In Reference to the Matters Presented To His Imperial Majesty
by the Elector Of Saxony and Some Princes and States of the Holy Roman Empire,
On the Subject and Concerning Causes Pertaining to the Christian Orthodox Faith,
the Following Christian Reply Can Be Given
August 3, 1530
Published in
The Augsburg Confession, A Collection of Sources
Ft. Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press),
pp. 349-383.
As His Worshipful Imperial Majesty received several days since a Confession of Faith presented by the Elector the duke of Saxony and several princes and two cities, to which their names were affixed, with his characteristic zeal for the glory of God, the salvation of souls, Christian harmony and the public peace, he not only himself read the Confession, but also, in order that in a matter of such moment he might proceed the more thoroughly and seasonably, he referred the aforesaid Confession to several learned, mature, approved and honorable men of different nations for their inspection and examination, and earnestly directed and enjoined them to praise and approve what in the Confession was said aright and in accord with Catholic doctrine, but, on the other hand, to note that wherein it differed from the Catholic Church, and, together with their reply, to present and explain their judgment on each topic. This commission was executed aright and according to order. For those learned men with all care and diligence examined the aforesaid Confession, and committed to writing what they thought on each topic, and thus presented a reply to His Imperial Majesty. This reply His Worshipful Imperial Majesty, as becomes a Christian emperor, most accurately read and gave to the other electors, princes and estates of the Roman Empire for their perusal and examination, which they also approved as orthodox and in every respect harmonious with the Gospel and Holy Scripture.
For this reason, after a conference with the electors, princes and states above named, in order that all dissension concerning this our orthodox holy faith and religion may be removed, His Imperial Majesty has directed that a declaration be made at present as follows:
In reference to the matters presented to His Imperial Majesty by the Elector of Saxony and some princes and states of the Holy Roman Empire, on the subject and concerning causes pertaining to the Christian orthodox faith, the following Christian reply can be given:
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. For the Council of Nicea, convened under the Emperor Constantine the Great, has always been regarded inviolable, whereat three hundred and eighteen bishops eminent and venerable for holiness of life, martyrdom and learning, after investigating and diligently examining the Holy Scriptures, set forth this article which they here confess concerning the unity of the essence and the trinity of persons.
So too their condemnation of all heresies arising contrary to this article must be accepted - viz. the Manichaeans, Arians, Eunomians, Valentinians, Samosatanes, for the Holy Catholic Church has condemned these of old.
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 Ghost. For in this they properly condemn the Pelagians, both modern and ancient, who have been long since condemned by the Church.
But the declaration of the article, that Original Sin is that men are born without the
fear of God and without trust in God, is to be entirely rejected, 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 offence of a recently-born infant, which does not
possess as yet the full use of reason, as the Lord says “Your children which had no
knowledge between good and evil,”
In the third article there is nothing to offend, since the entire Confession agrees with the Apostles’ Creed and the right rule of faith -viz. the Son of God became incarnate, assumed human nature into the unity of his person, was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered was crucified, died, descended to hell, rose again on the third day, ascended to heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father.
In the fourth article the condemnation of the Pelagians, who thought that man can merit
eternal life by his own powers without the grace of God, is accepted as Catholic and in
accordance with the ancient councils, for the Holy Scriptures expressly testify to this.
John the Baptist says: “A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from
heaven,”
For if any one should intend to disapprove of the merits that men acquire by the
assistance of divine grace, he would agree with the Manichaeans rather than with the
Catholic Church. For it is entirely contrary to holy Scripture to deny that our works are
meritorious. For St. Paul says “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my
course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of
righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day,”
Nevertheless, all Catholics confess that our works of themselves have no merit, but
that God’s grace makes them worthy of eternal life. Thus St. John says: “They shall
walk with me in white; for they are worthy,”
In the fifth article the statement that the Holy Ghost is given by the Word and
sacraments, as by instruments, is approved. For thus it is written,
The mention, however, that they here make of faith is approved so far as not Faith
alone, which some incorrectly teach, but faith which worketh by love, is understood, as
the apostle teaches aright in
Their Confession in the sixth article that faith should bring forth good fruits is
acceptable and valid since “faith without works is dead,”
But in the same article their ascription of justification to faith alone is
diametrically opposite the truth of the Gospel by which works are not excluded; because
glory, honor and peace to every man that worketh good,”
Hence however much one may believe, if he work not what is good, he is not a friend of
God. “Ye are my friends,” says Christ, “if ye do whatsoever I command
you,”
On this account their frequent ascription of justification to faith is not admitted
since it pertains to grace and love. For St. Paul says: “Though I have all faith so
that I could remove mountains and have not charity, I am nothing.”
Neither are they supported by the word of Christ: “When ye shall have done all
these things, say We are unprofitable servants,”
So, too, the citation at this point from Ambrose is in no way pertinent, since St.
