness of

212. This principle, written in Latin in the text of the Formula, is followed by a German interpretation of it, here in parentheses.

213. Saliger and Joachim Westphal, who defended against Calvin Luther’s understanding of

the real presence, had rejected this rule; following Melanchthon’s lead, not only the Philippists but

also Martin Chemnitz and Tilemann Hesshus supported its use. 214. On baptizing bells and the like, see SA 111, 15, 4. In a letter to Simon Wolferinus in Eisleben, dated 20 July 1543 (WABr 10:347-49), Luther explained his position on the sacramental action over against Zwinglians and compared it to Melanchthon’s, which the latter had explained in a 1542 letter to Valentine Vigelius, superintendent

in Eisleben (MBW

3119;

misdated

in CR

7:876-77). See also an earlier joint letter of Luther and Bugenhagen to Wolferinus (WABr 10:336-42).

215. This position was held by Crypto-Philippists, for example, in the Exegesis perspicud:

55-59.

Solid Declaration, Article VII: Holy Supper

609

the minister or the unbelief of those who receive it does not invalidate it or ren-

der it ineffective. It is just like the gospel: whether the godless hearers believe it or not, it nevertheless is and remains the true gospel. It is just that it is not

effective for salvation in unbelievers. Likewise, whether those who receive the sacrament believe or not, Christ nevertheless remains truthful in his words,

when he says, “Take, eat, this is my body.” He effects this not through our faith but through his omnipotence. bfTherefore, it is a harmful and impudent error that some, using a deceitful perversion of this common rule, ascribe more to our faith than to the omnipotence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, by alleging that faith alone makes the body of Christ present and receives it. fEvery kind of imaginary reasons and flimsy counterarguments of the sacramentarians regarding the essential and natural characteristics of a human body, and regarding the ascension of Christ and his departure from this world and the like, have been decisively refuted in detail, once and for all, on the basis of God’s Word by Dr. Luther in his polemical writings, Against the Heavenly Prophets and That These Words, “This Is My Body,” Etc., Still Stand Firm, and likewise in his Large and Small Confessions concerning the Holy Supper, and other writings.?!6 Since his death, these sectarian spirits have advanced no new arguments. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, we want to direct the Christian reader to these writings, and we have drawn upon them. aFor, we neither want to, are able to, nor ought to let any clever human ideas—no matter how attractive or impressive they may seem—Ilead us astray

from the simple, clear, plain meaning of the Word and testament of Christ and into a foreign position, one which teaches other than the way the words read. Therefore, we shall instead understand and believe them in their simple sense. Our basic arguments, on which we have always stood in this matter since the outbreak of the dispute regarding this article, are the same as those that Dr. Luther set down in the following words initially against the sacramentarians: a“My grounds, on which I rest in this matter, are as follows: 2“1, The first is this article of our faith, that Jesus Christ is essential, natural, true, complete God and a human being in one person, undivided and inseparable. a2, The second, that the right hand of God is everywhere. 2“3, The third, that the Word of God is not false or deceitful. 2“4, The fourth, that God has and knows various ways to be present at a certain place, not only the single one of which the fanatics prattle, which the philosophers call local’ 7217 @He also says, “Thus, the one body of Christ has a threefold mode, or all three modes, of being at any given place. 216. Against the Heavenly Prophets (1524) (WA 18:62-214; LW 40:73-223); That These Words

of Christ, “This Is My Body,” Etc., Still Stand Firm against the Heretics (1527) (WA 23:64-283; LW

37:13-150); Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:261-509; LW 37:161-372); and Brief Confession concerning the Holy Sacrament (1544) (WA 54:141-67; LW 38:287-319).

217. Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:326, 29-327, 20; LW 37:214).

90

91

92

93

94

95 96 97 98

et

Formula of Con, s 99

|yt

Ord

First, the circumscribed corporeal mode of presence, as when . walke

I

bodily on earth, when he occupied and yielded space according to hig Size Frl' p can still employ this mode of presence when he wills to do so, as he gjq a.h. r his resurrection and as he will do on the Last Day, as Paul says in | Timm}(. [6:15], ‘whom the blessed God will reveal, and Colossians 3[:4], ‘whep, (lhril-

your life reveals himself. He is not in God or with the Father or ip, hCan:

according to this mode, as this mad spirit dreams, for God is not a COTPorey)

space or place. The passages which the spiritualists adduce concerning Chrisps leaving the world and going to the Father speak of this mode of presence.

100

b“Second, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence according which he neither occupies nor yields space but passes through C\'Cr)'thing Cre. ated as he wills. To use some crude illustrations, my vision passes through and

exists in air, light, or water, and does not occupy or yield any space; a sounq o,

tone passes through and exists in air or water or a board and a wall and neither occupies nor yields space: likewise, light and heat go through and exist in air,

water, glass, or crystals and the like, but without occupying or yielding space

and many more like these. He employed this mode of presence when he left th,

closed grave and came through closed doors, in the bread and wine in the

Supper, and, as people believe, when he was born in his mother. 101

b“Third, since he is one person with God, the divine, heavenly mode,

according to which all created things are indeed much more permeable angd present to him than they are according to the second mode. For if according to the second mode he can be present in and with created things in such a way that they do not feel, touch, measure, or circumscribe him, how much more

marvelously will he be present in all created things according to this exalted third mode, where they cannot measure or circumscribe him but where they

are present to him so that he measures and circumscribes them. You must place this existence of Christ, which constitutes him as one person with God, far, far

102

103

beyond things created, as far as God transcends them; and, on the other hand, place it as deep in and as near to all created things as God is in them. For he is one indivisible person with God, and wherever God is, he must be also, otherwise our faith is false. ®’But who can explain or even conceive how this occurs? We know indeed that it is so, that he is in God beyond all created things, and is one person with God. But how this happens, we do not know: it transcends nature and reason, even the comprehension of all the angels in heaven, and is known only to God. Since this is true, even though unknown to us, we should not hold his words to be false until we know how to prove certainly that the body of Christ cannot in any circumstances be where the Spirit is and that this mode of being is a fiction. Let the fanatics prove it! They will give up. b“I do not wish to have denied by the foregoing that God may have know still other modes whereby Christ’s body can be in a given place. My purpose was to show what crass fools our fanatics are when they concede the first, circumscribed mode of presence to the body of Christ although

and only only they

are unable to prove that even this mode is contrary to our view. For | do not

Solid Declaration, Article VII: Holy Supper

611

want to deny in any way that God’s power is able to make a body be simultaneously in many places, even in a corporeal and circumscribed manner. For who wants to try to prove that God is unable to do that? Who has seen the limits of his power? The fanatics may indeed think that God is unable to do it, but who will believe their speculations? How will they establish the truth of that kind of speculation?”?!8 fThese words of Dr. Luther also clearly show in what sense our churches use the word “spiritual” in this context. For to the sacramentarians, this word “spiritual” means nothing else than the spiritual communion that occurs when in the Spirit true believers are incorporated into Christ the Lord through faith and become true, spiritual members of his body.2!° fHowever, when Dr. Luther??® or we use the word “spiritual” in this matter, we understand it to mean the spiritual, supernatural, heavenly way in which Christ, who is present in the Holy Supper, not only bestows comfort and life on believers but also brings judgment on unbelievers. Through the word “spiritual” we reject the Capernaitic

notion

of a crude, fleshly presence, which

104

105

the sacramentarians

attribute and falsely ascribe to our churches, in spite of all our many public testimonies to the contrary. We also use the word in this sense when we say that the body and blood of Christ are spiritually received, eaten, and drunk in the Holy Supper. This partaking takes place orally, but in a spiritual manner.

fTherefore, our faith in this article regarding the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Holy Supper is built upon the truth and omnipotence of the trustworthy and omnipotent God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. These arguments are strong and solid enough to strengthen and confirm our faith in all the trials that arise in connection with this article. They are also strong and solid enough to overthrow and refute all the counterarguments and objections of the sacramentarians—however appealing and sensible they may appear to reason. A Christian heart may securely and firmly rest and rely upon them.?2! b Accordingly, we reject and condemn with heart and mouth as false, erroneous, and deceptive all the errors that are not consistent with the teaching set forth above and based upon God’s Word but that instead oppose and contradict it: Pirst, papistic transubstantiation,??? according to which it is taught that the bread and wine which have been consecrated or blessed in the Holy Supper 218. Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:335, 29-336, 37; LW 37:222-24). 219. This view is found in the Consensus Tigurinus VI, IX (BSRK, 160, 161; JPH, 52-53), and in the First Helvetic Confession 22 (BSRK, 107-8). 220. For example, in That These Words . . . (1527) (WA 23:179, 7-16; 181, 11-15; 183, 10-15; 189, 3-22; LW 37:85, 87, 88, 91-92).