Ambrose is here expressly declaring his opinion concerning legal works. For he says:
“Without the law,” but, “Without the law of the Sabbath, and of
circumcision, and of revenge.” And this he declares the more clearly on
The seventh article of the Confession, wherein it is affirmed that the Church is the
congregation of saints, cannot be admitted without prejudice to faith if by this
definition the wicked and sinners be separated from the Church. For in the Council of
Constance this article was condemned among the articles of John Huss of cursed memory, and
it plainly contradicts the Gospel. For there we read that John the Baptist compared the
Church to a threshing-floor, which Christ will cleanse with his fan, and will gather the
wheat into his garner, but will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire,
Wherefore this article of the Confession is in no way accepted, although we read in it
their confession that the Church is perpetual, since here the promise of Christ has its
place, who promises that the Spirit of truth will abide with it forever
They are praised also, in that they do not regard variety of rites as separating unity
of faith, if they speak of special rites. For to this effect Jerome says: “Every
province abounds in its own sense” (of propriety). But if they extend this part of
the Confession to universal Church rites, this also must be utterly rejected, and we must
say with St. Paul: “We have no such custom,”
The eighth article of the Confession, concerning wicked ministers of the Church and hypocrites - viz. that their wickedness does not injure the sacraments and the Word - is accepted with the Holy Roman Church, and the princes commend it, condemning on this topic the Donatists and the ancient Origenists, who maintained that it was unlawful to use the ministry of the wicked in the Church - a heresy which the Waldenses and Poor of Lyons revived. Afterwards John Wicliff in England and John Huss in Bohemia adopted this.
The ninth article, concerning Baptism - viz. that it is necessary to salvation, and that children ought to be baptized - is approved and accepted, and they are right in condemning the Anabaptists, a most seditious class of men that ought to be banished far from the boundaries of the Roman Empire in order that illustrious Germany may not suffer again such a destructive and sanguinary commotion as she experienced five tears ago in the slaughter of so many thousands.
The tenth article gives no offense in its words, because they confess that in the
Eucharist, after the consecration lawfully made, the Body and Blood of Christ are
substantially and truly present, if only they believe that the entire Christ is present
under each form, so that the Blood of Christ is no less present under the form of bread by
concomitance than it is under the form of the wine, and the reverse. Otherwise, in the
Eucharist the Body of Christ is dead and bloodless, contrary to St. Paul, because
“Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more,”
One matter is added as very necessary to the article of the Confession - viz. that they believe the Church, rather than some teaching otherwise and incorrectly, that by the almighty Word of God in the consecration of the Eucharist the substance of the bread is changed into the Body of Christ. For thus in a general council it has been determined, canon Firmiter, concerning the exalted Trinity, and the Catholic faith. They are praised therefor, for condemning the Capernaites, who deny the truth of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
The eleventh article their acknowledgment that private absolution with confession
should be retained in the Church is accepted as catholic and in harmony with our faith,
because absolution is supported by the word of Christ. For Christ says to his apostles,
Nevertheless, two things must here be required of them: one, that they compel an annual confession to be observed by their subjects, according to the constitution, canon Omnis Utriusque, concerning penance and remission and the custom of the Church universal.
Another that through their preachers they cause their subjects to be faithfully
admonished when they are about to confess 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 offences - viz. of all which occur to their memory in
such investigation. But in regard to the rest that have been forgotten and have escaped
our mind it is lawful to make a general confession, and to say with the Psalmist,
In the twelfth article their confession that such as have fallen may find remission of
sins at the time when they are converted, and that the Church should give absolution unto
such as return to repentance, is commended, since they most justly condemn the Novatians
who deny that repentance can be repeated, in opposition both to the prophet who promises
grace to the sinner at whatever hour he shall mourn,
But the second part of this article is utterly rejected. For when they ascribe only two
parts to repentance, they antagonize the entire Church, which from the time of the
apostles has held and believed that there are three parts of repentance - contrition,
confession and satisfaction. Thus the ancient doctors, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom,
Gregory, Augustine, taught in attestation of the Holy Scriptures, especially from
This part of the article, therefore can in no way be admitted; so, too, neither can that which asserts that faith is the second part of repentance, since it is known to all that faith precedes repentance; for unless one believes he will not repent.
Neither is that part admitted which makes light of pontifical satisfactions, for it is
contrary to the Gospel, contrary to the apostles, contrary to the fathers, contrary to the
councils, and contrary to the universal Catholic Church. John the Baptist cries:
“Bring forth fruits meet for repentance,”
Those absolved by the priest ought to perform the penance enjoined, following the
declaration of St. Paul: He “gave himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, and
purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works,”
The thirteenth article gives no offence, but is accepted, while they say that the sacraments were instituted not only to be marks of profession among men, but rather to be signs and testimonies of God’s will toward us; nevertheless, we must request them that what they here ascribe to the sacraments in general they confess also specifically concerning the seven sacraments of the Church and take measures for the observance of them by their subjects.
When, in the fourteenth article, they confess that no one ought to administer in the
Church the Word of God and the sacraments unless he be rightly called, it ought to be
understood that he is rightly called who is called in accordance with the form of law and
the ecclesiastical ordinances and decrees hitherto observed everywhere in the Christian
world, and not according to a Jeroboitic (cf.
In the fifteenth article their confession that such ecclesiastical rites are to be observed as may be observed without sin, and are profitable for tranquility and good order in the Church, is accepted, and they must be admonished that the princes and cities see to it that the ecclesiastical rites of the Church universal be observed in their dominions and districts, as well as those which have been kept devoutly and religiously in every province even to us, and if any of these have been intermitted that they restore them, and arrange, determine and effectually enjoin upon their subjects that all things be done in their churches according to the ancient form.
Nevertheless, the appendix to this article must be entirely removed, since it is false that human ordinances instituted to propitiate God and make satisfactions for sins are opposed to the Gospel, as will be more amply declared hereafter concerning vows, the choice of food and the like.
The sixteenth article, concerning civil magistrates, is received with pleasure, as in
harmony not only with civil law, but also with canonical law, the Gospel, the Holy
Scriptures, and the universal norm of faith, since the apostle enjoins that “every
soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that
be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance
of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation,”
And the princes are praised for condemning the Anabaptists, who overthrow all civil ordinances and prohibit Christians the use of the magistracy and other civil offices, without which no state is successfully administered.