221. The concordists here sketch ence to the “truth” or trustworthiness divine omnipotence, which can make of the “multivolipresence” of Christ’s

a summary of their defense of the real presence with referof a literal interpretation of the Words of Institution and to Christ’s body and blood present; for Chemnitz’s formulation human nature, see SD VIII, 35.

222. Council of Trent, Session 13, cap. 4, 5, canons 2, 4, 6.

106

107

108

612

109

110

|

Formula of Concord

lose their substance and essence completely and are transformed into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, so that only the mere form of bread and wine or the accidentia sine subiecto [accidents without a subject to which they are attached]?? remain. They assert that under this form of the bread (which, they allege, is no longer bread but has lost its natural substance) the body of Christ remains present, even apart from the administration of the Supper (for example, when the bread is enclosed in the tabernacle or is carried around in a spectacle and adored). But, as has been shown above, nothing can be a sacrament apart from God’s command and the practice that he has ordained, as instituted in God’s Word. b2. Likewise, we reject and condemn all other papistic abuses of this sacrament, such as the abomination of the sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead.??4 b3, Likewise, we reject and condemn the doctrine that only one form of the sacrament is distributed to the laity, etc.,22° against the clear command and institution of Christ. These papistic abuses have been refuted in detail in the common [Augsburg] Confession of our churches, and in the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and other writings of ours, on the basis of God’s Word and

111

112

the witnesses of the ancient church. bBecause in this document, however, we have principally undertaken only to offer our confession and explanation of the true presence of Christ’s body and blood against the sacramentarians, some of whom have impudently infiltrated our churches under the cover of the Augsburg Confession, we also wish to present and recite, above all, the errors of the sacramentarians here, in order to warn our hearers so that they can guard and protect themselves against these errors. bTherefore with mouth and heart we reject and condemn as false, erroneous, and deceptive all sacramentarian opiniones**S and teachings which are inconsistent with, opposed to, or contrary to the teaching set forth above and based upon God’s Word:#?’ 223. In Aristotelian physics the substance of a thing, which gave its essence and form, was clothed in its particular or individual appearance as that thing with characteristics, called “accidents.” The explanation of the real presence made with the aid of Aristotelian physics taught that the accidents of bread and wine remain in the elements of the sacrament but that their essence, or “substance” in this expression, was changed into the substance of Christ’s body and blood. Thus, the characteristics of bread and wine remained, apart from their substance or “subject,” namely, the substance of bread and wine. 224. Council of Trent, Session 22, cap. 2, canon 3. 225. Council of Trent, Session 21, cap. 1, canons 1-3. 226. The Latin opiniones may have been used because the German equivalent, Meinungen, could also denote the Latin sententia, “meaning” or “position,” whereas opinio has the connotation of unsupported ideas. 227. For the following summaries of contrary positions, Chytraeus apparently used much of the material in the list of antitheses which the Torgau Confession, F4b—H3a, directed against the

Crypto-Philippist movement. The Kurtz Bekenntnis und Artickel vom heiligen Abendmal des Leibs

Solid Declaration, Article VII: Holy Supper

613

b1. When they allege that the Words of Institution are not to be understood simply in their proper sense, as they read, concerning the true, essential presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Supper.??® Instead, these words are to be twisted, through tropes or figurative interpretation, to mean something else,

113

something new and foreign. We reject such sacramentarian opiniones and their

mutually contradictory positions, as many and different as they may be. b2, Likewise, when they deny the oral partaking of Christ’s body and blood in the Supper and teach to the contrary that the body of Christ is only spiritually partaken through faith in the Supper. That means that our mouths receive only bread and wine in the Supper.?? b3, Likewise, when it is taught that the bread and wine in the Supper should not be viewed as anything more than a badge through which Christians recognize each other;*? or 4. That the bread and wine are only symbols, types, and figures of the absent body of Christ, which is far away (in such a manner that, just as bread and wine are outward food for our bodies, so the absent body of Christ, with his merit, is a spiritual food for our souls).?! b5. Or that the bread and wine are nothing more than tokens or reminders of the absent body of Christ, and that through these signs, as through an external pledge, we should be assured that our faith, which turns away from the Supper and climbs above all the heavens, really and truly shares Christ’s body and blood up there as truly as we receive the external signs with the mouth in the Supper. Therefore the assurance and confirmation of our faith allegedly take place in the Supper only through the external signs and not through the true body and blood of Christ that are present and distributed to us there.?*? b6. Or that in the Supper only the power, activity, and merit of the absent body of Christ, which is far away, are conveyed to faith, and that in this way we share his absent body. This is the way in which the unio sacramentalis (that is, the sacramental union) is to be understood, de analogia signi et signati [according to the analogy of the sign and what it signifies] (that is, only as the bread and wine are analogies for the body and blood).?*3 und Bluts Christi was composed by Paul Crell in 1574 as part of the Lutheran reorganization of church life after the collapse of the Crypto-Philippist dominance in Saxony. 228. So the concordists understood the position of Zwingli (cf. An Account of the Faith Fidei ratio] in Essays, 49~55) or that of the Consensus Tigurinus XXII (BSRK, 162; JPH, 56-57).

229. A position held by Zwingli, for example in An Account of the Faith (Fidei ratio) VII (BSRK,

89; Essays, 46—49).

230. A position expressed in the First Helvetic Confession 20 (BSRK, 106); the Consensus

Tigurinus VII (BSRK, 160; JPH, 52); and the Wittenberg Catechism, 125-26.

231. A position expressed, for example, in the Second Helvetic Confession XXI (BSRK, 211), and

in the Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 78, 79 (BSRK, 703, 704).

232. A position expressed, for example, in the Second Helvetic Confession XXI (BSRK, 211); the Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 75, 76 (BSRK, 702-3); and the Exegesis perspicua, 60—62. 233. A position expressed, for example, in the Consensus Tigurinus 1X, XII, XIV, XIX (BSRK, 161, 162; JPH, 53-56), and in the Second Helvetic Confession 210, 23.

114

115

116

17

614

18 119

Formula of Concord

b7. Or that the body and blood of Christ are only received and partaken of spiritually, through faith.?* b8. Likewise, when it is taught that because of his ascension Christ is bodily confined and circumscribed in a specific place in heaven, so that in this body he is neither willing nor able to be truly and essentially present with us in the Supper that is celebrated according to Christ’s institution on earth. Instead, he is alleged to be as far away or as distant from it as heaven and earth are from each other. Thus, some sacramentarians have intentionally and wickedly perverted the text of Acts 3[:21], oportet Christum caelum accipere (that is, that

Christ must take possession of heaven), into a confirmation of their error. Instead of this wording, they substituted: oportet Christum caelo capi (that is,

Christ must be held by heaven or in heaven, and circumscribed or enclosed

120

there), so that he is neither willing nor able to be with us on earth in his human nature in any way at all.2* b9, Likewise, that Christ could not have promised the true, essential presence of his body and blood in his Supper, nor could he have delivered on his

promise, nor did he wish to do so, because the nature and characteristics of the

121

122

123

assumed human nature could not permit or allow that.?% b10. Likewise, when it is taught that not the words and omnipotence of Christ alone but also faith make the body of Christ present in the Holy Supper. For this reason some leave the Words of Institution unsaid in the administration of the Supper. For although the papistic consecration (in which@e power to effect the sacrament is attributed to the speaking of the words as a'work of the priest) is properly rejected and condemned, the Words of Institution should in no way be omitted in the administration of the Supper, as has been demonstrated in the explanation above.?? b11. Likewise, that, by virtue of the words of Christ’s institution, believers should not seek the body of Christ in the bread and wine of the Supper but that they with their faith are directed away from the bread of the Supper to the place in heaven, where the Lord Christ is bodily, that they may partake of the body there.??8 : b12. We also reject the teaching that the unbelieving and unrepentant, wicked Christians, who only bear the name of Christ but do not have true, genuine, living, saving faith, do not receive the body and blood of Christ in 234. A position expressed, for example, in the First Helvetic Confession 22 (BSRK, 107); the Consensus Tigurinus X111 (BSRK, 163; JPH, 54); and the Exegesis perspicua, 19-20. 235. A position expressed, for example, in the Consensus Tigurinus XXV (BSRK, 163; JPH, 59), and in the Exegesis perspicua, 10-13, 74. The point at issue here is the interpretation of the Greek word deksasthai, the aorist of dechomai, to take or receive. The Lutheran position followed the sense of the Vulgate. 236. A position which the Lutherans ascribedto Theodore Beza. 237. A position ascribed to Caspar Schwenckfeld. 238. A position expressed, for example, in the Consensus Tigurinus XI (BSRK, 161; JPH, 53) and the Second Helvetic Confession XXI (BSRK, 212).

Solid Declaration, Article VII: Holy Supper

615

the Supper but only the bread and wine.?*® Moreover, there are only two kinds of guests to be found at this heavenly meal, the worthy and the unworthy. Therefore, we also reject making a distinction among the unworthy, to the effect that the godless Epicureans and mockers of God’s Word, who are in the external communion of the church, receive only bread and wine in their use of the Holy Supper but do not receive Christ’s body and blood to their judgment.?40 b13. Therefore, we also reject the teaching that the worthiness consists not only in true faith but also in a person’s own preparation.?! b14, Likewise, we also reject the teaching that even true believers, who have and retain a true, proper, living faith but are lacking sufficient preparation according to standards they have themselves devised, could receive this sacrament to their judgment, as do the unworthy guests.?4? b1 5. Likewise, we reject the teaching that the elements (the visible species, or

124 125

126

form, of the consecrated bread and wine) should be adored. Of course, no

one—except an Arian heretic—can or will deny that Christ himself, true God and truly human, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper when properly used, should be adored in spirit and truth in all other places, but especially where his community is assembled. 516. We also reject and condemn all the impudent, scornful, blasphemous questions and expressions, which are advanced in a crude, fleshly Capernaitic manner, regarding the supernatural, heavenly mystery of this Supper.2#? bOther antitheses or contrary teachings have been condemned and rejected in the foregoing exposition, and for the sake of brevity we do not want to repeat them. Whatever further condemnable opiniones or erroneous positions there may be can easily be deduced from the explanation above and thereby identified. For we reject and condemn everything that is inconsistent with,

opposes, or contradicts the teaching treated above, which is firmly based on God’s Word. 239. A position expressed, for example, in the Consensus Tigurinus XVII, XVIII (BSRK, 161, 162; JPH, 55) and in the Second Helvetic Confession XXI (BSRK, 212).

240. A position held by the Wittenberg professor Paul Eber in Vom heiligen Sacrament des Leibs

und Bluts . . . Unterricht (1562), 313-63.

241. Council of Trent, Session 13, cap. 7, canon 11. 242, Council of Trent, Session 13, cap. 7, canon 11. 243. The Torgau Confession, H1b—H2a, stated that such questions as the following had been posed by those opponents: “1. When and how does the body of Christ come to the bread or into the bread? 2. How near to or how far away from the bread is it? 3. How is it hidden under the bread? 4. How long does the sacramental union last? 5. When does the body of Christ leave the bread again? 6. Does the body of Christ that we receive orally enter our bodies and stomachs and is it digested there? 7. Is it crushed and chewed with the teeth? 8. Is it a living body or a dead corpse since we receive the body under the bread separately from the blood under the wine? 9. Of what use is the true, essential, bodily presence of Christ’s true body? 10. What does the Lord Christ effect in the unworthy and godless recipients of the sacrament? 11. Is the believer’s body transformed in a natural way by the body of Christ?”

127

128

616

Formula of Concord

VIIIL | Concerning the Person of Christ 2A dispute arose among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession regarding the person of Christ. It did not initially begin among them but originated from the sacramentarians.?44 *When with his thorough argumentation Dr. Luther defended the true, essential presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Supper against the sacramentarians on the basis of the Words of Institution, the Zwinglians countered by saying that if the body of Christ is present at the same time both in heaven and on earth in the Holy Supper, then it cannot be a genuine, true human

body.24> For such majesty belongs only to God; the body of Christ is incapable of such a presence. aBut Dr. Luther rejected and effectively refuted this argument, as his doctrinal and polemical writings on the Holy Supper show. (We publicly confess our commitment to the polemical writings as well as the doctrinal writings.)?4¢ a«However, after his death some theologians of the Augsburg Confession— although at first they did not want to commit themselves publicly and explicitly to the sacramentarians on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper—nonetheless taught and used the very same “basic argument”?4’ concerning Christ’s body with which the sacramentarians had ventured to eliminate the true, essential presence of Christ’s body and blood from his Supper.?4® They said that nothing should be ascribed to the human nature in the person of Christ that transcends or opposes its natural, essential characteristics. Thus, they brought against Dr. Luther’s teaching and against all those who followed it (because it

conforms to God’s Word) accusations of almost all the monstrous heresies of

the ancient church.?# an order to explain this dispute in Christian fashion on the basis of God’s Word according to the guideline of our simple Christian faith, and in order to settle it completely by God’s grace, our unanimous teaching, faith, and confession is as follows:

244, The original form of this article is found in Jakob Andreae’s Six Christian Sermons, 107-20. 245. For example, in Zwingli’s Ein klare underrichtung vom nachtmal Christi (1526) (in CR,

Zwingli 4, no. 75; translation in Zwingli and Bullinger, trans. G. W. Bromiley, Library of Christian Classics 24 [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953], 176-238).

'

246. A reference, above all, to the works mentioned in n. 216 above. 247. German: Grundfest, a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Crypto-Philippist tract of the same name. 248. Reactions to the Torgau Book suggested that a specific reference to the Grundfest would be appropriate here; cf. 16-19, 23f,, 121, 127-28. 249. For example, in its title the Grundfest associated Lutheran opponents with the “Marcionites, Samosatenians, Sabellians, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and Monotheletists.”

\_

Solid Declaration, Article VIII: Person of Christ

617

ab], We25 believe, teach, and confess that, although the Son of God is a separate, distinct, and complete divine person in and of himself and thus was truly, essentially, and fully God with the Father and the Holy Spirit from eternity, nonetheless at the same time, when the fullness of time had come [Gal. 4:4], he assumed human nature into the unity of his person, not in such a way that there were two persons or two Christs, but that Christ Jesus was in one

person at the same time true and eternal God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and a true human being, born of the most blessed Virgin Mary, as it is written in Romans 9[:5], “from them [the patriarchs], according to the flesh,

comes the Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever.” 2. We believe, teach, and confess that there are now in this one, insepara-

ble person of Christ two distinct natures, the divine, from eternity, and the

human, which was assumed into the union of the person of God’s Son in time. These two natures can never more be separated nor mixed together with each other, nor can one be transformed into the other. Rather, each remains in its own nature and essence within the person of Christ for all eternity. 23, We also believe, teach, and confess that as these two natures remain unmixed in their nature and essence and never cease to exist, each therefore also retains its natural, essential characteristics and will not lay them aside ever in all eternity, nor will the essential characteristics of either nature ever become the essential characteristics of the other. a4, Therefore, we believe, teach, and confess that to be almighty, eternal, infinite, and present everywhere at the same time naturally (that is, to be present in and of itself as a characteristic of this particular nature and its natural essence), and to know all things, are essential characteristics of the divine

nature, which will never in all eternity become essential characteristics of the human nature. 25, On the other hand, to be a bodily creature, to be flesh and blood, to be

10

finite and circumscribed, to suffer and die, to ascend and descend, to move

from one place to another, to suffer from hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like are characteristics of the human nature, which will never become characteristics of the divine nature. 36, We also believe, teach, and confess that after the incarnation neither nature in Christ exists in and of itself, so that neither is or acts as a separate per-

son, but that they are so united that they constitute one single person, which at the same time consists of both natures and in which both the divine nature and

250. Chemnitz had treated the hypostatic union in great detail in his De duabus naturis in Christo (1570), the 1578 expansion of which appears in English translation, Two Natures in Christ; see chaps. 5-12, pp. 73-168. The degree to which Andreae was influenced by Chemnitz’s work remains undetermined. The two had worked together with Nicholas Selnecker in the reformation of Braunschweig-Wolfenbiittel from 1568 to 1570, and it appears that Chemnitz did exert influence on the theological views of his colleagues at that time.