The confession of the seventeenth article is received, since from the Apostles’ Creed and the Holy Scripture the entire Catholic Church knows that Christ will come at the last day to judge the quick and the dead. Therefore they justly condemn here the Anabaptists, who think there will be an end of punishments to condemned men and devils, and imagine certain Jewish kingdoms of the godly, before the resurrection of the dead, in this present world, the wicked being everywhere suppressed.
In the eighteenth article they confess the power of the Free Will - viz. that it has the power to work a civil righteousness, but that it has not, without the Holy Ghost, the virtue to work the righteousness of God. This confession is received and approved.
For it thus becomes Catholics to pursue the middle way, so as not, with the Pelagians, to ascribe too much to the free will, nor, with the godless Manichaeans, to deny it all liberty; for both are not without fault. Thus Augustine says: “With sure faith we believe, and without doubt we preach, that a free will exists in men. For it is an inhuman error to deny the free will in man, which every one experiences in himself, and is so often asserted in the Holy Scriptures.“
St. Paul says: “Having power over his own will.”
The nineteenth article is likewise approved and accepted. For God, the supremely good,
is not the author of evils, but the rational and defectible will is the cause of sin;
wherefore let no one impute his midsdeeds and crimes to God, but to himself, according to
In the twentieth article, which does not contain so much the confession of the princes
and cities as the defense of the preachers, there is only one thing that pertains to the
princes and cities - viz. concerning good works, that they do not merit the remission of
sins, which, as it has been rejected and disapproved before, is also rejected and
disapproved now. For the passage in Daniel is very familiar: “Redeem thy sins with
alms,”
Nor by this do we reject Christ’s merit but we know that our works are nothing and of
no merit unless by virtue of Christ’s passion. We know that Christ is “the way, the
truth and the life,“.
In the last place, they present the twenty-first article, wherein they admit that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, but not that they be invoked and aid be sought of them. It is certainly wonderful that the princes especially and the cities have allowed this error to be agitated in their dominions, which has been condemned so often before in the Church, since eleven hundred years ago St. Jerome vanquished in this area the heretic Vigilantius. Long after him arose the Albigenses, the Poor Men of Lyons, the Picards, the Cathari old and new: all of whom were condemned legitimately long ago. Wherefore this article of the Confession, so frequently condemned, must be utterly rejected and in harmony with the entire universal Church be condemned;
For in favor of the invocation of saints we have not only the authority of the Church universal but also the agreement of the holy fathers, Augustine, Bernard, Jerome, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Basil, and this class of other Church teachers.
Neither is the authority of Holy Scripture absent from this Catholic assertion, for
Christ taught that the saints should be honored: “If any man serve me, him will my
Father honor,”
Lastly, St. Cyprian the martyr more than twelve hundred and fifty years ago wrote to Pope Cornelius, Book I, Letter 1, asking that “if any depart first, his prayer for our brethren and sisters may not cease.” For if this holy man had not ascertained that after this life the saints pray for the living, he would have given exhortation to no purpose.
Neither is their Confession strengthened by the fact that there is one Mediator between
God and men,
With all these things carefully considered, we must ask the princes and the cities adhering to them that they reject this part of the Confession and agree with the holy universal and orthodox Church and believe and confess, concerning the worship and intercession of saints, what the entire Christian world believes and confesses, and was observed in all the churches in the time of Augustine. “A Christian people.” he says, “celebrates the memories of martyrs with religious observance, that it share in their merits and be aided by their prayers.“
As in the Confessions of the princes and cities they enumerate among the abuses that
laymen commune only under one form, and as, therefore, in their dominions both forms are
administered to laymen, we must reply, according to the custom of the Holy Church, that
this is incorrectly enumerated among the abuses, but that, according to the sanctions and
statutes of the same Church it is rather an abuse and disobedience to administer to laymen
both forms. For under the one form of bread the saints communed in the primitive Church,
of whom Luke says: “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread.”
Although, however, both forms were of old administered in many churches to laymen (for then it was free to commune under one or under both forms), yet on account of many dangers the custom of administering both forms has ceased. For when the multitude of the people is considered where there are old and young, tremulous and weak and inept, if great care be not employed and injury is done the Sacrament by the spilling of the liquid. Because of the great multitude there would be difficulty also in giving the chalice cautiously for the form of wine, which also when kept for a long time would sour and cause nausea or vomition to those who would receive it; neither could it be readily taken to the sick without danger of spilling. For these reasons and others the churches in which the custom had been to give both forms to laymen were induced, undoubtedly by impulse of the Holy Ghost, to give thereafter but one form, from the consideration chiefly that the entire Christ is under each form, and is received no less under one form than under two. In the Council of Constance, of such honorable renown, a decree to this effect appeared, and so too the Synod of Basle legitimately decreed. And although it was formerly a matter of freedom to use either one or both forms in the Eucharist, nevertheless, when the heresy arose which taught that both forms were necessary, the Holy Church, which is directed by the Holy Ghost, forbade both forms to laymen. For thus the Church is sometimes wont to extinguish heresies by contrary institutions; as when some arose who maintained that the Eucharist is properly celebrated only when unleavened bread is used, the Church for a while commanded that it be administered with leavened bread; and when Nestorius wished to establish that the perpetual Virgin Mary was mother only of Christ, not of God, the Church for a time forbade her to be called Christotokos, mother of Christ.