11

618

Formula of Concord

the assumed human nature?! are personally present. Therefore, since the incarnation not only the divine nature but also the assumed human nature belong to the whole person of Christ. The person of Christ or of the filius Dei

incarnatus [incarnate Son of God] (that is, the Son of God who assumed flesh

and became a human being) is not complete apart from his human nature just as it is not complete apart from his divine nature. Therefore, Christ is not two distinct persons, but one single person, even though two distinct natures in their natural essences and characteristics are found unmixed within him. 12

13

14 15

16

ar7 We also believe, teach, and confess that the assumed human nature in Christ not only has and retains its natural, essential characteristics but also that

through the personal union with the deity and, afterward, through the exaltation or glorification, this nature was elevated to the right hand of majesty, power, and might over all things that can be named, not only in this world but also in the world to come [Eph. 1:20-21]. ‘ €8, Christ did not receive this majesty to which he was exalted according to his humanity only after he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, but he received it already when he was conceived in his mother’s womb and became a human being and the divine and human natures were united personally with each other. €9. This personal union is certainly notto be understood, as some incor-

rectly interpret it, as if both natures, divine and human, are united with each other as two boards might be glued together, so that realiter (that is, in fact and in truth) they have absolutely no communion with each other. ¢This was the error and heresy of Nestorius?? and the Samosatenians,?>* who, as Suidas**

and Theodore the elder of Rhaitu?>’ testify, taught and held that the two natures have absolutely no communion with each other.2>¢ This position separates the natures from each other and thus creates two Christs, one being Christ and the other God the Word, who dwells in Christ. ¢For Theodorus the Elder writes: “A contemporary of the heretic Mani, a man by the name of Paul, who was probably a native of Samosata but was an elder in Antioch in Syria, godlessly taught that the Lord Christ was nothing more than a human being pure and simple, in whom God the Word dwelled, as he dwelled in every prophet. On this basis he held that the divine and human 251. The German expression “assumed human nature,” a literal rendering of traditional Latin

phrasing, denotes the assumption of the human nature by the second person of the Trinity. 252. This heresy, associated with the name of the fifth-century Antiochean theologian Nestorius and condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, taught that the two natures of Christlay alongside each other in his person without intimate connection or true unity. In the late sixteenth century Lutherans often accused Calvinists of repeating the Nestorian heresy. . 253. Paul of Samosata, a third-century theologian, taught an adoptionist Christology called dynamic monarchianism. ' ' 254. A tenth-century lexicographer (MPG 117:1301, 1302). 255. A ninth-century monk (MPG 91:1314, 1485-88).

256. Cited first in Greek and Latin and then translated into German.

Solid Declaration, Article VIII: Person of Christ

619

natures were separated and divided from each other and that in Christ there was indeed no communion between the two natures, just as if Christ were one individual and God the Word, who dwelled in him, another.”2>? ¢Against this condemned heresy, the Christian church has always simply believed and held that the divine and the human natures in the person of

17

Christ are so united that they have a genuine communion with each other, by

which (as Dr. Luther writes) the natures are not mixed together into one essence but into one person.?*® ¢Similarly, because of the personal union and communion, the ancient teachers of the church many times, before and after the Council of Chalcedon, used the word mixtio (mixture) in a good sense and with proper distinction.?>® Likewise, there are many testimonies of the Fathers, which might be cited if necessary, that may be found throughout our writings and that explain the personal union and communion with the metaphor animae et corporis and ferri candentis (that is, of the body and soul*®° or of glowing iron).?! For body and soul, like fire and iron, are not per phrasin or pe\?*modum loquendi or verbaliter (that is, they are not to be regarded only as ways of speaking or mere words). Rather, they [the two things] have commun-

18

19

ion with each other vere and realiter (that is, in fact and in truth). Therefore,

this introduced no confusio or exaequatio naturarum (that is, no mixing or equating of natures), as when mead is made from water and honey. In this case water and honey can no longer be distinguished; it is a drink in which the two are mixed together. But the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ is far different. . The union between the divine and human natures in the person of Christ is a much different, higher, indescribable communion. Because of this union and communion God is a human being and a human being is God. Nevertheless, through this union and communion neither the natures nor their

characteristics are mixed together with the other, but each nature retains its own essence and characteristics. ¢Because of this personal union, without which this kind of true communion of the natures is unthinkable and impossible, not only the bare human nature (which possesses the characteristics of suffering and dying) suffered for the sins of the entire world, but the Son of God himself suffered (according to the assumed human nature) and, according to our simple Christian creed, truly died—although the divine nature can neither suffer nor die. “Dr. Luther explained this thoroughly in his Large Confession on the Holy Supper, against

257. MPG 91:1495-98. This quotation was written first in Latin and then translated into German in the text of the Formula. 258. WA 26:324, 19-35; LW 37:212-13. Cf. Chemnitz’s Two Natures in Christ 105-6, 293-97.

259. Among them, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, Tertullian, and

Augustine. 260. Justin Martyr; cf. Augustine, Epistles 137, 3, 11 (MPL 33:520; NPNF, ser. 1, 1:477). 261. Origen, On'First Principles 11, 6, 6 (MPG 11:213-14; ANF 4:283).

20

21

620

Formula of Concord

the blasphemous “alleosis™262 of Zwingli, who taught that one nature must be taken for and understood for the other nature. Luther condemned this to the abyss of hell, as the mask of the devil.263

22

°For this reason the ancient teachers of the church placed both words,

koinonia and henosis, communio

et unio (that is, communion

and union),

alongside each other in their explanation of this mystery and explained one

with the other. See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, bk. 4, chap. 3; Athanasius in his

23

24

25

Letter to Epictitus; Hilary, On the Trinity, bk. 9; Basil and Gregory of Nyssa cited in Theodoret; John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 3, chap. 9.264 Because of this personal union and communion of the divine and human natures in Christ, we also believe, teach, and confess (in accord with our sim-

ple, Christian creed) that everything said of the majesty of Christ according to his humanity at the right hand of the almighty power of God and all that follows from it would be nothing and could not exist if this personal union and communion of the natures in the person of Christ were not realiter, that is, real, in fact and in truth. Because of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the

most blessed Virgin, gave birth not to a mere, ordinary human being, but instead to a human being who is truly the Son of God the Most High, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty in his mother’s womb, in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore, she remained truly the Mother of God and at the same time a virgin. ¢On this basis he also performed all his miracles, and he revealed his divine nature as he pleased, when and how he wanted to, and not only after his resurrection and ascension but in the state of his humiliation. Examples include at the wedding in Cana in Galilee [John 2:1-11], or when he was twelve )}ears old

among the learned [Luke 2:41-52], or in the Garden, where he struck his foes

to the ground with a word [John 18:6]. This was true even in death, when he

did not die merely as another human being but in such a way that by and in his death he overcame sin, death, the devil, hell, and eternal damnation, which the

human nature alone would not have been able to do, had it not been united with the divine nature personally and had communion with it. 26

erOn this basis, too, after the resurrection from the dead the human nature

enjoys exaltation over all creatures in heaven and on earth. This is nothing

other than that he has laid aside the form of a servant completely (without discarding his human nature, which he retains forever) and was installed into the

262. The rhetorical (and thus not actual) exchange of one part for another, as treated in par. 39—43 below. '

263. WA 26:317, 19-326, 28; LW 37:206-14. ’ 264. Irenaeus (MPG 7:979-80; ANF 1:464-65); Athanasius (MPG 26:1065-66; NPNF, ser. 2, 4:573-74); Hilary (MPL 10:310; NPNF, ser. 2, 9:167); Basil in Theodoret, Eranistes I (MPG

83:188-89; NPNF, ser. 2, 3:207); Gregory of Nyssa (MPG 83:192-95; NPNF, ser. 2, 3:208); John of

Damascus (MPG 94:1017AB).

Solid Declaration, Article VIII: Person of Christ

621

full possession and use of his divine majesty according to his assumed human nature. Of course, he also possessed this majesty from his conception in the

womb of his mother, but, as the Apostle testifies [Phil. 2:7], he emptied himself

of that majesty, and as Dr. Luther explains,?s> he kept it secret in his state of humiliation and did not use it all the time but only when he wanted to. cHowever, after this he did not merely ascend to heaven as any other holy person, but, as the Apostle testifies [Eph. 4:10], he ascended far above all the heav-

ens, truly fills all things, ;}&‘now rules everywhere, from one sea to the other and to the end of the world, not only as God but also as a human being. As the prophets prophesy and the apostles testify [Pss. 8:2, 7; 93:1; Zech. 9:19; Mark 16:19-20], he worked everywhere with them and has confirmed their message through the signs that accompanied it. “Indeed, this did not take place in an earthly manner but, as Dr. Luther explains,?® according to the mode of the right hand of God. It is not some specific spot in heaven, as the sacramentari-

27

28

ans propose without basis in the Holy Scripture. Instead, it is nothing other

than the almighty power of God, which fills heaven and earth. Christ has been installed in this power according to his humanity realiter (that is, in fact and in truth) sine confusione et exaequatione naturarum (that is, without mixing or equating the two natures) in their essence or in their essential characteristics. erOn the basis of this communicated power, he can be and truly is present with his body and blood in the Holy Supper according to the words of his testament, to which he has directed us through his Word. This kind of thing is impossible for any other human being. For no other human being is united in this manner with the divine nature or has been installed in the exercise of divine, almighty majesty and power through and in a personal union of the two natures in Christ, as Jesus, the Son of Mary, has been. In him the divine and human natures are personally united with each other, so that in Christ “all the fullness of the deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2[:9]). ¢In this personal union the two

30

St. Peter testifies [1 Peter 1:12]. All this will be explained below in somewhat greater detail and in proper order. fFrom this foundation also flows the teaching about the communicatio

31

29

natures have such a high, inward, indescribable communion with each other that even the angels marvel over it and desire and rejoice to look upon it, as

idiomatum (that is, about the true communion

of the characteristics of the

natures), as has been demonstrated above and as the unio personalis [personal union] explains. That is, in what form the divine and human natures in the person of Christ are united with each other, so that they not only have names in common but also in fact and in truth have communion with each other without any mixing or equating of the two natures in their essence. Concerning this more will be said later. 265. Treatise on the Last Words of David (1543) (WA 54:49, 33-50, 12; LW 15:291). 266.

That

These

Words

. . . (1527)

(WA

23:130,

7-137,

19;

142,

12-145,

11; LW

37:55-59,

63—64) and Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:340, 3-13; LW 37:228-29).

622 32

33

34

35

36

37

Formula of Concord

fIt is true quod propria non egrediantur sua subiecta (that is, that each nature retains its essential characteristics) and that they are not removed from their own nature and transferred into the other nature, as water is poured out of one container into another.26” Therefore, no communion of characteristics could exist or persist if this personal union or communion of the natures in the person of Christ were not real. fNext to the article of the Holy Trinity this is the greatest mystery in heaven and on earth, as Paul says, “Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great, that God was revealed in the flesh” (1 Tim.

3[:16]). fFor the apostle Peter [2 Peter 1:4] testifies clearly that even we, in

whom Christ dwells only by grace, become “participants in the divine nature” in Christ because of this great mystery. What a communion of the divine nature that must be concerning which the Apostle says that “in Christ the fullness of the deity dwells bodily” [Col. 2:9], in such a way that God and this human being are a single person! fIt is very important that this teaching de communicatione idiomatum (that is, concerning the communion of the characteristics of the two natures) be treated and explained with the appropriate distinctions. For the propositiones or praedicationes (that is, how one speaks of the person of Christ and of its natures and characteristics) are not of one kind or mode, and if they are used without the appropriate distinctions, the teaching will be confused, and the simple reader will easily be led astray. Therefore, the following analysis should be carefully taken into account. For the sake of a better and simple analysis it may be comprehended under three main points.268 “First, because in Christ there are and remain two distinct natures, unchanged and unmixed in their natural essences and characteristics, and because these two natures exist as only one single person, therefore, the characteristic of each individual nature is not ascribed to that nature alone, as if it were separated from the person, but it is ascribed to the whole person, which is simultaneously God and human (whether he is called God or a human being).26° But in hoc genere (that is, in this way of speaking), it does not follow that what is ascribed to the person is at the same time a characteristic of both natures. On the contrary, when something is ascribed to the person, it must be 267. Cf. Chemnitz, Two Natures in Christ. The literal translation of the Latin is “that their own characteristics are not removed from their own nature.” 268. Chemnitz divided the description of the communicatio idiomatum into three parts, later labeled genus idiomaticum, genus apotelesmaticum, and genus maiestaticum (or auchematicum). Although these designations were not yet in use in 1577, they correspond with the points here begun at par. 36, 46, and 48. The genus idiomaticum refers to the ascription of the attributes of both natures to the whole person of Christ and was undisputed in the sixteenth century. The genus apotelesmaticum means that in his fulfilling of his mediatorial office Christ used the characteristics of each nature or both in a manner appropriate to specific actions. The genus maiestaticum, the point of real controversy between Lutherans and Crypto-Philippists, ascribed divine majesty and power to Christ according to his human nature within the unity of his person. 269. Chemnitz, Two Natures in Christ, chaps. 13-16, pp. 171-213.

Solid Declaration, Article VIII: Person of Christ

623

distinctly explained according to which nature this characteristic is being ascribed to the person. Thus, “God’s Son was descended from David according

to the flesh” (Rom. 1{:3]), and, “Christ was put to death in the flesh and suffered for us in the flesh” (1 Peter 3[:18] and 4[:1]).

fHowever, the secret and public sacramentarians hide their harmful error under these words when they say that what belongs to one nature is ascribed to the entire person. To be surefthey speak of the entire person but at the same time understand only one nature thereby, and they exclude the other nature completely, as if only the human nature had suffered for us. Dr. Luther wrote of this in regard to the “alleosis” of Zwingli in his Large Confession on the Lord’s Supper. We wish to offer here Dr. Luther’s own words, in order to protect God’s church from such error in the best way possible. His words are as follows: fZwingli “calls it alleosis when something is said about the divinity of Christ which after all belongs to his humanity, or vice versa—for example, in Luke

38

39

24[:26], ‘Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer and so enter into his

glory?’” Here he performs a sleight-of-hand trick and substitutes the human

nature for Christ. fBeware, beware, I say, of this alleosis, for it is the devil’s

mask, since it finally constructs a kind of Christ after whom I would not want

40

to be a Christian, that is, a Christ who is and does no more in his passion and

his life than any other ordinary saint. For if I believe that only the human

nature suffered for me, then Christ would be a poor Savior for me, in fact, he himself would need a Savior. In short, it is indescribable what the devil

attemnpts with this alleosis!”270 Soon thereafter he wrote, “Now if the old witch,

41

suffer and die, then you must answer and say: This is true, but since the divinity and humanity are one person in Christ, the Scriptures ascribe to the divinity, because of this personal union, all that happens to humanity, and vice versa. And in reality it is so. findeed, you must say that the person (pointing to Christ) suffers and dies. But this person is truly God, and therefore it is correct to say: the Son of God suffers. Although, so to speak, the one part (namely, the divinity) does not suffer, nevertheless the person who is God suffers in the

42

Lady Reason, alleosis’s grandmother, should say that the deity surely cannot

other part (namely, in the humanity).”?’! “For the Son of God is truly crucified for us, i.e., this person, who is God. For he, I say, he, the person, is crucified

according to his humanity”’?’2 {And again, shortly thereafter, “If Zwingli’s alleosis stands, then Christ will have to be two persons, one a divine and the other a human person, since Zwingli applies all the texts concerning the passion only to the human nature and completely excludes them from the divine nature. But if the works are divided and separated, the person will also have to be separated, since all the doing and suffering are not ascribed to natures but to the person. It is the person who does and suffers everything, the one thing according 270. WA 26:319, 29—-40; LW 37:209-10. 271. WA 26:321, 19-28; LW 37:210. 272. WA 26:322, 20-22; LW 37:211.

43

624

44

~ Formula of Concord

to this nature and the other thing according to the other nature, all of which scholars know perfectly well. Therefore, we regard our Lord Christ as God and human being in one person, non confundendo naturas nec dividendo personaram (that is, ‘neither confusing the natures nor dividing the person’).”2”3 fLikewise,

Dr. Luther wrote

in On

the Councils

and

the Church, “We

Christians should know that if God is not in the scale to give it weight, we, on our side, sink to the ground. I mean it this way: if it cannot be said that God

died for us, but only a man, we are lost; but if God’s death and a dead God lie

45

46

47

in the balance, his side goes down and ours goes up like a light and empty scale. Yet he can also readily go up again, or leap out of the scale! But he could not sit on the scale unless he had become a human being like us, so that it could be called God’s dying, God’s martyrdom, God’s blood, and God’s death. For God in his own nature cannot die; but now that God and man are united in one person, it is called God’s death when the man dies who is one substance or one person with God.”?74 fFrom this it is evident thatit is incorrect to say or write that these expressions, “God suffered,” “God died,” are simply praedicatio verbalis (that is, simply mere words), which are not in fact true.?’> For our simple Christian creed demonstrates that the Son of God, who became human, suffered for us, died for us, and redeemed us with his blood. Second, concerning the discharge of Christ’s office, the person acts and

does its work not in, with, through, or according to one nature alone but in,

according to, with, and through both natures, or, as the Council of Chalcedon says,2’ each nature does its work in communion with the other, whatever specific characteristic may be involved. “Therefore, Christ is our mediator, redeemer, king, high priest, head, shepherd, etc., not according to one nature

alone, whether it be the divine or the human, but according to both natures, as

this teaching has been treated in more detail elsewhere.?”’ 48

“Third, it is, however, an entirely different matter when the question asked,

49

discussed, or treated is whether the natures in the personal union in Christ have nothing else or nothing more than only their own natural, essential characteristics (for that they have and retain them has been affirmed above).?”8 “Now, concerning the divine nature in Christ: because in God there is “no

50

nature in its essence or characteristics through the incarnation. It became neither smaller nor greater in and of itself through the incarnation. “However,

change” (James 1[:17]), nothing was added to or taken away from his divine

273. WA 26:324, 25-35; LW 37:212—13. The Latin refers to the Chalcedonian formulation. 274. WA 50:590, 25-35; LW 41:103-4.