Wherefore we must entreat the princes and cities not to permit this schism to be
introduced into Germany, into the Roman Empire, or themselves to be separated from the
custom of the Church Universal. Neither do the arguments adduced in this article avail,
for while Christ indeed instituted both forms of the Sacrament, yet it is nowhere found in
the Gospel that he enjoined that both forms be received by the laity. For what is said in
As to their reference to Gelasius, Canon Comperimus, of Consecration. Dist. 2, if they examine the document they will find that Gelasius speaks of priests, and not of laymen. Hence their declaration that the custom of administering but one form is contrary to divine law must be rejected.
But most of all the appendix to the article must be rejected, that the procession with the Eucharist must be neglected or omitted, because the sacrament is thus divided. For they themselves know, or at least ought to know, that by the Christian faith Christ has not been divided, but that the entire Christ is under both forms, and that the Gospel nowhere forbids the division of the sacramental forms; as is done on Parasceve (Holy or Maundy Thursday) by the entire Church of the Catholics, although the consecration is made by the celebrant in both forms, who also ought to receive both.
Therefore the princes and cities should be admonished to pay customary reverence and due honor to Christ the Son of the living God, our Savior and Glorifier, the Lord of heaven and earth, since they believe and acknowledge that he is truly present - a matter which they know has been most religiously observed by their ancestors, most Christian princes.
Their enumeration among abuses, in the second place, of the celibacy of the clergy, and the manner in which their priests marry and persuade others to marry, are verily matters worthy of astonishment, since they call sacerdotal celibacy an abuse, when that which is directly contrary, the violation of celibacy and the illicit transition to marriage, deserves to be called the worst abuse in priests. For that priests ought never to marry Aurelius testifys in the second Council of Carthage, where he says: “Because the apostles taught thus by example, and antiquity itself has preserved it, let us also maintain it.” And a little before a canon to this effect is read: “Resolved, That the bishops, presbyters and deacons, or those who administer the sacraments, abstain, as guardians of chastity, from wives.” From these words it is clear that this tradition has been received from the apostles, and not recently devised by the Church.
Augustine, following Aurelius in the last question concerning the Old and New Testaments, writes upon these words, and asks: “If perhaps it be said, if it is lawful and good to marry, why are not priests permitted to have wives?” Pope Caliztus, a holy man and a martyr, decided thirteen hundred years ago that priests should not marry. The like is read also in the holy Councils of Caesarea, Neocaesarea, Africa, Agde, Gironne, Meaux, and Orleans. Thus the custom has been observed from the time of the Gospel and the apostles that one who has been put into the office of priests has never been permitted, according to law, to marry.
It is indeed true that on account of lack of ministers of God in the primitive Church married men were admitted to the priesthood, as is clear from the Apostolic Canons and the reply of Paphnutius in the Council of Nice; nevertheless, those who wished to contract marriage were compelled to do so before receiving the subdiaconate, as we read in the canon Si quis corum Dist. 32. This custom of the primitive Church the Greek Church has preserved and retained to this day. But when, by the grace of God, the Church has increased so that there was no lack of ministers in the Church, Pope Siricius, eleven hundred and forty years ago, undoubtedly not without the Holy Ghost, enjoined absolute continence upon the priests, Canon Plurimus, Dist. 82 - an injunction which Popes Innocent I., Leo the Great and Gregory the Great approved and ratified, and which the Latin Church has everywhere observed to this day. From these facts it is regarded sufficiently clear that the celibacy of the clergy is not an abuse, and that it was approved by fathers so holy at such a remote time, and was received by the entire Latin Church.
Besides, the priests of the old law, as in the case of Zacharias, were separated from
their wives at times when they discharged their office and ministered in the temple. But
since the priest of the new law ought always to be engaged in the ministry, it follows
that he ought always to be continent. Furthermore, married persons should not defraud one
the other of conjugal duties except for a time that they may give themselves to prayer.
Moreover, sacerdotal continence was foreshadowed also in the Old Testament, for Moses
commanded those who were to receive the law not to approach their wives until the third
day,
Hence the holy martyr Cyprian testifies that it was revealed to him by the Lord, and he was most solemnly enjoined, to earnestly admonish the clergy not to occupy a domicile in common with women. Hence, since sacerdotal continence has been commanded by the pontiffs and revealed by God and promised to God, by the priest in a special vow, it must not be rejected. For this is required by the excellency of the sacrifice they offer, the frequency of prayer, and liberty and purity of spirit, that they care how to please God, according to the teaching of St. Paul.
And because this is manifestly the ancient heresy of Jovinian, which the Roman Church condemned and Jerome refuted in his writings, and St. Augustine said that this heresy was immediately extinguished and did not attain to the corruption and abuse of priests, the princes ought not to tolerate it to the perpetual shame and disgrace of the Roman Empire, but should rather conform themselves to the Church universal, and not be influenced by those things which are suggested to them.
For as to what Paul says,
Furthermore, when they say that Christ taught that all men are not fit for celibacy, it
is indeed true, and on this account not all are fit for the priesthood; but let the priest
pray, and he will be able to receive Christ’s word concerning continence, as St. Paul
says: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me,”
Besides, when they allege that this is God’s ordinance and command,
They also pervert St. Paul, as though he teaches that one who is to be chosen bishop
should be married when he says: “Let a bishop be the husband of one wife;” which
is not to be understood as though he ought to be married, for then Martin, Nicolaus,
Titus, John the Evangelist, yea Christ, would not have been bishops. Hence Jerome explains
the words of St. Paul, “that a bishop be the husband of one wife,” as meaning
that he be not a bigamist. The truth of this exposition is clear, not only from the
authority of Jerome, which ought to be great with every Catholic, but also from St. Paul,
who writes concerning the selection of widows: “Let not a widow be taken into the
number under three score years, having been the wife of one man,”
Lastly, the citation of what was done among the Germans is the statement of a fact, but not of a law, for while there was a contention between the Emperor Henry IV, and the Roman Pontiff, and also between his son and the nobles of the Empire, both divine and human laws were equally confused, so that at the time the laity rashly attempted to administer sacred things, to use filth instead of holy oil, to baptize, and to do much else foreign to the Christian religion. The clergy likewise went beyond their sphere - a precedent which cannot be cited as law.