275. A position expressed in the Grundfest E3b—Fa. A praedicatio verbalis is a designation fora mere linguistic equation of the predicate and subject. 276. Actually, in the Tome of Leo, pope at the time of the Council of Chalcedon (451), a document approved by the Council (NPNF, ser. 2, 14:255). _ ' 277. For example, Chemnitz, Two Natures in Christ, chap. 17, pp. 215-39. 278. Chemnitz, Two Natures in Christ, chaps. 19-29, pp. 241422,

Solid Declaration, Article VIII: Person of Christ

625

concerning the assumed human nature in the person of Christ, some?”® have

wanted to argue that, even in the personal union with the deity, the human nature has nothing else or more than only its natural, essential characteristics, which are common to all other human beings. For this reason nothing should or can be ascribed to the human nature in Christ that transcends or opposes its natural characteristics, even if the Witness of the Scripture sounds as if this were so0. “That such a position is false and improper is so clear from God’s Word that now even this party’s own adherents reprove and reject it. For the Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers?® (on the basis of Scripture) testify powerfully to the following. Based upon the personal union of the human nature in Christ with the divine nature, the human nature (when it was glorified after laying aside the form of a servant and after the humiliation and was exalted to the right hand of the majesty and power of God) also received, alongside of

51

and in addition to its natural, essential characteristics (which always remain),

special, high, great, supernatural, incomprehensible, indescribable heavenly prerogatives and privileges in majesty, glory, power, and might over all things that can be named, not only in this world but also in the world to come [Eph.

1:20-21].281 As a result, the human nature in Christ is used for the exercise of

Christ’s office according to its measure and fashion. This nature also has its effi-

cacia (that is, its power and effect) not only on the basis of and according to its

natural, essential characteristics or only insofar as its own capacity extends, but principally on the basis of and according to the majesty, glory, power, and might that this nature has received through the personal union, glorification, and exaltation. “Even the opponents cannot and dare not deny this any longer. However, they now argue and contend that the human nature in Christ is endowed and adorned only with those created gifts or finitae qualitates [finite qualities] as are found in the saints.?8? According to their own ideas and on the basis of their own argumentation or proofs, they want to determine and calculate what the human nature in Christ could and should be capable of doing or not doing without being destroyed. % *We reject and condemn these errors and all others that are contrary and opposed to the teaching set forth here as contrary to the pure Word of God, the writings of the holy prophets and apostles, and our Christian creed and confession. Because the Holy Scripture [Col. 1:27] calls Christ a mystery, over which all heretics stumble and fall headlong, we warn all Christians that they not pry presumptuously into this mystery with their reason but simply believe with the dear apostles, shut the eyes of their reason, take their understanding

captive in obedience to Christ, and take comfort and rejoice without ceasing in this, that in Christ our flesh and blood have been raised so high, to the right hand of the majesty and almighty power of God. In this way they will certainly find abiding comfort in every adversity and be preserved from harmful error.

IX. Concerning Christ’s Descent into Hell fBecause among the teachers of the ancient church as well as among some of us different explanations of the article on Christ’s descent into hell may be found,3% we remain with the simple explanation of the Christian creed, to

302. For example, Grundfest E1b—E2a, E4b—Fba. 303. For example, Consensus Tigurinus XXV (BSRK, 163) and Exegesis perspicua, 10, 11, 74.

304. Against Zwingli’s alleosis. 305. Most frequently mentioned are minor controversies in Hamburg, Augsburg, and Greifswald-Treptow. Some Lutherans, such as John Aepinus in Hamburg and the Wiirttembergers, among them Andreae, had tended to interpret the descent into hell as the completion of Christs sufferings, as had Luther earlier. Melanchthon and most of his students defended the descent into hell as a parade of triumph. The article appeared first in the Torgau Book; no precedents are to be found in the various documents that comprised that-manuscript. At Bergen the Torgau text was extensively abbreviated and revised. The occasion for the discussion of an issue that had never been critical for the larger Lutheran community, and for the inclusion of the article following the christological article of the Formula, may have been the treatment of the descent into hell in question

Solid Declaration, Article X: Ecclesiastical Practices

635

which Dr. Luther directs us in his sermon held in 1533 at the castle in Torgau

on Christ’s descent into hell.3%¢ Therefore, we confess, “I believe in Jesus Christ,

our Lord, God’s Son, who died, was buried, and descended into hell.” In this Creed the burial and Christ’s descent into hell are distinguished as\two different articles, fand we believe simply that the entire person, God and human being, descended to hell after his burial, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of hell, and took from the devil all his power. fWe should “not bother ourselves with lofty, sophistical ideas about how this occurred,” for this article can be grasped “with reason and the five senses” as little as can the previous article, on how Christ was placed at the right hand of God’s almighty power and majesty. This article can only be believed; we can only hold to the Word. Thus, we retain the heart of this article and derive comfort from it, so that “neither hell nor the devil can capture or harm us” and all who believe in Christ.

X. Concerning Ecclesiastical Practices That Are Called Adiaphora or Indifferent Things 4n the same way a dispute arose among some theologians of the Augsburg Confession over ceremonies and ecclesiastical practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden in God’s Word but have been introduced into the church with good intentions for the sake of good order and decorum or to maintain Christian discipline.??” *One party>% held that even in a time of persecution that demands confession of the faith—when the enemies of the holy gospel have not come to agreement with us in public teaching—it is permissible with a clear conscience, under the pressure and the demands of the opponents, to restore certain ceremonies that had earlier been abrogated (which are in and of themselves indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden by God). 44 of the Heidelberg Catechism (BSRK, 694), which viewed the descent in terms of Christ’s sharing

the worst human terrors of the soul. This position was interpreted as a denial of the communication of attributes (because, according to the Heidelberg theologians, the body of Christ in the grave could not have been simultaneously in hell) in the Mansfeld ministerium’s confession, Confessio et Sententia . . . de dogmatis . . . (1565), 48b~59b. 306. WA 37:62-67. This sermon was published in 1533 but was preached in Wittenberg the preceding year on Easter. 307. In the midst of the adiaphoristic controversy Flacius had made the distinction between public adiaphora—those in the life of the church, such as hymns, chanting, readings, ministers, places, times, vestments, the ringing of bells—and private adiaphora, such as fasting, times for prayer, etc. He made the distinction in Von wahren und falschen Mitteldingen (On True and False Adiaphora) (1549), 12b. The original form of this article is found in Jakob Andreae’s Six Christian Sermons, 92—-96.

308. The Philippists, led by Melanchthon and his colleagues at the University of Wittenberg, who worked out this position in the so-called Leipzig Interim of 1548; other defenders of the position included John Bugenhagen, Johann Pfeffinger, George Major, Paul Eber, and others.

636

Formula of Concord

They held that it is permissible to compromise with them in these adiaphora or indifferent matters. *The other party>®® argued, however, that in a time of persecution that demands confession of the faith—particularly when the opponents are striving either through violence and coercion or through craft and deceit to suppress pure teaching and subtly to slip their false teaching back into our churches—such things, even indifferent things, may in no way be permitted with a clear conscience and without damaging the divine truth. aTo explain this controversy and finally to set it aside by God’s grace, we present the following simple statement to the Christian reader. bWe should not regard as free and indifferent, but rather as things forbidden by God that are to be avoided, the kind of things presented under the name and appearance of external, indifferent things that are nevertheless fundamentally opposed to God’s Word (even if they are painted another color). Moreover, we must not include among the truly free adiaphora or indifferent matters ceremonies that give the appearance or (in order to avoid persecution) are designed to give the impression that our religion does not differ greatly from the papist religion or that their religion were not completely contrary to ours. Nor are such ceremonies matters of indifference when they are intended

to create the illusion (or are demanded or accepted with that intention), as if

such action brought the two contradictory religions into agreement and made them one body or as if a return to the papacy and a deviation from the pure teaching of the gospel and from the true religion had taken place or could gradually result from these actions.?!

bFor in such a case what Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 6[:14, 17] should and must be determinative: “Do not be mismatched [with unbelievers.] . .. What

fellowship is there between light and darkness?” “Therefore, come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord....” bIn the same way, useless, foolish spectacles,!! which are not beneficial for good order, Christian discipline, or evangelical decorum in the church, are not true adiaphora or indifferent things. 250n the contrary, in regard to true adiaphora or indifferent things (as

defined above) we believe, teach, and confess that such ceremonies, in and of

themselves, are no worship of God or any part of it. They must instead be distinguished from each other in an appropriate manner, as it is written, “In vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines” (Matt. 15[:9]).

309. This position was first represented in the criticisms of the so-called Leipzig Interim published by Nicholas von Amsdorf, Joachim Westphal, Matthias Flacius, Nicholas Gallus, ]ohan‘nes

Wigand, Matthew Judex, Johannes Aurifaber, Anton Otto, and the ministeria of Liibeck, Hamburg,

and Liineburg, which issued a joint criticism of the-Interims in 1548. \ 310. Flacius observed, “The poor people look mostly to the ceremonies, for they fill the eyes doctrine cannot be seen” (Von wahren und falschen Mitteldingen, O4a). 311. Von wahren und falschen Mitteldingen M2b.

Solid Declaration, Article X: Ecclesiastical Practices

637

®Therefore, we believe, teach, and confess that the community of God in

every time and place has the right, power, and authority to change, reduce, or expand such practices according to circumstances in an orderly and appropriate manner, without frivolity or offense, as seems most useful, beneficial, and best for good order, Christian discipline, evangelical decorum, and the Building up of the church. Paul teaches how one may yield and make concessions to the weak in faith in such external matters of indifference with good conscience (Rom. 14[:1-23]), and he demonstrates this with his own example (Acts 16[:3] and 21[:26]; 1 Cor. 9[:10]). abWe also believe, teach, and confess that in a time when confession is nec-

10

essary, as when the enemies of God’s Word want to suppress the pure teaching of the holy gospel, the entire community of God, indeed, every Christian, especially servants of the Word as the leaders of the community of God, are obligated according to God’s Word to confess true teaching and everything that pertains to the whole of religion freely and publicly. They are to do so not only with words but also in actions and deeds. In such a time they shall not yield to the opponents even in indifferent matters, nor shall they permit the imposition of such adiaphora by opponents who use violence or chicanery in such a way that undermines true worship of God or that introduces or confirms idolatry. abJt js written in Galatians 5[:1]: “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” Galatians 2[:4-5]: “But

11

with you.”312 Paul speaks in the same place of circumcision, which was at that time a free and indifferent matter (1 Cor. 7[:18, 19]), and which in his spiritu-

12

because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us—we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain al freedom he employed in other circumstances (Acts 16[:3]). However, when the false apostles demanded circumcision in order to confirm their false teach-

ing (as if the works of the law were necessary for righteousness and salvation) and thus misused it, Paul said that he did not want to give in to them “for a

moment,” “so that the truth of the gospel might always remain” [Gal. 2:5]. bThus, Paul submits and gives in to the weak in matters of food or days and times (Rom. 14[:6]). But he does not want to submit to false apostles, who

wanted to impose such things upon consciences as necessary even in matters that were in themselves free and indifferent. Colossians 2[:16]: “Do not let anyone make matters of foodor drink or the observation of festivals a matter of conscience for you.” And when in such a case Peter and Barnabas did give in to a certain degree, Paul criticized them publicly, as those who “were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2[:14]).

312. Flacius and his followers made the principle that “nothing is an adiaphoron in a time when confession of the faith is necessary” their chief criterion for judging matters in this controversy.

13

638

14

15

Formula of Concord

aFor in such a case it is no longer a matter of external adiaphora, which in their nature and essence are and remain in and of themselves free, which accordingly are not subject to either a command or a prohibition regarding their use or discontinuance. Instead, here it is above all a matter of the chief article of our Christian faith, as the Apostle testifies, “so that the truth of the gospel might always remain” [Gal. 2:5]. Such coercion and command obscure and pervert the truth of the gospel, because either these opponents will publicly demand such indifferent things as a confirmation of false teaching, superstition, and idolatry and for the purpose of suppressing pure teaching and Christian freedom, or they will misuse them and as a result falsely reinstitute them.313 At the same time, this also concerns the article on Christian freedom. With deep concern the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of the holy Apostle, has commanded his church to maintain this freedom [Gal. 5:1, 13; 2:4], as we have

16

just heard. For weakening this article and forcing human commands upon the church as necessary—as if their omission were wrong and sinful—already paves the way to idolatry. Through it human commands will ultimately increase and will be regarded as service to God equal to that which God has commanded; even worse, they will even be given precedence over what he has commanded. aThus, submission and compromise in external things where Christian agreement in doctrine has not already been achieved strengthens idolaters in their idolatry. On the other hand, this grieves and offends faithful believers and weakens their faith. Christians are bound to avoid both for the welfare and salvation of their souls, as it is written, “Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks” [Matt. 18:7], and, “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea” [Matt. 18:6].

17

aSpecial attention should be given to Christ’s words, “Everyone therefore who confesses me before others, I also will confess before my Father in heaven...” (Matt. 10[:32]).

¢The following ed and subscribed and confession of indifferent things. by God’s grace to

testimonies from the Smalcald Articles, which were presentto in 1537, prove that this position has always been the faith the leading teachers of the Augsburg Confession concerning We who follow in their footsteps intend to remain faithful their confession.

313. Flacius stated, “All ceremonies and ecclesiastical practices, as free as they may be in and of themselves, become a denial of the faith, an offense, and the public initiation of godlessness when they are imposed with force or deception, and however they happen, they do not edify but destroy the church of God and mock God. They are no longer adiaphora” (Von wahren und falschen Mitteldingen, Alb).

Solid Declaration, Article X: Ecclesiastical Practices

639

From the Smalcald Articles of 1537: dThe Smalcald Articles speak of this matter in this way [IIL, 12, 1-2]: “We do not concede to them (the papal bishops) that they are the church, and frankly they are not the church. We do not want to hear what they comnatand or forbid in the name of the church, because, God be praised, a seven-year-old child knows what the church is: holy believers and ‘the little sheep who hear the voice of their shepherd.” And just before this passage [III, 10, 1-2], “If the bishops wanted to be true bishops and attend to the church and the gospel, then a person might—for the sake of love and unity and not out of necessity—give them leave to ordain and confirm us and our preachers, provided all the pretense and fraud of unchristian ceremony and pomp were set aside. However, they are not now and do not want to be true bishops. Rather they are political lords and princes who do not want to undertake preaching, teaching, baptizing, communing, or any proper work or office of the church. In addition, they persecute and condemn those who do take up a call to such an office. Despite this, the church must not remain without servants on their account.” dUnder the article on the primacy or lordship of the pope, the Smalcald Articles state [II, 4, 14], “Therefore, as little as we can worship the devil himself as our lord or god, so we cannot allow his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern as our head or lord. His papal government is characterized by lying and murder and the eternal ruin of body and soul.” 1 dIn the Treatise on the Power and Authority of the Pope, which is appended to the Smalcald Articles and which was subscribed to by the theologians present at Smalcald with their own hand, we read*!* [par. 11], “No one shall burden the church with traditions or allow the authority of any person to count for more than the Word.” dSoon thereafter [41-42], “This being the situation, all Christians must

19

20

21

22

guard most diligently against becoming participants in such ungodly teachings, blasphemies, and unjust cruelty. Instead, they ought to abandon and curse the pope and his minions as the realm of the Antichrist, just as Christ commanded: ‘Beware of false prophets’ [Matt. 7:15]. Paul also commanded that ungodly teachers are to be shunned and denounced as accursed, and in 2 Corinthians 6[:14] he says, ‘Do not be mismatched with unbelievers, for what

fellowship is there between light and darkness?’ ¢To dissent from the consensus of so many nations and peoples and to promote such a peculiar doctrine is a grave matter. However, divine authority commands all people not to be accomplices and defenders of false teaching and unjust cruelty.”

314, At this time the German text of the Treatise was thought to have been the original. The authors of the Formula were not aware of the Latin original until 1584.

23

Formula of Concord

640

24 25

fIn similar fashion and in great detail Dr. Luther reminded the church of God how to regard ceremonies in general and in particular, in a special memorandum,* as he also did in 1530.316 ¢From this explanation everyone can understand what a Christian community and every individual Christian, particularly pastors, may do or omit in regard to indifferent things without injury to their consciences, especially in a time when confession is necessary, so that they do not arouse God’s wrath, do not violate love, do not strengthen the enemies of God’s Word, and do not

26

27 28

29

30

31

offend the weak in faith. a]. Accordingly, we reject and condemn as false the view that human commands are to be regarded in and of themselves as worship of God or some part thereof. 22, We also reject and condemn as false the procedure whereby such commands are imposed by force upon the community of God as necessary. a3, We reject and condemn as false the opinion of those who hold thatin a time of persecution people may comply and compromise with the enemies of the holy gospel in indifferent things, since this imperils the truth. ¢4, Likewise, we regard it as a sin worthy of punishment when, in a time of persecution, actions contrary and opposed to the confession of the Christian faith are undertaken because of the enemies of the gospel, either in indifferent things or in public teaching or in anything else which pertains to religion. a5, We also reject and condemn it when such indifferent things are abolished in such a way as if the community of God did not have the liberty to use, in a manner appropriate for specific times and places, one or more such things in Christian freedom as best serves the churches. aFor this reason the churches are not to condemn one another because of differences in ceremonies when in Christian freedom one has fewer or more than the other, as long as these churches are otherwise united in teaching and in all the articles of the faith as well as in the proper use of the holy sacraments. As it is said, “Dissonantia ieiunii non dissolvit consonantiam fidei” (dissimi-

larity in fasting shall not destroy the unity of faith).>”

XL Concerning God’s Eternal Foreknowledge and Election ?To be sure, there has been no public, scandalous, or widespread

conflict

among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession on the eternal election of 315. In A Report to a Good Friend on Both Kinds in the Sacrament, in Regard to the Mandate of

the Bishop of Meissen (1528) (WA 26:560-618).