Neither was it regarded unjust to dissolve sacrileges marriages which had been contracted to no effect in opposition to vows and the sanction of fathers and councils; as even today the marriages of priests with their so-called wives are not valid. In vain, therefore, do they complain that the world is growing old, and that as a remedy for infirmity rigor should be relaxed, for those who are consecrated to God have other remedies of infirmities; as, for instance, let them avoid the society of women, shun idleness, macerate the flesh by fasting and vigils, keep the outward senses, especially sight and hearing, from things forbidden, turn away their eyes from beholding vanity, and finally dash their little ones - i.e. their carnal thoughts - upon a rock (and Christ is the Rock), suppress their passions, and frequently and devoutly resort to God in prayer. These are undoubtedly the most effectual remedies for incontinence in ecclesiastics and servants of God.
St. Paul said aright that the doctrine of those who forbid marriage is a doctrine of demons. Such was the doctrine of Tatian and Marcoin, whom Augustine and Jerome have mentioned. But the Church does not thus forbid marriage, as she even enumerates marriage among the seven sacraments; with which, however, it is consistent that on account of their superior ministry she should enjoin upon ecclesiastics superior purity.
For it is false that there is an express charge concerning contracting marriage, for then John the Evangelist, St. James, Laurentius, Titus, Martin, Catharine, Barbara, etc., would have sinned. Nor is Cyprian influenced by these considerations to speak of a virgin who had made a solemn vow, but of one who had determined to live continently, as the beginning of Letter XI., Book I sufficiently shows. For the judgement of St. Augustine is very explicit: “It is damnable for Virgins who make a vow not only to marry, but even to wish to marry.” Hence the abuse of marriage and the breaking of vows in the clergy are not to be tolerated.
Whatever in this article is stated concerning the most holy office of the mass that agrees with the Holy Roman and Apostolic Church is approved, but whatever is added that is contrary to the observance of the general and universal orthodox Church is rejected, because it grievously offends God, injures Christian unity, and occasions dissensions, tumults and seditions in the Holy Roman Empire.
Now, as to these things which they state in the article: First, it is displeasing that,
in opposition to the usage of the entire Roman Church, they perform ecclesiastical rites
not in the Roman but in the German language, and this they pretend that they do upon the
authority of St. Paul, who taught that in the Church a language should be used which is
understood by the people,
Moreover, as to their complaints concerning the abuse of masses, there is none of those
who think aright but does not earnestly desire that the abuses be corrected. But that they
who wait at the altar live of the altar is not an abuse, but pertains equally to both
divine and human law. “Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charge?” says
Paul. “Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things
of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?”
Again, their insinuations that in the mass Christ is not offered must be altogether
rejected, as condemned of old and excluded by the faithful. For Augustine says this was a
very ancient heresy of the Arians, who denied that in the mass an oblation was made for
the living and the dead. For this is opposed both to the Holy Scriptures and the entire
Church. For through Malachi the Lord predicted the rejection of the Jews, the call of the
Gentiles and the sacrifice of the evangelical law: “I have no pleasure in you, he
saith, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun,
even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in
every place incense shall be offered unto my name and a pure offering.”
Besides, in speaking of the advent of the Messiah the same prophet says: “And he
shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto
the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be
pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old and as in former years,”
The angel also said to Daniel: “Many shall be purified and made white and tried;
but the wicked shall do wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand.” And
again: “The wise shall understand; and from the time that the daily sacrifices shall
be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand
two hundred and ninety days,”
And that in the primitive Church the mass was a sacrifice the holy fathers copiously testify, and they support this opinion. For Ignatius, a pupil of St. John the Apostle, says: “It is not allowable without a bishop either to offer a sacrifice or to celebrate masses.” And Irenaeus, a pupil of John, clearly testifies that “Christ taught the new oblation of the New Testament, which the Church, receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout the entire world.” This bishop, bordering upon the times of the apostles, testifies that the new evangelical sacrifice was offered throughout the entire world. Origin, Cyprian, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, Basil, Hilary, etc., teach and testify the same, whose words for brevity’s sake are omitted. Since, therefore, the Catholic Church throughout the entire Christian world has always taught, held and observed as it today holds and observes, the same ought today to be held and observed inviolably.
Nor does St. Paul in Hebrews oppose the oblation of the mass when he says that by one offering we have once been justified through Christ. For St. Paul is speaking of the offering of a victim - i.e. of a bloody sacrifice, of a lamb slain, viz. upon the cross - which offering was indeed once made whereby all sacraments, and even the sacrifice of the mass, have their efficacy. Therefore he was offered but once with the shedding of blood - viz. upon the cross; today he is offered in the mass as a peace making and sacramental victim. Then he was offered in a visible form capable of suffering; today he is offered in the mass veiled in mysteries, incapable of suffering, just as in the Old Testament he was sacrificed typically and under a figure. Finally, the force of the word shows that the mass is a sacrifice, since “mass” is nothing but “oblation,” and has received its name from the Hebrew word misbeach, altar - in Greek thysiasterion, on account of the oblation.
It has been sufficiently declared above that we are justified not properly by faith,
but by love. But if any such statement be found in the Holy Scriptures, Catholics know
that it is declared concerning fides formata, which works by love (
Neither is it denied that the mass is a memorial of Christ’s passion and God’s
benefits, since this is approved by the figure of the paschal lamb, that was at the same
time a victim and a memorial,
Nor does any one censure the declaration that of old all who were present communed. Would that all were so disposed as to be prepared to partake of this bread worthily every day! But if they regard one mass advantageous, how much more advantageous would be a number of masses, of which they nevertheless have unjustly disapproved.
When all these things are properly considered we must ask them to altogether annul and repudiate this new form of celebrating the mass that has been devised, and has been already so frequently changed, and to resume the primitive form for celebrating it according to the ancient rite and custom of the churches of Germany and all Christendom, and to restore the abrogated masses according to the ultimate will of their founders; whereby they would gain advantage and honor for themselves and peace and tranquility for all Germany.
As to confession, we must adhere to the reply and judgement given above in Article XI. For the support which they claim from Chrysostom is false, since they pervert to sacramental and sacerdotal confession what he says concerning public confession, as his words clearly indicate when in the beginning he says: “I do not tell thee to disclose thyself to the public or to accuse thyself before others.” Thus Gratian and thus Peter Lombard replied three hundred years ago; and the explanation becomes still more manifest from other pasages of Chrysostom. For in his twenty-ninth sermon he says of the penitent: “In his heart is contrition, in his mouth confession, in his entire work humility. This is perfect and fruitful repentance.” Does not this most exactly display the three parts of repentance? So in his tenth homily on Matthew, Chrysostom teaches of a fixed time for confession, and that after the wounds of crimes have been opened they should be healed, penance intervening. But how will crimes lie open if they are not disclosed to the priest by confession? Thus in several passages Chrysostom himself refutes this opinion, which Jerome also overthrows, saying: “If the serpent the devil have secretly bitten any one, and without the knowledge of another have infected him with the poison of sin, if he who has been struck be silent and do not repent, and be unwilling to confess his wound to his brother and instructor, the instructor, who has a tongue wherewith to cure him, will not readily be able to profit him. For if the sick man be ashamed to confess to the physician, the medicine is not adapted to that of which he is ignorant.” Let the princes and cities, therefore, believe these authors rather than a single gloss upon a decree questioned and rejected by those who are skilled in divine law.
Wherefore, since a full confession is, not to say, necessary for salvation, but becomes the nerve of Christian discipline and the entire obedience, they must be admonished to conform to the orthodox Church. For, according to the testimony of Jerome, this was the heresy of the Montanist, who were condemned over twelve hundred years ago because they were ashamed to confess their sins. It is not becoming, therefore, to adopt the error of the wicked Montanus, but rather the rite of the holy fathers and the entire Church - viz. that each one teach, according to the norm of the orthodox faith, that confession, the chief treasure in the Church, be made in conformity to the rite kept among them also in the Church.
What they afterwards assert concerning the distinction of meats and like traditions, of which they seem to make no account, must be rejected.
For we know from the apostle that all power is of God, and especially that
ecclesiastical power has been given by God for edification: for this reason, from the
Christian and devout heart of the holy Church the constitutions of the same holy, catholic
and apostolic Church should be received as are useful to the Church, as well for promoting
divine worship as for restraining the lust of the flesh, while they enable us the more
readily to keep the divine commands, and when well considered are found in the Holy
Scriptures; and he who despises or rashly resists them grievously offends God, according
to Christ’s word: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you,
despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth Him that sent me.”
A prelate, however, is despised when his statutes are despised, according to St. Paul,
not only when he says: “He that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also
given unto us his Holy Spirit,”
If prelates, therefore, have the power to rule, they will have the power also to make
statutes for the salutary government of the Church and the growth of subjects. For the
same apostle enjoined upon the Corinthians that among them all things should be done in
order,
On that account he said to the Hebrews: “Obey them that have the rule over you,
and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an
account,”
We see that St. Paul exercised this power, as, in addition to the Gospel, he prescribed
so many laws concerning the choice of a bishop, concerning widows, concerning women, that
they have their heads veiled, that they be silent in the church, and concerning even
secular matters,
Most false also is their declaration that the righteousness of faith is obscured by
such ordinances; nay, he is rather mad and insane who would observe them without faith.
For they are given to believers, and not to Turks or Ishmaelites. “For what have I to
do to judge them that are without?”
Moreover, in extolling here faith above all things they antagonize St. Paul, as we have said above, and do violence to St. Paul, whom they pervert to evangelical works when he speaks of legal works, as all these errors have been above refuted.
False also is it that ecclesiastical ordinances obscure God’s commands, since they prepare man for these, as fasts suppress the lust of the flesh and help him from falling into luxury.
False also is it that it is impossible to observe ordinances, for the Church is not a cruel mother who makes no exceptions in the celebration of festivals and in fasting and the like.
Furthermore, they falsely quote Augustine in reply to the inquiries of Januarius, who is diametrically opposed to them. For in this place he most clearly states that what has been universally delivered by the Church be also universally observed. But in indifferent things, and those whose observance and non- observance are free, the holy father Augustine states that, according to the authority of St. Ambrose, the custom of each church should be observed. “When I come back to Rome,” he says, “I fast on the Sabbath, but when here I do not fast.“
Besides, they do violence to the Scriptures while they endeavor to support their
errors. For Christ (
In like manner they do violence to St. Paul, for
If they would preach the cross and bodily discipline and fasts, that in this way the body be reduced to subjection, their doctrine would be commendable; but their desire that these be free is condemned and rejected as alien to the faith and discipline of the Church.
Nor does the diversity of rites support them, for this is properly allowed in regard to particular matters, in order that each individual province may have its own taste satisfied, as Jerome says; but individual ecclesiastical rites should be universally observed, and special rites should be observed each in their own province.
Also, they make no mention of Easter for the Roman pontiffs reduced the Asiatics to a uniform observance of Easter with the universal Church. In this way Irenaeus must be understood, for without the loss of faith some vigils of the apostles were not celebrated with fasting throughout Gaul, which Germany nevertheless observes in fasts.
The princes and cities must also be admonished to follow the decision of Pope Gregory, for he enjoins that the custom of each province be observed if it employs nothing contrary to the Catholic faith, Canon Quoniam, Distinct. xii. Hence we are not ignorant that there is a various observance of dissimilar rites in unity of faith, which should be observed in every province as it has been delivered and received from the ancients, without injury, however, to the universal rites of the entire Catholic Church.
Although many and various matters have been introduced in this article by the suggestion of certain persons (Another text, Cod. Pflug., reads “Preachers“), nevertheless, when all are taken into consideration with mature thought, since monastic vows have their foundation in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and most holy men, renowned and admirable by miracles, have lived in these religious orders with many thousand thousands, and for so many centuries their ordinances and rules of living have been received and approved throughout the entire Christian world by the Catholic Church, it is in no way to be tolerated that vows are licentiously broken without any fear of God.
For, in the Old Testament, God approved the vows of the Nazarenes,
God also teaches specifically through the prophet that monastic vows please him. For in
In like manner, according to the testimony of the apostle, those virgins do better who,
contemning the world and spurning its enticements, vow and maintain virginity in
monasteries, than those who place their necks beneath the matrimonial burden. For thus St.
Paul says,
No one is ignorant of the holiness of the hermit Paul, of Basil, Anthony, Benedict, Bernard, Dominic, Franciscus, Wiliam, Augustine, Clara, Bridget, and similar hermits, who indeed despised the entire realm of the world and all the splendor of the age on account of love to our Lord Jesus Christ.
Moreover, the heresy of the Lampetians was condemned in most ancient times, which the heretic Jovinian attempted in vain to revive at Rome. Therefore, all things must be rejected which in this article have been produced against monasticism - viz. that monasteries succeeded vows.
Of the nunneries it is sufficiently ascertained that, though pertaining to the weaker sex, how in most cloisters the holy nuns persevered far more constantly to vows once uttered, even under these princes and cities, than the majority of monks; even to this day it has been impossible to move them from their holy purpose by any prayers, blandishments, threats, terrors, difficulties or distresses.
Wherefore, those matters are not to be admitted which are interpreted unfavorably,
since it has been expressly declared in the Holy Scriptures that the monastic life, when
kept with proper observance, as may by the grace of God be rendered by any monks, merits
eternal life; and indeed Christ has promised to them a much more bountiful reward, saying:
“Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother,
or wife, or children or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundred-fold, and
shall inherit everlasting life,”
That monasteries, as they show, were formerly literary schools, is not denied; nevertheless, there is no ignorance of the fact that these were at first schools of virtues and discipline, to which literature was afterwards added.
But since no one putting his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom
of heaven,
That they attempt to defend themselves by dispensations of the Pope is of no effect. For although the Pope has perhaps made a dispensation for the king of Aragon, who, we read, returned to the monastery after having had offspring, or for any other prince on account of the peace of the entire kingdom or province, to prevent the exposure of the entire kingdom or province to wars, carnage, pillage, debauchery, conflagrations, murders, - nevertheless, in private persons who abandon vows in apostasy such grounds for dispensations cannot be urged.
For the assumption is repelled that the vow concerns a matter that is impossible. For
continence, which so many thousands of men and virgins have maintained, is not impossible.
For although the wise man says (
They are also poor defenders of their cause when they admit that the violation of a vow is irreprehensible, and it must be declared that by law such marriages are censured and should be dissolved, C. Ut. Continentiae, xxvii. Q. 1, as also by the ancient statutes of emperors. But when they allege in their favor C. Nuptiarum, They accomplish nothing, for it speaks of a simple not of a religious vow, which the Church observes also to this day. The marriages of monks, nuns, or priests, have therefore never been ratified.
Futile also is their statement that a votive life is an invention of men, for it has been founded upon the Holy Scriptures, inspired into the most holy fathers by the Holy Ghost.
Nor does it deny honor to Christ, since monks observe all things for Christ’s sake and
imitate Christ. False, therefore, is the judgement whereby they condemn monastic service
as godless, whereas it is most Christian. For the monks have not fallen from God’s grace,
as the Jews of whom St. Paul speaks,
Moreover, the malicious charge that is still further added, that those in religious orders claim to be in a state of perfection, has never been heard of by them; for those in these orders claim not for themselves a state of perfection, but only a state in which to acquire perfection - because their regulations are instruments of perfection, and not perfection itself. In this manner Gerson must be received, who does not deny that religious orders are states wherein to acquire perfection as he declares in his treatises, “Against the Proprietors of the Rule of St. Augustine“, “Of Evangelical Counsels“, “Of Perfection of Heart“, and in other places.
For this reason the princes and cities should be admonished to strive rather for the reformation of the monasteries by their legitimate superiors than for their subversion - rather for the godly improvement of the monks than that they be abolished; as their most religious ancestors, most Christian princes, have done.
But if they will not believe holy and most religious fathers defending monastic vows, let them hear at least His Imperial Highness, the Emperor Justinian, in “Authentica,” De Monachis, Coll. ii.
Although many things are introduced here in the topic of Ecclesiastical Power, with greater bitterness than is just, yet it must be declared that to most reverend bishops and priests, and to the entire clergy, all ecclesiastical power is freely conceded that belongs to them by law or custom.
Besides, it is proper to preserve for them all immunities, privileges, preferments and prerogatives granted them by Roman emperors and kings. Nor can those things that have been granted ecclesiastics by imperial munificence or gift be allowed to be infringed by any princes or any other subject of the Roman Empire.
For it is most abundantly proved that ecclesiastical power in spiritual things has been
founded upon divine right, of which St. Paul indeed says: “For though I should boast
somewhat more of our authority which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for
your destruction,”
From these passages it is very clearly discerned that bishops have the power not only of the ministry of the Word of God, but also of ruling and coercitive correction in order to direct subjects to the goal of eternal blessedness. But for the power of ruling there is required the power to judge, to define, to discriminate and to decide what is expedient or conducive to the aforesaid goal.
In vain, therefore, and futile is all that is inserted in the present article in opposition to the immunity of churches and schools. Accordingly, all subjects of the Roman Empire must be forbidden from bringing the clergy before a civil tribunal, contrary to imperial privileges that have been conceded: for Pope Clement the Martyr says: “If any of the presbyters have trouble with one another, let whatever it be adjusted before the presbyters of the Church.” Hence Constantine the Great, the most Christian Emperor, was unwilling in the holy Council of Nice to give judgement even in secular cases. “Ye are gods,” he says, “appointed by the true God. Go, settle the case among yourselves, be cause it is not proper that we judge gods.“
As to what is further repeated concerning Church regulations has been sufficiently replied to above. Nor does Christian liberty, which they bring forth as an argument, avail them, since this is not liberty, but prodigious license, which, inculcated on the people, excites them to fatal and most dangerous sedition.
For Christian liberty is not opposed to ecclesiastical usages since they promote what
is good, but it is opposed to the servitude of the Mosaic law and the servitude of sin.
“Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin,” says Christ,
Hence their breaking fasts, their free partaking of meats, their neglect of canonical
hours, their omission of confession - viz. at Easter - and their commission and omission
of similar things, are not a use of liberty, but an abuse thereof, contrary to the
warnings of St. Paul, who earnestly warned them, saying: “Brethren, ye have been
called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve
one another.”
As to what they have added concerning abuses, all the princes and estates of the Empire undoubtedly know that not even the least is approved either by His Imperial Majesty or by any princes or any Christian man, but that both the princes and the estates of the Empire desire to strive with a common purpose and agreement, in order that, the abuses being removed and reformed, the excesses of both estates may be either utterly abolished or reformed for the better, and that the ecclesiastical estate, which has been weakened in many ways, and the Christian religion, which has grown cold and relaxed in some, may be restored and renewed to its pristine glory and distinction. To this, as is evident to all, His Imperial Majesty has thus far devoted the greatest care and labor, and kindly promises in the future to employ for this cause all his means and zeal.
Conclusion From the foregoing - viz. the Confession and its Reply - since His Imperial Majesty perceives that the Elector, the princes and the cities agree on many points with the Catholic and Roman Church, and dissent from the godless dogmas that are disseminated all over Germany, and the pamphlets circulated everywhere, and that they disapprove of and condemn them, - His Holy Imperial Majesty is fully convinced, and hopes that the result will be, that when the Elector, princes and cities have heard and understood this Reply they will agree with united minds in regard to those matters also in which they perhaps have not agreed hitherto with the Roman Catholic Church, and that in all other things above mentioned they will obediently conform to the Catholic and Roman Church and the Christian faith and religion. For such conduct on their part His Imperial Majesty will be peculiarly grateful, and will bestow his special favor upon them all in common, and also, as opportunity offers, upon them individually. For (which may God forbid) if this admonition, so Christian and indulgent, be unheeded, the Elector, princes and cities can judge that a necessary cause is afforded His Imperial Majesty that, as becometh a Roman Emperor and Christian Caesar and a defender and advocate of the Catholic and Christian Church, he must care for such matters as the nature of the charge committed to him and his integrity of conscience require.
Genesis
1:28 4:4 4:7 4:7 15 18:19 19:26 22:16
Exodus
12:11 12:13 12:14 17:11 19:15 28:42
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
1 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
2 Chronicles
Job
Psalms
5:4 19:17 31 37 49 50 50:14 50:76 62:12 101
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Jonah
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew
3:8 3:12 4:17 7:21 10:38 15 15:3 15:11 16:24 16:27 18:22 18:28 19:12 19:29 20:8 23:37 24:15 26:27
Mark
Luke
1:75 3:16 9:23 9:62 10:7 10:16 11:41 17:10 24:30 24:31 24:47
John
1:33 3:27 6 6:32 6:44 8:34 9:4 12:26 13:15 14:6 14:16 15:14 20:23
Acts
1:1 2:38 2:42 10:44 12:5 13:1 13:2 20:7 20:21 20:28 27
Romans
2:6 2:10 4 5:12 6:9 6:19 8:18 13:1 15:30
1 Corinthians
3:8 4:7 4:21 5:12 6:1 7:1 7:2 7:5 7:9 7:12 7:28 7:28 7:32 7:33 7:37 9:7 9:13 10:13 11:16 11:31 12:27 13:2 14:19 14:32 14:40
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
1 John
Revelation
Tobit
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
2 Maccabees