316. Flacius had republished these letters as part of his campaign against the adiaphorists;

WABTr 5, nos. 1605, 1609 [LW 49:324-32], 1611, 1642; 1659, 1673, 1715 (to Melanchthon); nos. 1610, 1722 (to Jonas); no. 1612 [LW 49:333-37] (to Spalatin); and no. 1614 (to Brenz). Cf. Luther’s Admonition to the Clergy Assembled at Augsburg (1530) (WA 30/2: 268-356; LW 34:9-61). 317. Irenaeus, cited in Eusebius, Church History V, 24, 13 (NPNF, ser. 2, 1:243).

Solid Declaration, Article XI: Election

641

the children of God. Nonetheless, given that very violent disputes concerning this article took place elsewhere that even aroused some concern among our own people, and given that theologians have not always used the same language,’!® we wanted by God’s grace to set forth an explanation of these issues for our posterity and for us in order to prevent disunity and schism over these issues. In this way, all may know what is our unanimous teaching, faith, and

confession on this article of faith. ®For the teaching of this article, if it is for-

mulated on the basis of and according to the model of the divine Word, cannot be regarded as unprofitable or unnecessary, much less as offensive or harmful. For it is not by chance that Holy Scripture does not treat this article in just one place but rather carefully treats and emphasizes this topic in many places. #*Therefore, no one should ignore or reject this teaching of the divine Word just because some have misused and misunderstood it. Instead, precisely to avoid every abuse and misunderstanding, we should and must explain the proper understanding on the basis of Scripture. Accordingly, the summary and the content of the teaching regarding this article consists of the following points:

“First,3!? we must carefully note the difference between God’s eternal foreknowledge and his eternal election of his children to eternal salvation. For praescientia vel praevisio (that is, that God sees and knows everything before it happens—what is called God’s foreknowledge) applies to all creatures, good and evil. It means that God sees and knows everything that is or will be, everything that happens or will happen, whether it is good or evil, because all things exist in the presence of God, whether they are past or future, and nothing is hidden from him. As it is written in Matthew 10[:29]: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father” And Psalm 139[:16]: “Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.” Likewise, Isaiah 37[:28]: “I know your going out and coming in, and your raging against me.” ¢The eternal election of God, however, or praec?éstz/natio (that is, God’s

preordination to salvation), does not apply to both the godly and the evil, but instead only to the children of God, who are chosen and predestined to eter-

nal life, “before the foundation of the world” was laid,as Paul says (Eph. 1[:4,

318. Andreae himself had participated in the mediation of a dispute between the Calvinist teacher in Strasbourg, Jerome Zanchi, and the Lutheran pastor there, Johann Marbach, in 1563.

Chemnitz had been marginally involved in a small controversy from 1567 to 1571 between Cyriakus Spangenberg of Mansfeld, who defended a view of election close to that of Luther in On the Bondage of the Will, and Philippist theologians from electoral Saxony. 319. Par. 4-6 paraphrase Chemnitz’s Handbuechlein Der Furenemsten Heuptstueck der Christlichen Lehre, translated as his Enchiridion, no. 178, pp. 86—87. The section on election did not appear in the first edition of 1569 but instead in the 1574 edition. Chemnitz apparently prepared it as he worked on the Swabian-Saxon Concord.

642

Formula of Concord

5]). He chose us in Christ Jesus and “preordained us to adoption

children.”

“The foreknowledge of God

|

as his

(praescientia) sees and knows even the evil

before it happens, but not in such a way as if it were God’s gracious will that it take place. Instead, before it happens, God sees and knows what the perverted, evil will of the devil and of human beings intends to and actually will undertake and do. Even in these evil activities and works God’s praescientia (that is, his foreknowledge) preserves order, in such a way that God sets the limits and boundaries for the evil which God does not will: how far it can go and how long it can continue, when and how he will impede it and punish it. Besides that, God the Lord rules all things so that they must promote the honor of his

divine name and the welfare of his elect to the shame of the godless. aGod’s foreknowledge is not, however, the origin or cause of evil (for God does not create evil or produce it, and he does not aid or abet it). Instead, the evil, perverted will of the devil and human beings is its origin and cause, as it is written, “Israel, you bring yourself into misfortune, but your salvation is found in me alone” [Hos. 13:9 in Luther’s translation]. Likewise, “You are not

a God who delights in wickedness” [Ps. 5:4]. aGod’s eternal election not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect but is also a cause of our salvation and whatever pertains to it, on the basis

of the gracious will and good pleasure of God in Christ Jesus. As this cause, it creates, effects, aids, and promotes our salvation. Our salvation is founded upon it, so that “the gates of hell” [Matt. 16:18] may not have any power against this salvation, as is written, “No one will snatch my sheep out of my hand”

[John 10:28]. And again, “As many as had been destined for eternal life became believers” [Acts 13:48].

‘Moreover, no one should consider this eternal election or God’s preordination to eternal life merely as the secret, inscrutable will or counsel of God, as if it had nothing more to it and nothing more to consider than that God perceived beforehand who and how many would be saved, and who and how many would be damned. Nor should it be conceived of as a military muster, in

which God said, “this one shall be saved, that one shall be damned; this one will

remain faithful, that one will not remain faithful” For such a view leads many to devise and formulate strange, dangerous, and harmful ideas. Such ideas would cause and strengthen either false security and impenitence or faintheartedness and despair. As a result, people might fall into burdensome thoughts and say:*?° “Since God has foreseen his elect to sal-

vation ‘before the foundation of the world’ (Eph. 1[:4]) and since God’s fore-

knowledge does not fail, nor can anyone change or impede it (Isa. 14[:27];

Rom. 9[:19, 11]), if then I am foreseen to salvation, it cannot harm me if I

practice all kinds of sin and vice without repentance, despise Word and sacra-

320. What follows, through the end of par. 13, is taken from Chemnitz’s Enchiridion, no. 177, pp. 85-86.

s

0

R

¥ty

B

X,

Solid Declaration, Article XI: Election

643

ment, and have no concern for repentance, faith, prayer, or godly living; still T will and must be saved, for what God foreknows must take place. And if [ am not foreknown, it will not help if I hold to God’s Word, repent, believe, etc., for I cannot impede or change God’s foreknowledge.” Such thoughts no doubt also arise in godly hearts, even when by God’s

11

grace they possess repentance, faith, and good intentions. Especially when they

see their own weakness and the examples of those who did not persist in the faith but fell away again, they may think, “If you are not foreknown from eternity to salvation, everything is in vain.” Against such illusions and ideas we must lay the following clear, certain, and unerring foundation. Because “all Scripture is inspired by God,” to serve not as a basis for security and impenitence but rather “for reproof, for correc-

12

tion, for improvement” (2 Tim. 3[:16]), and because all that has been written

for us in God’s Word was written not that it might drive us into despair but rather “that by patience and by the encouragement of Scripture we might have hope” (Rom. 15[:4]), there can be no doubt whatsoever that the proper understanding or correct use of the teaching of the eternal foreknowledge of God produces or supports neither impenitence nor despair. Scripture presents this teaching for no other purpose than to point us to the Word (Eph. 1{:13, 14]; 1 Cor. 1[:21, 30, 31]), to admonish us to repent (2 Tim. 3[:16, 17]), to encourage godliness (Eph. 1[:15ff.]; John 15[:3, 4, 10, 12, 16, 17]), to strengthen our faith and assure us of our salvation (Eph. 1[:9, 13, 14]; John' 10[:27-30]; 2 Thess.

2[:13-15]).

|

“For this reason, if a person wishes to think or speak about the election praedestinatio (or preordination) of God’s children to eternal life correctly profitably, one should as a matter of course refrain from speculation over naked, secret, hidden, inscrutable foreknowledge of God. On the contrary,

and and the one

13

revealed to us through the Word. “This means that the entire teaching of God’s intention, counsel, will, and preordination concerning our\redemption, call-

14

should focus on how God’s counsel, intention, and preordination in Jesus Christ (who is the genuine, true “Book of Life” [Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 20:15]) is

ing, justification, and salvation must be taken as a unity. This is the way Paul treats and explains this article (Rom. 8[:28ff.]; Eph. 1[:4ff.]) and the way Christ

explained it in the parable of Matthew 22[:2-14].32! This teaching states that in his intention and counsel God had preordained the following: