John Calvin: The true and the false predestination.
- Discourse 100
Commissioned by the Reformed Federation in Germany / JOHANNES A LASCO LIBRARY Emden and prepared for the edition on the Internet by Matthias Freudenberg on the basis of a
scan text acquisition by the Institute for Reformation Research of the University of Apeldoorn.
The Doctrine of Calvin – Book I: Of the Knowledge of God the Creator
The Doctrine of Calvin – Book II: Of the Knowledge of God as the Savior in Jesus Christ
The Doctrine of Calvin – Book III: In what way we become partakers of the grace of Christ, what fruits accrue to us from it, and what effects result from it.
The Doctrine of Calvin – Book IV: Of the Outward Means or Aids by Which God Invites and Maintains Us in Communion with Christ.
The original three-volume edition of Otto Weber’s translation
was published in the years 1936-1938. For the present Internet edition, the
notes Weber made in the margins of the text seemed dispensable. Likewise, the
few annotations, most of which do not offer factual explanations, have not been
included. The old spelling has been retained. Obvious typographical errors,
inaccuracies in the citation of biblical passages and other literature, and
unusual forms of presentation in the typesetting have been corrected.
Edition plan
Book I July 2006
Book II August 2006
Book III December 2006
Book IV March 2007
First Chapter
Of the true Church, with which we must keep unity because she is the mother of
all the pious
Second Chapter
Comparison of the false church with the true one
Third Chapter
Of the teachers and servants of the church, their election and their official duty
Fourth Chapter
Of the State of the Ancient Church, and of the Manner of Government which
was in Practice before the Papacy
Fifth Chapter
The Old Form of Church Government Has Been Completely Ruined by the Tyranny
of the Papacy
Chapter Six
Of the Supremacy of the Roman See
Chapter Seven
Of the Beginning and Growth of the Roman Papacy, Until It Has Risen to
Its Present Highness, By Which the Freedom of the Church Has Been Suppressed,
and at the Same Time All Right Measure Has Been Overthrown.
Chapter Eight
Of the Power of the Church in Relation to the Doctrines of the Faith,
and with What Unbridled Arbitrariness It Has Been Used in the Papacy to
Falsify All Purity of Doctrine.
Chapter Nine
Of the Councils and their Authority
Tenth Chapter
Of the Legislative Power of the Church, in Which the Pope, Together with His Own,
Has Subjected Souls to Cruel Tyranny and Torture
Chapter Eleven
Of the jurisdiction of the church and its abuses, as seen in the papacy
Twelfth Chapter
Of the discipline of the church, as chiefly exercised in penalties and in
excommunication
Thirteenth Chapter
Of the vows, by the imprudent utterance of which every man hath miserably
laid himself in snares
Fourteenth Chapter
Of the Sacraments
Fifteenth Chapter
Of Baptism
Sixteenth Chapter
Infant baptism is most consistent with Christ’s foundation and with the
nature of the sign
Seventeenth Chapter
Of the Lord’s Holy Supper – and what it brings us
Eighteenth Chapter
Of the Papal Mass, a desecration of the sanctuary, by which Christ’s Supper
has been not only profaned, but nullified
Nineteenth Chapter
Of the five sacraments falsely so called; here it is explained that the five
other sacraments, hitherto generally thought to be such, are not sacraments,
also it is shown what kind they bear
Twentieth Chapter
Of the civil regiment
Of the true church, with which we must keep unity, because she
is the mother of all the pious.
IV,1,1 In the previous book it was explained that through
faith in the gospel Christ becomes our own and we become partakers of the
salvation and eternal blessedness acquired from him. But we are coarse-minded
and sluggish, and also of vain understanding, and therefore we need external
aids, so that faith may be generated and increased in us through them, and may
have its progress to the goal. Therefore, God has also added these external
means to help our weakness; and so that the preaching of the gospel may have its
effect, he has given this treasure to the church in trust. He has appointed
"shepherds" and "teachers" (Eph 4:11) to instruct His own by their mouth. For
this purpose, he has also equipped them with authority. In short, he did not
omit anything that could be useful for holy unity in the faith and for right
order, above all he used the sacraments, which, as we realize through
experience, are most useful means to maintain and strengthen the faith. For we
are still enclosed in the bondage of our flesh and have not yet reached the
level of the angels; therefore God has adapted Himself to our capacity and, in
His marvelous providence, has prescribed for us a way in which we are to draw
near to Him, even though we are at a great distance from Him. The order of
instruction therefore requires that we now enter into a treatment of the church
and its regiment, its orders and its authority, likewise also of the sacraments,
and finally also into one of the civil order. At the same time, it is necessary
here that we call the pious reader away from the corruptions with which Satan in
the papacy has distorted everything that God had intended for our salvation. But
I will begin with the Church: in her bosom, according to God’s will, His
children are to be gathered, not only that they may be nourished by her toil and
service while they are babes and children, but also that they may be governed by
her motherly care until they have grown up and at last penetrate to the goal of
faith. For what "God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 10:9):
he therefore that hath God for a father must have the church for a mother; and
this (was true) not only under the law, but (it is true) also after the coming
of Christ; so testifies Paul, who teaches us that we are the children of the
new, heavenly Jerusalem (Gal 4:26).
IV,1,2 When we confess in the Articles of Faith that we
"believe the church," this refers not only to the visible church of which we are
now speaking, but also to all the elect of God, among whose number are also
included those who have already died. That is why the word "believe" is used
here, because often there is no difference between the children of God and the
unholy, between his own flock and the wild beasts. Some now insert the little
word "in" (an) into the creed ("I believe in a … church"!); but there is no
apparent reason for this. I admit, however, that this procedure is quite common
and does not lack the assistance of the early church. For also the Nicene Creed
adds this preposition in the version as it is handed down to us by church
history. But at the same time it can be seen from the writings of the ancients
that in ancient times it was common without contradiction to say: "I believe a
… Church", but not: "I believe in a … Church." For Augustine and the old
writer whose booklet "On the Interpretation of the Creed" goes around under the
name of Cyprian – he may now be who he likes! -, not only speak in this way;
nay, they also expressly remark that it would be an improper way of speaking to
add that preposition, also they affirm their opinion with a reasoned cause. For
when we say, "I believe in God," we give such testimony because our heart leans
on him as the true one, and because our confidence relies on him. But this would
not apply to the church in the same way, nor to the "forgiveness of sins" and
the "resurrection of the flesh." So, although I do not want to quarrel about the
words, I would rather follow the peculiarity of the speech, which is better
suited to express the matter, instead of hashing for formulas by which the
matter would be obscured without reason. But the purpose (of our discussions) is
that we may know: even if the devil leaves no means untried to destroy Christ’s
grace, even if the enemies of God chase after the same goal in a furious
onslaught, it cannot be extinguished, even if Christ’s blood cannot be made
unfruitful, no, it always brings forth some fruit! In this sense we must direct
our attention to God’s hidden election and inward calling; for He alone knows
who His own are, and, as Paul says, He keeps them shut up under a seal
(Eph 1:13; 2Tim 2:19); added to this is the fact that they bear His marks by which
they are to be distinguished from the rejected. But since the small, despised
group is hidden among an immeasurable multitude and the few grains of wheat are
covered by a heap of chaff, the knowledge of His church must be left to God
alone, the foundation of which is His hidden election. But it is not enough for
us to comprehend such a multitude of the elect merely with our minds and hearts,
but we must think of the unity of the church in such a way that we are truly
convinced that we ourselves are inserted into it. For if we are not joined
together with all the other members in one unity under our Head, Christ, we have
no hope of the future inheritance. That is why the church is called "catholic"
or "universal"; for one could not find two or three "churches" without Christ
being torn to pieces thereby – and surely that cannot happen! No, all God’s
elect are united in Christ in such a way that, as they are attached to the one
head, they also grow together, as it were, into one body, and they live together
in such unity as the members of the same body; they have truly become one, as
those who live together in one faith, one hope, one love, in the same spirit of
God, and who are called not only to the same inheritance of eternal life, but
also to share in the one God and the one Christ. Even if such a sad wasteland as
confronts us on all sides seems to testify with a loud voice that there is
nothing left of the church, we should still know that Christ’s death bears its
fruit and that God miraculously preserves his church, as it were, in dark
secrecy. It is as it was once said to Elijah: "I have left me seven thousand men
who have not bowed the knee to Baal" (1Ki 18:19; not Luther text).
IV,1,3 However, this article of the Creed also refers in a
certain sense to the external church, so that each one of us may keep himself in
brotherly unity with all God’s children, grant the church the authority it
deserves, and behave like a sheep of the flock. To this end is then also added:
"the communion of saints". This title of the statement is, of course, omitted
throughout by the ancients; but it is nevertheless not to be neglected, because
it expresses very well the peculiarity of the church. It means, after all, as
much as if it were said: the saints are gathered together according to the order
for communion with Christ, that they communicate to one another all the benefits
which God grants them. This does not abolish the diversity of the gifts of
grace, for we know that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are distributed in many
ways. Nor does it overthrow the civil order, according to which each individual
may have his own special property in his possession; for it is necessary, in
order to maintain peace among men, that each one of them should have his own
special right of ownership over his property. No, the fellowship is preserved
here, as Luke describes it to us: "But the multitude of the faithful were of one
heart and one soul" (Acts 4:32), and as Paul has in mind when he admonishes the
Ephesians that they should be "one body and one spirit", just as they were
called to one hope (Eph 4:4). For if they are truly carried by the conviction
that God is for them all the common Father and Christ the common Head, then it
cannot be otherwise than that they too, united with one another in brotherly
love, communicate their possessions to one another. Now, however, it is very
important for us to know what fruit will come to us from this. For when we
"believe the church," it is in such a way that we are firmly convinced that we
are its members. In this way, our salvation rests on secure and firm
foundations, so that even if the whole edifice of the world were to totter, it
cannot itself collapse and fall apart. First of all: it has its existence
together with God’s election, and therefore it can experience a change or
collapse together with God’s eternal providence alone! Secondly, our salvation
is, so to speak, connected with the solidity of Christ, and he will no more
tolerate that his faithful be torn away from him than he will admit that his
members be cut up or torn apart. In addition, we are sure that the truth will
always be with us as long as we are kept in the bosom of the church. And
finally: we feel it that such promises are now valid for us as these: "On Mount
Zion there will be salvation" (Joel 3:5; Ob. 17), or also: "Forever God will
dwell in the midst of Jerusalem, so that it will never, ever waver!" (Ps 46:6;
not Luther text). Participation in the Church does so much to keep us in
communion with God. Also, already in the word "fellowship" there is a great deal
of consolation: for it is certain that all that the Lord grants to his and our
members is also granted to us, and so our hope is confirmed by all the goods
they possess! In order to uphold the unity of the Church in this way, it is not
necessary, as I said before, that we see the Church with our eyes or touch it
with our hands. No, the church exists rather in faith, and thus we are reminded
that, even if it is beyond our comprehension, we must embrace it with our
thoughts no less than if it were openly visible. Nor is our faith of less value
because it grasps the church in its unfamiliarity. For we are not instructed
here to distinguish the rejected from the elect – that is God’s business alone
and not ours! -but we are to hold clearly and certainly in our hearts that all
who have passed out of the kindness of God the Father into fellowship with
Christ by the working of the Holy Spirit are now set apart as God’s own and His
own, and that if we are among their number we are partakers of such grace.
IV,1,4 But we have now the intention to speak of the
visible church, and there we want to learn already from the fact that she is
called by the honorary name "mother", how useful, yes, how necessary it is for
us to know her. For there is no other way for us to enter into life than that
she receives us in her womb, gives birth to us, nourishes us at her breast, and
finally takes us under her protection and guidance until we have put away mortal
flesh and will be like the angels (Mt 22:30). For neither does our weakness
endure that we should be dismissed from the school before we have been disciples
throughout the whole course of our lives. Moreover, outside the bosom of the
Church there is no forgiveness of sins to be hoped for and no salvation; so
Isaiah (Isa 37:32) and Joel (Joel 3:5) testify to us, and Ezekiel agrees with
them by declaring that those whom God excludes from heavenly life shall not be
on the list of His people (Eze 13:9). Likewise, on the other hand, it is also
said of those who convert to the service of true piety that they inscribe their
names among the citizens of Jerusalem (Isa 56:5; Ps 87:6). For this reason it
is also said in another psalm: "Lord, remember me according to the grace you
have promised your people; seek me home in your salvation, that I may see the
welfare of your elect, that I may rejoice in the joy of your people and boast in
your inheritance" (Ps 106:4 s.; mostly not Luther text). With these words God’s
fatherly favor and the special testimony of spiritual life is restricted to
God’s flock, so that separation from the church is always corrupt.
IV,1,5 But let us proceed in the discussion of what
actually belongs to this piece of teaching. Paul writes that Christ, "that He
might fulfill all things," "appointed some to be apostles, and some prophets,
and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, that the saints might be
prepared, until we all come to the same faith, and to the same knowledge of the
Son of God, and become a perfect man, according to the measure of the perfect
age of Christ" (Eph 4:10-13). We see there how God, who could bring His own to
perfection in a single moment, nevertheless wills that they grow to manhood
through the education of the Church alone. We see further how here the manner of
such education is expressed; for the "shepherds" are charged with the preaching
of the heavenly doctrine. And we see how all, without exception, are committed
to the same order, that they submit themselves submissively and docilely to the
direction of those teachers who are appointed for this purpose. By this marker
Isaiah had long before made the kingdom of Christ knowable: "My spirit which is
with thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart from thy
mouth, nor from the mouth of thy seed and of thy child…" (Isa 59:21). It
follows that all those who spurn this spiritual food of the soul, which is
offered to them by God through the hand of the Church, are worthy of perishing
from hunger and want. Certainly, God gives us faith in the heart – but through
the instrument of his gospel, as Paul also reminds us that faith "comes from
hearing" (Rom 10:17). Likewise, the power to save is with God, but according to
the testimony of the same Paul, he brings it forth in the preaching of the
gospel and unfolds it in it. From this intention he also decreed in ancient
times that holy assemblies should be held at the sanctuary, so that the doctrine
proclaimed by the mouth of the priest might receive the unanimity of faith. And
when the temple is called God’s "rest" (Ps 132:14), when the sanctuary is
called His dwelling-place (Isa 57:15), when it is said of God that He "sitteth
above the cherubim" (Ps 80:2), all these splendid exaltations of praise have no
other purpose than to give value, love, respect, and dignity to the ministry of
heavenly teaching; for in this the sight of a mortal, despised man might
otherwise do no small entry! So that we recognize that from such "earthen
vessels" (2Cor 4:7) an incalculable treasure is brought to us, God Himself
comes forth, and since He is the founder of this order, He also wants to be
recognized as present in its establishment. Therefore he forbids his own to
indulge in divination, in the interpretation of signs, in magical arts, in
inquiring into the dead and other superstitions (Lev 19:31); but he then adds
that he will give them one thing that shall be enough for all, namely that they
shall never be entirely without prophets (Deut 18:9-15). But as he did not
refer the people of the Old Covenant to angels, but raised up for them teachers
from the earth, who were to exercise the office of angels in truth, so also
today he wants to instruct us through men. And just as he was once not content
with the law alone, but also added the priests as its interpreters, from whose
mouths the people should investigate the true meaning of the law, so also today
he not only wants us to read the Scriptures diligently, but he also sets
teachers over us, through whose ministry we are to receive help. From this we
derive a twofold benefit: on the one hand, he thus puts our obedience to the
test in a masterly examination, since we do not hear his servants speak
differently than if we were to hear him ourselves; on the other hand, however,
he also comes to the aid of our weakness: he would rather address us in a human
way through interpreters in order to lure us to him than to drive us away from
him with his thunder. And truly, how beneficial this confidential way of
instruction is for us, all the pious learn from the terror with which God’s
majesty deservedly throws them to the ground. But he who thinks that the
authority of teachers is nullified by the contemptuousness of men who are called
to instruct, shows his ingratitude; for among all the many excellent gifts with
which God has adorned the human race, this privilege is quite unique, that he
condescends to consecrate for himself the mouths and tongues of men, that in
them his voice may resound! Therefore, let us not be put off from obediently
accepting, for our part, the teaching of salvation as it is presented to us at
his command and through his mouth; for although God’s power is not bound to such
external means, he has bound us to this orderly mode of instruction, and if the
swarming spirits refuse to abide by it, they entangle themselves in many
pernicious snares. Many are driven by arrogance, pomposity or ambition to think
that if they read and meditate on the Scriptures for themselves alone, they can
make enough progress, and that in this way they disregard the public meetings
and consider the sermon superfluous. But since such people dissolve and tear the
holy bond of unity, as much as there is in them, none escapes the just
punishment for such ungodly seclusion, but they all enter into the magic circle
of corrupting errors and ghastly delusions. So that the pure simplicity of faith
may prevail among us, we should not find any difficulty in using this exercise
of piety; for God shows us by its institution that it is necessary, and he
recommends it to us so emphatically! Certainly, even among the most insolent
dogs, no one has ever been found who has claimed that one must close one’s ears
to God, but at all times the prophets and the pious teachers have had to wage a
hard battle against the godless, whose stubbornness is never able to bend under
this yoke, that they should be instructed by the mouth and the service of men.
But this means just as much as if God’s face, which shines toward us in such
teaching, were blotted out. For if the faithful were once commanded to seek
God’s face in the sanctuary (Ps 105:4), and if this instruction is so often
repeated in the Law (Ps 27:8; 100:2, etc.), it was for no other reason than
because for them the instruction in the Law and the prophetic exhortations
represented the living image of God; so Paul also assures that in his preaching
the "clarity of God shines forth in the face of Jesus Christ" (2Cor 4:6). All
the more we must abhor the apostates who are bent on dividing the churches –
just as if they drove the sheep out of the hurdles and chased them into the jaws
of the wolves! We, on the other hand, must hold fast to what we have just quoted
from St. Paul: the church is not edified otherwise than by outward preaching,
and the saints are held together by no other bond than when they unanimously
learn and advance in keeping the order of the church which God has prescribed.
It was chiefly for this purpose, as I have said, that the believers under the
law were once instructed to come together to the sanctuary; for when Moses
speaks of God’s dwelling-place, he at the same time calls it the place of the
name (of God), where God had instituted "the remembrance of his name" (Ex
20:24). Thus he openly states that this place has no use without the instruction
in piety. Nor is there any doubt that the very same cause led David to lament in
infinite bitterness of spirit that he was prevented from entering God’s
tabernacle by the tyrannical raging of the enemy (Ps 84:2f.). To many this
seems to be an almost childish complaint, because it would be a very small loss
to have to do without the forecourt of the temple, and because one would not
lose much pleasure by it, if only other pleasures were available to one.
Nevertheless, David complains, because he is tormented and martyred with fear
and sadness by this one sorrow, yes, almost consumes himself. And this happens
because among the faithful nothing is more highly regarded than this means by
which God leads His own step by step upward. It should also be noted that God
showed Himself to the holy fathers in the mirror of His teaching in such a way
that the knowledge they gained should be something spiritual. Therefore, the
temple is not only called his "face", but also – to eliminate any superstition –
his "footstool" (Ps 99,5; 132,7; 1. Chron. 28,2). Now that blissful striving
together for the unity of faith happens when they all, from the highest to the
lowest, reach out to the Head. Everything that the Gentiles built for God in
other temples was only a desecration of his worship. In this, however, the Jews
also, though not quite so grossly, have to a certain extent fallen into
desecration. Stephen reproaches them for this, using the words of Isaiah: "God
does not dwell in temples made with hands!" (Acts 7:48; not quite Luther text;
Isa 66:1 s.). For God alone sanctifies temples for lawful use by his Word. And
if we in our presumption do something against his command, then at once further
fancies attach themselves to the evil beginning, by which then the evil spreads
further without measure and aim. Nevertheless, it was imprudent that Xerxes, on
the advice of his magicians, burned and destroyed all the temples of Greece,
because he thought it was absurd that the gods, to whom everything should be
freely open, should be enclosed between walls and tiles. As if it were not in
God’s power to descend to us, as it were, so that he might be near us, and yet
not to change the place and not to bind us to earthly means, but rather to lead
us up, as it were, in a chariot to his heavenly glory, which in its immensity
fills everything and surpasses even the heavens in majesty.
IV,1,6 Now in our time a great controversy has arisen about
the power of the ministry of preaching. Some praise its dignity effusively,
others maintain that it is wrong to entrust to a mortal man what belongs to the
Holy Spirit alone; but this is what happens when we consider that ministers (of
the Word) and teachers penetrate the minds and hearts of men in order to remedy
the blindness of the mind and the hardness of the heart. So we must give a right
description of this disagreement. What is put forward on both sides can easily
be settled, if one (1) directs one’s attention sharply to the passages in which
God, the author of the sermon, unites his spirit with it and promises fruit from
it, but if one on the other hand (2) also pays attention to those passages in
which he separates himself from the external means and ascribes the beginning as
well as the whole course of faith to himself alone. (1) The office of the second
Elijah consisted, according to the testimony of Malachi, in that he should
enlighten the mind, "the heart of the fathers to the children" and convert the
unbelievers to the understanding of the righteous (Mal 3,23f. = 4,5f.). Christ
pronounces that He sends the apostles to "bring forth fruit" from their labor
(John 15:16), and what that fruit is Peter indicates in brief words by saying we
are "born again … from incorruptible seed" (1Pet 1:23). Therefore Paul boasts
that he "begat" the Corinthians "through the gospel" (1Cor 4:15) and that they
are the "seal" of his apostleship (1Cor 9:2), yes, that he does not merely lead
an office of the letter and as such would have hit the ears only with the sound
of his voice, but that the working power of the spirit is given to him so that
his instruction is not without benefit (2Cor 3:6). In this sense he also
testifies elsewhere that his gospel was not merely in words but in power (1Cor
2:4). He also declares that the Galatians received the Holy Spirit "through the
preaching of faith" (Gal 3,2). And finally, in many places he not only makes
himself a "co-worker" of God, but he also assigns to himself the official task
of communicating salvation (1Cor 3:9). (2) Paul undoubtedly never said all this
with the intention of attributing to himself even the slightest thing apart from
God; he himself briefly explains this in another place: "Our labor has not been
in vain in the Lord" (1Thess 3:5; very imprecise) "according to the working of
Him who works powerfully in me! (Col 1:29). Likewise he says elsewhere: "He who
was strong with Peter among the Jews, he also was strong with me among the
Gentiles" (Gal 2,8). But how purely nothing he leaves for the servants (of the
word) alone is clear from other passages. Thus he says: "So neither he who
plants nor he who waters is anything, but God who gives the flourishing" (1Cor
3:7). Or likewise, "I have labored much more than they all; not I, but the grace
of God which is with me" (1Cor 15:10). Also, we must undoubtedly keep those
sayings in which God ascribes to Himself the enlightenment of the mind and the
renewal of the heart, reminding us that it is sacrilege for man to arrogate to
himself any share in these two acts of God. However, it is true that if everyone
is docile to the servants whom God places over him, he will see from the fruit
that comes to him that it was not in vain that God was pleased with this kind of
instruction, nor is it in vain that this yoke of humility is imposed on
believers..
IV,1,7 Now what judgment we are to have of the visible
Church, which is accessible to our knowledge, is already clear, I think, from
what we have said above. For we said that the Holy Scriptures speak of the
Church in two ways. (1) When it speaks of the church, it sometimes understands
by it that church which is in truth the church before God, that church into
which only those are received who are children of God by the grace of adoption
into sonship, and who are true members of Christ by sanctification of the
Spirit. And then the church includes not only the saints who dwell on earth, but
all the elect who have been since the world began. (2) Often, however, Scripture
uses the term "church" to refer to the entire multitude of people scattered
throughout the world, who confess that they worship one God and Christ, are
initiated into faith in him through baptism, testify to their unity in true
doctrine and love through participation in the Lord’s Supper, are unanimous in
the word of the Lord, and maintain the office instituted by Christ for its
preaching. Among this crowd, however, there are many hypocrites who have nothing
of Christ but the name and the appearance, as well as many who are greedy,
avaricious, envious, many blasphemers, and people of impure conduct, who are put
up with for a while, either because they cannot be convicted with lawful
judgment, or because there is not always the strictness of discipline that there
should be. Therefore, just as it is necessary for us to believe in that
invisible church which can be perceived only by God’s eyes, it is also incumbent
upon us to uphold and maintain fellowship with that church which, in the sight
of men, is called the church.
IV,1,8 For this reason the Lord has made this church
perceptible to us, insofar as it was necessary for us to recognize it, by means
of certain marks and, as it were, by signs (symbola). It is indeed a special
privilege that God Himself has reserved for Himself to recognize who His own
are; we have already mentioned this above from Paul (2Tim 2:19). There is also
undoubtedly a provision against the presumption of men being carried so far, and
this by the fact that God makes us aware every day by the events themselves of
how far his hidden judgments go beyond our comprehension. For on the one hand,
people who seemed to be completely lost and because of whom one could no longer
have any hope, are called back to the right path by His goodness, and on the
other hand, people often fall who seemed to stand firm more than others!
Therefore, as Augustin says, according to God’s hidden predestination, "there
are many sheep outside and many wolves inside" (Homilies on the Gospel of
John 45,). For the people who neither know him nor himself, he knows them and has
provided them with his sign. And from the number of those who publicly bear his
mark, his eyes alone behold those who are holy without hypocrisy and who – which
is, after all, the main point of our salvation! – will persevere to the end. But
because, on the other hand, he foresaw that it would be somewhat useful for us
to know which people we should consider as his children, he adapted himself in
this piece to our capacity. And since the certainty of faith was not necessary
for this, he put in its place, as it were, the judgment of love; according to
which we are to recognize as members of the Church those people who, by the
confession of faith, by the example of their lives, and by participation in the
sacraments, confess with us the same God and Christ. But since he knew that the
knowledge of the body (the Church) itself is of greater necessity for our
salvation, he also put it to our hearts by all the more certain marks.
IV,1,9 From this now arises the visible form of the church,
and it emerges so that it is visible to our eyes. For wherever we perceive that
God’s Word is preached and heard loudly and the sacraments are administered
according to Christ’s institution, there can be no doubt whatsoever that we have
a church of God before us. For the promise of the Lord cannot be deceived:
"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
them" (Mt 18:20). But in order to grasp clearly the essential content of
this fact, we must proceed, as it were, in stages, in the following manner. The
general church (Ecclesia universalis) is the multitude gathered from all
nations; it is separated and scattered by spatial distances, but it is
nevertheless unanimous in the one truth of divine doctrine, and it is united by
the bond of the same religious practice. Under it then are gathered the
individual churches (singulae Ecclesiae), scattered over towns and villages
according to the exigencies of human need, and in such a way that each one
rightfully holds the name and authority of the church. And finally: the
individual people who are counted to such churches on the basis of the
confession of piety, even if they are in reality outside the church,
nevertheless belong to it in a certain sense, until they are excluded by public
judgment. However, it is a little different whether one has to judge individuals
or churches. For it may happen that we must treat people whom we do not consider
worthy of fellowship with the pious as brethren and regard them as believers,
for the sake of the common harmony of the church, by virtue of which they are
endured and tolerated in the body of Christ. Such men we do not, in our own
judgment, acknowledge to be members of the church; but we leave them the place
they occupy in the people of God until it is taken from them in lawful decision.
On the other hand, we have to judge differently about the multitude (the
congregation) itself: if it has and holds in honor the ministry of the Word, and
in addition the administration of the sacraments, it undoubtedly deserves to be
considered and regarded as a church, because those goods which it possesses
(ministry of the Word and administration of the sacraments) are certainly not
without fruit. Thus we preserve the unity of the general church, which
diabolical spirits have always sought to split up, and we do not deprive even
the legitimate assemblies, which are scattered according to local possibilities,
of their authority.
IV,1,10 We called the preaching of the word and the
practice of the sacraments as symbols by which the church is recognized. For
these two cannot exist without bearing fruit and prospering through God’s
blessing. I am not saying that wherever the word is preached, fruit immediately
comes forth; no, I am saying that it is not received anywhere and has no firm
seat anywhere without also bringing its effectiveness to light. Be that as it
may, where the preaching of the Gospel is heard with reverence and the
sacraments are not neglected, the appearance of the church becomes unmistakably
and undoubtedly visible for this time, whose authority no one is permitted to
despise, whose exhortations to disregard, whose counsels to oppose or whose
chastisements to mock with impunity, much less to fall away from it or to break
up its unity. For the Lord attaches such value to the communion of his Church
that he considers everyone a defector and a traitor to religion who has stiff-neckedly
alienated himself from any Christian community, provided it upholds only the
true service of the Word and the Sacraments. The authority of his church he so
lays to our hearts that he considers his own authority diminished when that is
violated! For it is of no small importance that the church is called "a pillar
and foundation of the truth" and the "house of God" (1Tim 3:15). With these words
Paul wants to show: so that God’s truth does not perish in the world, the church
acts as its faithful guardian; for through its service and work God has
preserved the pure preaching of His word and has wanted to show Himself to us as
a householder, feeding us with spiritual food and presenting to us everything
that serves our salvation. Nor is it a common praise that the church is said to
be chosen and set apart by Christ to be a bride "without spot or wrinkle"
(Eph 5:27), and that she is called His "body" and His "fullness"
(Eph 1:23)! From this it follows that to separate from the church is to deny God and Christ. All
the more must we beware of such sacrilegious separation; for if, as much as is
in us, we seek to bring about the downfall of God’s truth, then we are worthy
that he should bring down upon us the whole force of his wrath as a weatherbeam
to shatter us. Nor is it possible to conceive of a more gruesome evil than when
one, in sacrilegious faithlessness, violates the marriage covenant that the only
begotten Son of God has condescended to make with us!
IV,1,11 Therefore we should diligently impress those marks
upon our hearts, hold them fast, and esteem them according to the Lord’s
judgment. For Satan takes more pains over nothing than to abolish and do away
with one or both of these two marks, sometimes in order to destroy the true and
pure purpose of the church after the abolition and destruction of those marks,
sometimes also in order to put their contempt in our hearts and thus to tear us
away from the church in obvious apostasy. His machinations have succeeded in
making the pure preaching of the Gospel disappear for many centuries. And now,
with the same wickedness, he is doing everything he can to shake up the ministry
which Christ has ordained in His Church in such a way that with its abolition
the edification of the Church also perishes. What a dangerous, yes, what a
ruinous temptation it is, if it even occurs to us to separate ourselves from a
congregation, in which the marks and characteristics are visible, with which,
according to the Lord’s judgment, his church is sufficiently described: We see
how much care we must take on both sides. For in order that we may not be
deceived under the title of church, we must measure every assembly that claims
the name "church" by that standard of scrutiny, as by the Lydian Stone. If in
word and sacrament it has the order which the Lord has laid on our hearts, it
will not deceive us, and we should unconcernedly pay it the honor due to
churches. If, on the other hand, it presents itself without word and sacraments,
we should be on our guard against such seductions with the same timidity as we
are to guard against presumption and arrogance on the other side.
IV,1,12 The pure service of the word and the pure practice
in the celebration of the sacraments, we say, is a suitable pledge and pledge,
so that we can safely address a community in which both are to be found as a
church. Now this is so far valid that such a church, as long as it remains so,
is never to be rejected, even if it is otherwise covered over and over with many
infirmities. Yes, even in the administration of the doctrine and the sacraments
all kinds of errors could arise, which nevertheless should not alienate us from
communion with her. For not all pieces of the true doctrine are of the same
shape. Some of them are so necessary to know that they must stand unshakably and
undoubtedly firm with all, as it were as the actual doctrinal pieces of
religion. These include, for example, the following statements: There is one
God, Christ is God and the Son of God, our salvation consists in God’s mercy,
and other statements of the same kind. Then there are other doctrines about
which there are differences of opinion among the churches, but which do not
break the unity in faith. For which churches are likely to be divided among
themselves for the sake of one point, that one, without contentiousness and
without stubbornly insisting on its assertion, is of the opinion that the souls,
when they leave the body, immediately go to heaven, while the other, on the
other hand, dares not say anything definite about the place, but nevertheless
clearly holds that these souls live unto the Lord? In the apostle we hear the
words: "As many then as are perfect among us, let us be so minded. And if you
hold anything else, let God reveal it to you" (Phil 3:15). Does he not thereby
sufficiently show that doctrinal disagreement about such not so necessary things
among Christians should not be a cause for dissension? In the first place, it is
true, we are to be of the same mind in all things; but, after all, there is no
one who is not shrouded in some mist of ignorance, and therefore we must either
allow no church to exist at all, or treat with indulgence ignorance in such
things as cannot be known either without injury to the essentials of religion
and without loss of blessedness. But I do not want to make myself the patron
saint of errors here, not even of the very least, so that I would think that one
should flatter them and look through their fingers and thereby nourish them.
What I maintain is only this: we should not lightly separate ourselves from the
Church for the sake of some petty differences of opinion, if in it only that
doctrine is preserved healthy and unabridged on which the integrity of piety
rests, and if in it the practice of the sacraments, as instituted by the Lord,
is preserved. Meanwhile, if we strive to eradicate what we cannot consider
right, we do so out of our official duty. Paul’s word also refers to this: "If
anything better is revealed to one who is seated, let the first be silent" (1Cor
14:30; not Luther text). From this it follows that every individual member of
the church is charged with the effort for general edification, according to the
measure of the grace granted to him. Only this is to be done in a proper manner
and according to order; that is, we are not to leave the fellowship of the
church or, if we remain in it, not to disturb the peace and the properly
established discipline.
IV,1,13 But still much further must our forbearance go in
bearing with the imperfections of life (of our brethren). For at this point it
is very easy to slip and fall, and here Satan lies in wait for us with more than
ordinary deceit. For there have always been people who were seized by the false
delusion of perfect holiness, imagining that they had already become spirits in
the air, as it were, and then, out of such a mindset, despised fellowship with
all people in whom, according to their impression, something human still
remained. The "Cathars" and the Donatists, who joined their madness, were of
this kind in former times. Of this kind today are some of the Anabaptists who
want to give the impression that they are more advanced than others. Then there
are others who sin more out of thoughtless zeal for righteousness than out of
that nonsensical hopefulness. For when they perceive that in those to whom the
gospel is preached the fruit of life does not correspond to its teaching, they
immediately come to the conclusion that there is no church. This is, of course,
a very justified offense, to which we offer more than enough cause even in our
sad times. Nor is it possible to excuse our cursed laziness, which the Lord will
not let go unpunished – he is already beginning to chastise it with harsh
scourges! So woe to us who are guilty of wounding weak consciences on our
account by such unrestrained licentiousness of our vices! But on the other hand,
those people of whom we have spoken sin in that they know not how to set a
measure to their vexation. For where the Lord demands clemency, they leave it
aside and surrender themselves entirely to immoderate severity. They think that
where there is no perfect purity and sincerity of life, there is no church, and
therefore, out of hatred for vice and in the opinion that they are separating
themselves from a band of the ungodly, they are actually separating themselves
from the legitimate church! They point out that the church of Christ is holy.
But at the same time they should realize that it is mixed of good and evil, and
for this they should hear from the mouth of Christ that parable in which the
church is compared to a net with which fish of all kinds are caught together,
but which are not read out until they are spread out on the shore (Mt 13:47f.).
Let them hear that the church is like a field sown with good seed, but
yet polluted with lolch through the deceitfulness of the enemy, from which it
cannot be cleansed until the harvest has gone to the threshing floor (Mt 13:24-30).
And they shall finally hear that the church is a threshing floor on
which the wheat lies gathered in such a way that it is hidden among the chaff
until it is finally taken to the barn, cleaned with a sword and sieve (Mt 3:12).
When the Lord makes it known that the church will have to struggle with
that evil of being burdened by being mixed with the ungodly until the day of
judgment, then they will seek in vain a church that would not be tainted with
any blemish!
IV,1,14 Nevertheless, they exclaim that it is something
intolerable that the plague of vice is spreading everywhere. Yes, but I have to
hold the opinion of the apostle against them, and what do they want to say?
Among the Corinthians, it was not just a few who had fallen into error, but the
corruption had taken hold of almost the entire body. Nor was there just one kind
of sin, but many. Nor were their offenses light, but there were abominable vices
among them! The corruption did not only affect their way of life, but also their
doctrine. What then did the apostle do, that is, what did the instrument of the
heavenly Spirit do, with whose testimony the church stands and falls? Does he
seek to separate himself from them? Does he expel them from the kingdom of
Christ? Does he hurl against them the most terrible weather-beam of cursing? No,
not only does he do none of these things, but he acknowledges and preaches that
they are one church of Christ and one communion of saints! (1Cor 1:2). But if
there remains a church among the Corinthians, among whom discord, sectarianism
and jealousy are rampant (1Cor 1:11; 3:3), among whom quarrels and strife are
rampant along with covetousness, among whom an outrage is publicly approved that
would be considered abominable even among the Gentiles (1Cor 5:1), among whom the
name of Paul, whom they should have honored like a father, is brazenly torn down
(1Cor 9:1 ss.), among whom even some mock the resurrection of the dead, with whose
collapse the whole gospel falls apart (1Cor 15:12), among whom God’s gifts of
grace are made serviceable to ambition and not to love, among whom many things
are done in an unseemly and disorderly manner – I say, if there remains the
church, and that because the service of the word and the sacraments is not
rejected among them, who will then dare to deny the name "church" to those who
cannot even be accused of the tenth part of such misdeeds? I only want to know
what these people who rage against today’s churches with such obstinacy would
have done with the Galatians, who almost abandoned the gospel and with whom the
same apostle still found churches (Gal 1:2)!
IV,1,15 They also make the objection that Paul sharply
rebukes the Corinthians because they tolerated a man of shameful conduct in
their fellowship (1Cor 5:2). They also point out that he makes a general
statement in which he declares it unacceptable to even eat bread together with a
person of objectionable lifestyle (1Cor 5:11). Then they exclaim: If one may not
even eat ordinary bread with such a person, how then shall it be lawful to
partake of the bread of the Lord with him? I certainly admit that it is a great
shame when pigs and dogs have their place among the children of God, and even
more so when the most holy body of Christ is sacrilegiously given to them. But
if the churches are rightly constituted, they will not tolerate such evildoers
in their bosom, nor will they indiscriminately admit both worthy and unworthy to
the holy banquet. But the shepherds are not always so diligent in keeping watch,
they are sometimes more lenient than they should be, they are also sometimes
hindered, so that they are not able to enforce the severity they would like to
exercise, and so it happens that even the manifestly wicked are not always
removed from the communion of the saints. That this is a defect, I admit, and I
do not wish to mitigate it, since Paul so sharply rebukes it in the Corinthians.
But even if the church neglects its official duty in this respect, this does not
immediately give every individual the right to judge for himself that he may now
separate himself. I do not deny that a pious man has the duty to avoid all
private intercourse with such shameful people and not to enter into any
voluntary association with them. But it is two different things, whether one
flees the contact with the wicked – or whether one spurns the communion with the
church out of hatred against them! But if they think that it is a sacrilege to
partake of the Lord’s bread with the wicked, they are much sharper in this than
Paul himself. He admonished us to partake of this meal in a holy and pure
manner, but in doing so he does not demand that one examine the other or that
each individual examine the whole church, but that each individual examine
himself! (1Cor 11:28). If it were a sacrilege to go to the Lord’s Table with
someone unworthy, Paul would surely instruct us to look around to see if there
was not someone among the crowd whose uncleanness we could defile ourselves
with. But in fact he requires of each one exclusively the examination of
himself, and thus he shows that it does us no harm at all if some unworthy ones
intrude upon us. Also what he adds afterwards goes in the same direction:
"Whoever eats unworthily … eats and drinks himself to judgment" (1Cor 11:29).
He says: "himself", but not: "others"! And rightly so; for it must not be at the
discretion of the individual who is to be admitted (to the Lord’s Supper) and
who is to be rejected. The judgment of this lies rather with the whole church,
and it cannot be made without lawful order, as I shall explain more extensively
hereafter. It would therefore be inequitable if any individual were to be
stained by the unworthiness of another, to whom, after all, he cannot nor may
not deny access.
IV,1,16 But although this impugnation arises from time to
time even among pious people out of a thoughtless zeal for righteousness, we
shall find that such too great obstinacy arises more from arrogance, pomposity,
and false delusion of holiness than from true holiness and genuine striving
after it. The people who are the ringleaders of the apostasy of the church and
who lead others in it, usually have only one reason for their actions: they want
to show that they are better than the others by despising them. It is therefore
very right and wise when Augustine says: "The pious order and the kind of
ecclesiastical discipline should look above all to ’unity in the spirit through
the bond of peace’ which the apostle commands us to ’keep’ by bearing with one
another; where it is not kept, the ’healing’ punishment is not only superfluous,
but also pernicious, and thus it is convicted that it is no longer a medicine at
all. On the other hand, there are wicked children who are not guided by hatred
of the injustice of others, but by zeal for their own quarrels, and who now make
every effort either to draw weak people, whom they have beguiled with the vain
fame of their name, completely to themselves, or at any rate to split them o ss.
In doing so, they are swollen with arrogance, furious with stubbornness,
insidious in their blasphemies, restless in their turmoil. But so that it cannot
be proved that they lack the light of truth, they hide themselves in the shadow
of a ruthless severity. And what, according to the instruction of the Holy
Scriptures, should be done in a quite mild manner, preserving the sincerity of
love and maintaining the unity of peace, in order to mend fraternal infirmities,
they seize upon in order to commit the sacrilege of church schism and to have an
opportunity to cut it off!" (Against the Letter of Parmenian III,1,1). But to
pious and peaceful men Augustin gives the advice: what they are able to punish,
they should punish in mercy, but what they are not able to punish, they should
bear patiently and sigh and complain about it in love, until the Lord either
mends it and sets it right, or else uproots the lolch in the harvest and
scatters the chaff to the winds (Against the Letter of Parmenian, III,2,15).
With such weapons all the pious should strive to equip themselves, lest, while
they seem to be busy and zealous defenders of righteousness, they actually
separate themselves from the kingdom of heaven, which is the only kingdom of
righteousness! For God has willed that in this outward togetherness the
fellowship of His Church should be maintained; whoever, therefore, out of hatred
for the ungodly, breaks the mark of this togetherness, treads a path by which he
may very easily fall out of the fellowship of the saints. Such people should
consider that in the great crowd there are some who are truly holy and innocent
in the eyes of the Lord, and yet they escape their sight. Let them consider that
even among those who appear ill, there are many who are by no means pleased or
flattered by their infirmities, but, encouraged again and again by the earnest
fear of the Lord, strive for greater purity. Let them consider that one must not
pass judgment on a person on the basis of a single act, because even the most
holy sometimes do a very serious case. They should consider that the service of
the Word and the communal participation in the holy sacraments has more power to
gather the Church than that all this power could be destroyed by the fault of
some ungodly. And finally, they should realize that in judging the Church, God’s
judgment is of greater weight than man’s!
IV,1,17 Then, as I said, they further raise the objection
that the church is not called "holy" without reason. Now we have to consider
what kind of holiness she is distinguished by. This is necessary so that, if we
do not want to admit a church that is not perfect in every respect, we do not
end up with none left! It is certainly true what Paul says: Christ gave himself
for the church "that he might sanctify it, and cleanse it by the washing of
water in the word, that he might present it to himself a bride glorious, not
having spot or wrinkle …" (Eph 5:25-27; not quite Luther text). Nevertheless,
the other is even more true, that the Lord is working day by day to smooth her
wrinkles and wash away her spots. From this it follows that her holiness is not
yet perfect. The holiness of the church, then, as will be explained in more
detail elsewhere, is of such a nature that the church progresses day by day but
is not yet perfect, that it makes progress day by day but has not yet reached
the goal of holiness. So when the prophets prophesy that Jerusalem "shall be
holy, and no stranger shall walk through her any more" (Joel 4:17), that the
temple shall be holy, and that the unclean shall have no entrance into it
(Isa 35:8), we must not understand this as if there were no stain left on the members
of the church, no, because they strive with all their zeal for holiness and
perfect purity, therefore out of God’s kindness that purity is imputed to them
which they have not yet fully attained. And although among men there are often
merely rare signs of such holiness, we must nevertheless hold to the fact that
since the creation of the world there has never been a time when the Lord did
not have his church, and that even to the end of this world there will be no
time when he would not have it. For although from the very beginning the whole
human race was corrupted and defiled by the sin of Adam, the Lord nevertheless
sanctifies for Himself from this defiled mass some "vessels unto glory"
(Rom 9:21) at all times, so that there will be no age that will not experience His
mercy. He also testified to this with sure promises. For example: "I have made a
covenant with my chosen one; I have sworn to David, my servant: I will confirm
your seed forever and build your throne for ever" (Ps 89:4f.). Or likewise:
"The Lord has chosen Zion and has pleasure in dwelling there. ’This is my rest
forever …’" (Ps 132:13 f.). Or finally: "Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun
for light by day, and the moon and the stars for light by night …: When such
ordinances pass away before me, … so shall also the seed of Israel cease …"
(Jer 31:35 f.).
IV,1,18 Christ himself, the apostles and almost all
prophets have given us an example of this. Terrible are those descriptions in
which Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Habakkuk and others lament the infirmities of the
church at Jerusalem. The people, the authorities and the priests are so corrupt
that Isaiah has no qualms about equating Jerusalem with Sodom and Gomorrah
(Isa 1:10). The worship of God has fallen partly into contempt, partly defiled, and
as for the conduct of life, theft, robbery, faithlessness, murder, and such
misdeeds are found again and again. Nevertheless, the prophets did not build
themselves new churches because of this, nor did they build themselves new
altars where they might have held separate sacrifices; no, men might be as they
pleased, yet they considered that the Lord had given his word to be kept with
them, and that he had established the ceremonies by which he was worshipped
there, and therefore, in the midst of the assembly of the wicked, they stretched
up clean hands to him! If they had thought that they could have been defiled by
this, they would certainly have died a hundred times rather than have allowed
themselves to be defiled. What prevented them from separating themselves was
nothing else than the desire to maintain unity. If, then, the holy prophets had
an inner shrinking from alienating themselves from the church for the sake of so
many and so great evils, not only of one or two men, but almost of the whole
people, we presume too much if we dare to fall away from the fellowship of a
church in which the conduct of life of all does not satisfy our judgment or even
the Christian confession!
IV,1,19 What was the situation in the time of Christ and
the apostles? The piety of the Pharisees was unholy, and an unrestrained
licentiousness of lifestyle prevailed. But all this did not prevent Christ and
the apostles from performing the same holy acts with the people and from meeting
together with the others in the same temple for public worship. How could this
happen? Exclusively from the fact that they knew that those who participated in
the same holy acts with a pure conscience were in no way defiled by the company
of the wicked. But if one can be moved but little by the prophets and apostles,
he may at least be reassured by Christ’s authority. It is therefore good what
Cyprian says: "Although there are tares and unclean vessels in the church, yet
there is no reason why we should separate ourselves from the church; we must
only labor to be a right grain of wheat, we must apply labor to it and make
every effort that we may be a golden or silver vessel! But to break the vessels
of clay is the business of the Lord alone, to whom also is given a rod of iron
(Ps 2:9; Acts 2:27). Neither shall any man lay claim to that which is the Son’s
alone; neither shall any man think that he is able to sweep out the
threshing-floor, and sweep away the chaff, and weed out all the tares according
to human judgment. This is a hopeless stubbornness and a sacrilegious
presumption, which takes such evil raging for itself …" (Letter 54). So both
of these things should remain unshakable: (first:) whoever, of his own free
will, leaves the external communion of the Church, where God’s Word is preached
and the sacraments are administered, has no excuse; and then further: ’the
infirmities of few or many offer us no hindrance to confess our faith lawfully
in such church by the ceremonies instituted by God; for a pious conscience is
not injured by the unworthiness of another, whether he be a pastor of the church
or an officious man, and the sacraments are no less pure and salutary to a holy
and righteous man, if at the same time they are also touched by unclean persons.
IV,1,20 But the obstinacy and pomposity of such people
goes further. For they do not recognize any church unless it is pure even from
the slightest stain; nay, they go off against the righteous teachers because the
latter exhort the faithful to go on, teaching them to groan all their lives
under the burden of their infirmities and to take their refuge in forgiveness!
They claim that in this way believers are led away from perfection. Now I admit
that one should not be remiss or cold in endeavoring to press for perfection,
much less desist from it; but I maintain that it is a devilish fancy to fill
hearts with confidence in such perfection while we are still in the course.
Therefore, in the Creed, the forgiveness of sins is quite sensibly connected to
the doctrine of the Church. For no one attains such forgiveness but only the
citizens and members of the church, as it is written in the prophet
(Isa 33:14-24). Therefore, the building of the heavenly Jerusalem must precede, in
which then also that forbearance of God shall have its place, so that the
unrighteousness of all who have gone to it will be wiped out. When I say that
the Church must be built first, it is not because there could ever be a Church
without forgiveness of sins, but because the Lord has promised His mercy to the
communion of saints alone. The first access to the church and to God’s kingdom
is therefore for us the forgiveness of sins, without which there can be no
covenant or connection with God for us. For he speaks through the prophet: "And
I will make you a covenant at the same time with the beasts of the field, and
with the fowls of the air, and with the creeping things of the earth; and I will
break bow and sword and war from off the earth, and will give men rest without
fear. I will betroth myself to you forever; I will, I say, trust with you in
righteousness and in judgment, in mercy and in grace" (Hos 2:20 s.; not quite
Luther text). There we see how the Lord wants to reconcile us to himself through
his mercy. This is also how he expresses it in another place; there he predicts
that he will gather again the people whom he has scattered in his wrath, and
then it says: "I will cleanse them from all iniquity, so that they have sinned
against me" (Jer 33:8). Therefore we are received into the fellowship of the
Church by the sign of washing away; by this we are to be taught that no entrance
is open to us into God’s house fellowship unless first by His goodness our
stains are wiped away.
IV,1,21 But it is not as if the Lord merely received us
into the church once through the forgiveness of our sins and added us to it, but
He also sustains and preserves us in it through the forgiveness of sins. What
purpose would it serve if we were to receive forgiveness that would be of no use
to us? But every single one of the pious is a witness to himself that the mercy
of the Lord would be ineffective and deceptive if it were to happen to a person
only once. For there is no one who does not know himself guilty of many
weaknesses throughout his life, which are in need of God’s mercy. And it is
certainly not in vain that God promises such mercy especially to his household,
nor is it in vain that he commands that the same message of reconciliation
should be brought to them day by day; if, therefore, in view of the fact that
all our lives we carry about with us the remnants of sin, we were not sustained
by the Lord’s constant grace, which he makes effective for the forgiveness of
our sins, we would scarcely be able to remain in the church for a moment. But
the Lord has called His own to eternal salvation, and therefore they should
consider that forgiveness is always ready for their sins. Therefore, let it be
unalterably established that for us, who are received and incorporated into the
body of the Church, forgiveness of sins has been and is being effected day by
day through God’s kindness, through the intercession of Christ’s merit on our
behalf, and through the sanctification of the Spirit.
IV,1,22 To make this good come to us, the keys have been
given to the Church. For when Christ commissioned the apostles and gave them the
authority to forgive sins (Mt 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23), He did not merely
want them to "redeem" such people from their sins who converted from ungodliness
to faith in Christ, but much more that they continued to practice this ministry
among the believers. This is what Paul teaches when he writes that the message
of reconciliation is given to the ministers of the church in preservation, so
that they may continually exhort the people in Christ’s name to be reconciled to
God (2Cor 5:18,20). So then, in the communion of saints, through the ministry of
the church itself, our sins are continually forgiven, when the elders or bishops
to whom this office is entrusted strengthen pious consciences by the promises of
the gospel in the hope of pardon and forgiveness, publicly or specially, as the
need may require. For there are very many who, for the sake of their weakness,
need special comfort. And Paul reports that he not only testified to the faith
in Christ in public preaching, but also back and forth in the homes, instructing
each one individually in the doctrine of salvation (Acts 20:20 s.). So we need to
pay attention to three things here. First, the children of God, however great
their holiness, are nevertheless in such a state, as long as they dwell in the
mortal body, that they cannot stand before God without forgiveness of sins.
Secondly, this benefit (of forgiveness) is so peculiar to the Church that we
cannot enjoy it otherwise than by remaining in her communion. Thirdly, this
benefit is distributed to us by the ministers and pastors of the Church, through
the preaching of the Gospel or the administration of the sacraments, and it is
in this piece that the key power which the Lord has conferred on the community
of believers is most evident. Let each one of us, then, consider that it is his
duty not to seek forgiveness of sins elsewhere than where the Lord has placed
it. Public reconciliation, which belongs to discipline, will be spoken of in the
appropriate place..
IV,1,23 But since those swarming spirits of whom I have
spoken are endeavoring to snatch from the church this one anchor of salvation,
consciences must be strengthened still more vigorously against such a corrupting
delusion. With such doctrines the Novatians of old made the churches restless,
but also our time has people who are not very dissimilar to the Novatians,
namely some of the Anabaptists, who have fallen for the same delusions. They
imagine that the people of God are reborn in baptism to a pure and angelic life
that is not stained by any filth of the flesh. So if someone still transgresses
after baptism, they leave him nothing but God’s inexorable judgment. In short,
they give no hope of forgiveness to a sinner who has fallen again after
receiving grace, because they know no other forgiveness of sins than that by
virtue of which we are born again in the beginning (of our life as Christians).
Of course, there is no lie that is more clearly refuted by the Scriptures, but
such people still find people who let themselves be deceived by them, just as
Novatus also had many followers in former times; and therefore we want to
explain shortly how much their madness leads to their own and other people’s
ruin. First of all, when the saints, at the Lord’s command, repeat every day the
petition, "Forgive us our debts," they are, of course, confessing themselves
sinners. Nor do they ask in vain; for the Lord has nowhere commanded to ask
anything but what he himself would grant. Yes, he testifies that the whole
prayer will be heard by the Father, but he has sealed this forgiveness with a
special promise. What more do we want? The Lord demands from the believers the
confession of their sins all their life long, and that continuously, and he also
promises them forgiveness! What presumption is it to declare that they are free
from sin, or, if they have erred, to exclude them altogether from grace! Who is
this, then, whom we are to forgive "seventy times seven times" according to his
will? Are they not our brothers? (Mt 18:21 s.). But for what purpose did he
give us this instruction? But only so that we would imitate his goodness! So he
forgives not once or twice, but as often as they, thrown to the ground by the
knowledge of their iniquities, groan to him.
IV,1,24 And then – we want to start almost at the earliest
origins of the Church -: the Archfathers were circumcised, they were received
into the fellowship of the covenant, they were undoubtedly instructed in
righteousness and uprightness by the diligence of their father – and there they
made a conspiracy to put their brother to death (Gen 37:18)! This was an
outrage that must have seemed abominable even to the most heinous robbers.
Finally, they were appeased by the exhortations of Judas and sold their brother
(Gen 37:28); but even this was still intolerable cruelty. Simeon and Levi raged
in foul revenge, condemned also by their father’s judgment, against the people
of Shechem (Gen 34:25, 30). Reuben defiled his father’s bed in wicked lust
(Gen 35:22). Judah surrenders to adultery and commits fornication with his own
daughter-in-law against the law of nature (Gen 38:16). Nevertheless, these men
are not eradicated from the chosen people, no, on the contrary, they are
elevated to its heads! How did David continue to behave? He was appointed the
patron of righteousness, and yet, with what a horrible outrage he paved the way
for his blind greed by shedding innocent blood (2Sam 11:4, 15)! Yet he was
already born again, and he had been distinguished among the born again by
glorious praises of the Lord – and yet he committed an outrage that is
considered terrible even among the Gentiles. Nevertheless, he obtained pardon (2
Sam 12:13). And – we do not want to dwell on the individual examples – all the
many promises to the Israelites, which we encounter in the law and the prophets,
are just as many proofs that the Lord proves to be forgiving towards the
misdeeds of his people. For according to the promise of Moses, what shall happen
when the people who have fallen into apostasy return to the Lord? "God will turn
your prison and have mercy on you, and will gather you again from all the
nations where you were scattered. Though you were cast out to the end of the
heavens, yet I will gather you from there…" (Deut 30,3 s.; not quite Luther
text).
IV,1,25 But I do not want to start an enumeration, which
could never be brought to an end. For the (books of the) prophets are full of
such promises, which shall nevertheless offer mercy to the people covered with
infinite evil deeds over and over. Which outrage should be more severe than the
sedition? For it is called a divorce between God and the church. But it too is
overcome by God’s goodness! He speaks through the mouth of Jeremiah: "What man,
when his wife has given her body to adulterers, will take it upon himself to be
reconciled to her? But all the ways of your adulteries are defiled, O Judah; the
land is full of your filthy love-dealing! … Yet you may return to me, and I
will receive you. Return again, you apostate; I will not turn my face away from
you; for I am holy, and I am not angry forever" (Jer 3:1 s.12; not Luther text).
And truly, he who testifies that he "has no pleasure in the death of the
wicked," but rather, "that he may turn … and live" (Eze 18,23.32), he cannot
be of any other mind! Therefore, when Solomon dedicated the temple, he also
designated it for the use of answering the prayers offered for the forgiveness
of sins. "If thy children shall sin against thee," saith he, "(for there is no
man that sinneth not) and thou art angry, and givest them away before their
enemies…, and they smite into their hearts, and are converted, and plead with
thee in the land of their prison, saying: We have sinned and done evil…, and
pray unto thee toward their land which thou gavest unto their fathers, and
toward this holy temple…, then wilt thou hear their prayer and supplication in
heaven…. and be merciful to your people who have sinned against you, and to
all their transgressions, so that they have transgressed against you …" (1
Kings 8:46-50; not quite Luther text). Not for nothing did the Lord command
daily sacrifices for sins in the Law (Num 28:3 ss.); for if the Lord had not
foreseen that His people would have to struggle with perpetual infirmities of
sin, He would never have ordained such remedies for them.
IV,1,26 Isa it because of the coming of Christ, in whom the
fullness of grace has been revealed, that believers have been deprived of this
benefit, that they may not now dare to plead for forgiveness of their
iniquities, that if they have offended the Lord they may no longer obtain any
mercy? If one asserted that the forbearance of God, which works itself out in
the forgiveness of sins, and which was always ready for the saints in the Old
Covenant, was now taken away, it would mean nothing else than if he said that
Christ came to the ruin of his own and not for their salvation. No, the
Scriptures expressly and loudly declare that only in Christ did the "kindness
and lightness" of the Lord fully appear, that only in Him did the riches of His
mercy pour out and the reconciliation between God and men come to fruition
(Tit 3:4; 2Tim 1:9; 2Cor 5:18-21), and if we believe it, let us not doubt that
now the kindness of our heavenly Father only flows to us all the more abundantly
instead of being cut off and shortened. Peter had heard that whoever did not
confess Christ’s name before men should be denied before the angels of God
(Mt 10:33; Mar 8:38), but he denied the Lord three times in one night and even
cursed himself (Mt 26:74). Nevertheless he was not excluded from forgiveness
(Lk 22:32; Joh 21:15ff). The people who lived disorderly among the
Thessalonians were punished in such a way that they were actually invited to
repent (2Thess 3,6.14f.). Yes, even Simon the sorcerer was not put to despair,
but was rather commanded to be of good hope, with Peter advising him to take his
refuge in prayer (Acts 8:22).
IV,1,27 Furthermore, what shall we say to the fact that at
times whole churches were seized with the most grievous sins, from which Paul
nevertheless kindly turned them out instead of cursing them? The apostasy of the
Galatians was no trifling iniquity (Gal 1:6; 3:1; 4:9), and the Corinthians
were the less to be excused in comparison with them, because more and no lighter
infamies had prevailed among them; yet neither were excluded from the Lord’s
mercy! No, precisely those who had sinned more than others through impurity,
fornication and unchastity are expressly called to repentance (2Cor 12:21). For
there remains and there will remain forever inviolable the covenant of the Lord,
which he solemnly made with Christ, the true Solomon, and with his members,
saying, "But if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my statutes, if
they profane my ordinances, and keep not my commandments, I will punish their
sin with the rod, and their iniquity with plagues; but my mercy will I not turn
from him …" (Ps 89:31-34). Finally, we are reminded precisely by the division
of the Creed that a perpetual forgiveness of iniquity is to have its place in
the Church of Christ; for after the Church is, as it were, firmly circumscribed,
the forgiveness of sins is still attached!
IV,1,28 There are then other people who are a little more
reasonable (than those mentioned so far): they see that the doctrine of Novatus
(Novatian) is refuted with such clarity of Scripture, and now they do not
declare any iniquity to be unforgivable, but (merely) the willful transgression
which someone has knowingly and intentionally committed. When they speak in this
way, they do not consider any sin worthy of forgiveness, unless one has strayed
somewhere through ignorance. Now the Lord instructed in the Law that certain
sacrifices should be offered to atone for the willful sins of believers and
others to obtain forgiveness for those committed in ignorance (Lev 4). What an
impertinence it is, then, to concede no atonement at all to sin committed
willfully! I maintain: nothing is more evident than that the one sacrifice of
Christ has power to forgive sins willingly committed by the saints; for the Lord
has testified to it by the fleshly sacrifices as by seals! Further: who then
will excuse David, who was surely so thoroughly educated in the law, with
ignorance? Did David not know what a great sacrilege adultery and murder was,
when he punished it day after day in others? Did fratricide appear to the
patriarchs as something lawful? Were the Corinthians so badly advanced that they
thought immorality, impurity, adultery, hatred and discord were pleasing to God?
And did Peter, who had been so diligently instructed, not know what it meant to
deny his Master on oath? Therefore, let us not block the way of God’s mercy,
which reveals itself so kindly, with our malice!
IV,1,29 However, it is not unknown to me that the ancient
writers (of the Church) understood by the sins forgiven daily to the faithful
the lighter offenses that creep up on the faithful out of the weakness of the
flesh. It is also not hidden from me that they were of the opinion that solemn
penance, which was demanded at that time for more serious misdeeds, could be
repeated just as little as baptism. Now this opinion of theirs is not to be
understood as if they had wanted to plunge such people into despair who had
fallen into sin again after their first repentance, or as if (on the other hand)
they had wanted to diminish those (lighter) offenses as if they were now of
little importance before God. They knew, in fact, that the saints often stumble
because of unbelief, that sometimes superfluous oaths escape them, that they
sometimes fly into a rage, yes, that they even let themselves be carried away to
openly abusive words, and that they also have to deal with many other evil
things which the Lord strongly detests; but they nevertheless used this
designation (namely: lighter offenses) in order to distinguish such offenses
from the publicly known outrages which came to the knowledge of the church under
great offence. However, the fact that they forgave so severely those who had
committed something worthy of ecclesiastical punishment was not because they
thought that such people would hardly find forgiveness with the Lord; no, they
wanted to deter others with this severity, so that they would not wantonly let
themselves be carried away by such vices, for whose sake they would be excluded
from the fellowship of the church. Of course, the Word of the Lord, which must
serve as our only guide here, prescribes a greater moderation. For it teaches,
as we have explained in more detail above, that the severity of discipline may
only be stretched so far that the one who is primarily to be helped "does not
sink into too much sadness" (2Cor 2:7).
Comparison of the false church with the true one
IV,2,1 I have now explained the high value that the service
of the Word and the sacraments should have for us and how far reverence for it
should go: it should be the constant mark for us to distinguish the (true from
the false) church, because everywhere where this service appears intact and
unabridged, such a church is not hindered by any infirmities or diseases of the
way of life from bearing the name "church". Furthermore, this service itself is
not corrupted by minor errors to such an extent that it could not be considered
legitimate. I have then further shown that the errors to which such pardon is
due are of such a nature that by them the most essential doctrine of religion is
not violated, and the principal parts of the worship of God, about which there
must be unanimity among all the faithful, are not suppressed; so far as the
sacraments are concerned, as I have shown, those pardonable errors are such that
they do not abolish or shake the lawful institution of the author of these
sacraments. On the other hand, as soon as falsehood has broken into the bulwark
of religion, the main sum of the necessary doctrine has been reversed, and the
practice of the sacraments has collapsed, then the downfall of the church will
certainly result, just as it has happened to the life of a man when his throat
has been pierced or his heart mortally wounded. This can be clearly proven from
the words of Paul, who teaches that the Church is founded on the teaching of the
apostles and prophets, "Jesus Christ being the cornerstone" (Eph 2:20). If,
then, the foundation of the Church is the teaching of the prophets and apostles,
in which believers are commanded to base their salvation on Christ alone, – how
can the edifice continue to stand if this foundation is taken away? The church
must therefore necessarily collapse where this main sum of the worship of God,
which alone can sustain it, falls away. And then: if the true church "is a
pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15), then there is certainly no
church where lies and falsehood have gained dominion.
IV,2,2 This is exactly how things are under the papacy, and
from this we can see what is left of the church there. Instead of the service of
the Word, there is a perverse regiment forged out of lies, which partly
extinguishes and partly suffocates the pure light. In the place of the Holy
Communion, the most abominable desecration of the sanctuary has crept in. The
worship of God is distorted by a manifold and intolerable amount of
superstition. The doctrine without which Christianity cannot exist has been
entirely buried and set aside. The public assemblies (worship services) are
schools of idolatry and impiety. Therefore, there is no danger that we will be
torn away from the Church of Christ if we separate ourselves from the corrupting
participation in so much infamy. The fellowship of the church is not designed to
be a bond by which we are entangled in idolatry, impiety, ignorance of God, and
other evils, but rather to be a bond that keeps us in the fear of God and in
obedience to the truth. The papists may now magnificently praise their church to
us, so that the impression is created that there is no other in the world; they
may then also, as if they had already proved their case, declare all to be "schismatics"
who dare to evade obedience to the church they are painting there, and all to be
"heretics" who dare to murmur against the teachings of this church. They may do
so – but on what grounds do they prove that they have the true church? They cite
from ancient history books what once was in Italy, in France, in Spain, they
claim that they derive their origin from those holy men who once founded and
established the churches with sound doctrine and confirmed this doctrine itself
and the edification of the church with their blood. They further assert that the
Church, consecrated by such spiritual gifts and by the blood of the martyrs, was
preserved by the perpetual succession of bishops, lest it perish. They recall
the high value that Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others placed
on this succession of bishops. Now what a frivolous talk this is, nay, what a
mockery it is altogether, I will without difficulty make clear to those who will
consider it a little with me. I would indeed ask the papists themselves to pay
serious attention to this, if I had the confidence that I could do anything with
them by teaching. But since they have thrown away all regard for the truth and
are now only interested in pursuing their own cause by every possible means, I
will say only a few things with the help of which well-meaning men who are
seriously concerned about the truth can free themselves from their deceptions.
First of all, I would like to know from the papists why they do not mention
Africa and Egypt and the whole of Asia. The reason, of course, is that in all
these regions the "holy" succession of bishops has ceased, which they praise as
the blessing by which they have maintained their churches! So they retreat to
the fact that they have the true church because this church has never lacked
bishops since its origin, since they have followed one another in uninterrupted
succession. But what should happen if I now refer them to Greece? I would like
to know from them again why they claim that the Church has perished among the
Greeks, although among them the succession of bishops, which according to them
is the only guardian and protector of the Church, has never been interrupted.
They make the Greeks schismatics. With what right? "They have just seceded from
the apostolic see and have thereby lost their prerogative!" Why do not rather
those deserve to forfeit their privilege who fall away from Christ Himself? It
follows, then, that the pretext of succession (of bishops) is vain, unless the
later ones preserve and persevere in the truth of Christ, which they received
into their hands from their fathers, intact and uncorrupted.
IV,2,3 Therefore the Romans today have no other excuse than
the Jews apparently used in former times, when they were accused by the prophets
of the Lord of blindness, impiety and idolatry. Then they magnificently invoked
the temple, the ceremonies, and the priesthood; for these, in their opinion,
were the things by which they were able to measure the church with powerfully
effective proof. This is exactly what the Romans do today: instead of the
Church, they merely present us with certain external larvae, which are often far
removed from the Church and without which the Church can very well exist. If we
want to refute them, this can therefore be done only with the proof with which
Jeremiah fought against that foolish confidence of the Jews: they should not
boast with lying words and say: "Here is the Lord’s temple, here is the Lord’s
temple, here is the Lord’s temple!" (Jer 7:4). For the Lord only ever
recognizes for His own that where His word is heard and reverently heeded. Thus,
although the glory of God had its seat among the cherubim in the Holy of Holies
(Eze 10:4), and although God had promised the people that He would have His
permanent place there, as soon as the priests corrupted His worship with evil
superstitions, He moved elsewhere, leaving that place without any sanctity. If
that temple, which seemed to be consecrated as the perpetual abode of God, could
be abandoned by God and become unholy, there is no reason for these people to
deceive us that God is so bound to persons and places and tied to outward
customs that he must remain with such people who, after all, have only the title
and outward appearance of the church. This is also the argument Paul makes in
the letter to the Romans from the ninth to the twelfth chapter. For it threw the
weak consciences into violent confusion that the Jews, although they seemed to
be God’s people, not only despised the teaching of the gospel, but even
persecuted it. Having therefore unfolded the doctrine (as a whole), he removes
this difficulty, and denies that those Jews, who are the enemies of the truth,
are the church, and that even if nothing came from them which might otherwise be
required for the outward form of the church. But he denies this because they did
not accept Christ. He expresses this even more clearly in the letter to the
Galatians: there he compares Ishmael with Isaac and explains that many have a
place in the church, to whom the inheritance does not belong, because they are
not born of the free mother (Gal 4,22 ss.). From there he comes to the
comparison between a twofold Jerusalem; for as the law was given on Mount Sinai,
but the gospel went out from Jerusalem, so there are also many who are born and
educated as servants and yet boast unconcernedly that they are children of God
and of the church, yes, who look down arrogantly on the true children of God,
although they themselves are degenerates. Now, on the other hand, when we hear
that it was once proclaimed from heaven: "Cast out this maid with her son" (Gen
21:10), we too want to base ourselves on this inviolable decree and from there
bravely despise the foolish claims of the papists. For if they haughtily insist
on the external confession – even Ishmael was circumcised! If they bring into
the field the great age (of their church) – Ishmael was the firstborn, and yet
he was rejected, as we see! If we ask the reason for this, Paul shows it to us:
only those are counted among the children who are born of the pure and lawful
seed of doctrine (Rom 9:6-9). Accordingly, God declares that he is not bound to
the godless priests because he made a covenant with their progenitor Levi,
according to which he was to be his messenger and interpreter; indeed, he turns
their false boast, with which they used to revolt against the prophets, against
themselves, namely this boast that the dignity of the priesthood should always
be held in special esteem (Mal 2,1-9). He himself readily admits this to them,
and this is precisely the point on the basis of which he argues with them. For
he himself says that he is willing to keep his covenant. But since they do not
comply with this covenant on their part, they deserve to be rejected. There one
sees what the succession (in the priesthood) has for a meaning, if with it also
the succession and the same kind is not connected: namely only that, that the
successors, as soon as they are convinced of it that they have left their
origin, are deprived of all honor! Otherwise, even that criminal mob (in
Christ’s time) would have been worthy of the name "church," because Caiaphas was
the successor of many pious priests, indeed, because from Aaron to him there was
an unbroken succession! But even in earthly realms it would not be tolerated if
someone wanted to call the tyranny of Caligula, Nero, Heliogabal or similar men
the right state of public authority, because these men would have followed
people like Brutus, Scipio and Camillus. But especially in church government
nothing is more frivolous than to leave aside the doctrine and to refer the
succession to the persons alone. But those holy teachers, who are erroneously
brought to our attention, had nothing less in mind than to prove, as it were on
the basis of a hereditary right, that everywhere there were churches where one
bishop always followed the other. It was rather this: there could be no dispute
about the fact that since the beginning (of the church) until that time no
change had occurred in the doctrine, and therefore they made an assertion which
should suffice to nullify all newly arising errors, namely: those errors
disputed against the doctrine which had just been maintained constantly and in
unanimous agreement since the times of the apostles. There is therefore no
reason why our adversaries should continue to make a deceptive semblance of the
name "Church". Certainly, we venerate this name with due reverence. But when one
comes to the determination (of this term), they not only "run out of water", as
it is said (Cicero), but they get stuck in their mud, because they namely put a
disgusting whore in the place of the holy bride of Christ. In order that we may
not be deceived by this confusion, let us be helped, among other admonitions, by
one of Augustine; speaking of the Church, he says: "It is she who is ever and
anon darkened by the multitude of vexations and, as it were, shrouded in mist,
who ever and anon appears calm and free in peaceful times, but ever and anon is
covered and disturbed by the waves of tribulations and temptations." He then
gives examples of how often the firmest pillars of the Church lived bravely in
exile for their faith, or even led a hidden existence throughout the world
(Letter 93).
IV,2,4 In this way the Romans torment us today, and they
frighten the inexperienced with the name "church", although they themselves are
the mortal enemies of Christ. Certainly, therefore, they turn temple and
priesthood and other larvae of this kind forward; but this vain splendor, which
blinds the eyes of simple people, should in no way induce us to agree that there
is a church where the Word of God does not make its appearance. For this is the
permanent mark by which our Lord designates his own: "He who is of the truth,"
he says, "hears my voice" (John 18:37). Likewise he says: "I am the good
shepherd, and know those who are mine, and am known to those who are mine"
(John 10:14), "my sheep hear my voice, and I know them; and they follow me"
(John 10:27). Shortly before he had said: the sheep follow their shepherd, "because
they know his voice. But they do not follow a stranger, but flee from him,
because they do not know the voice of the stranger" (John 10:4f.). Why, then, do
we fall into foolishness in judging the church without reason, when Christ has
provided her with a mark that is completely removed from all doubt? Wherever
this mark is to be seen, it cannot deceive, but indicates with certainty that
there is church; but where it is missing, nothing remains that could give a real
indication of the church. For the church is not founded on the judgments of men,
not on the priesthood, but on the teaching of the apostles and prophets, as Paul
reminds us (Eph 2:20). Yes, rather, Jerusalem must be distinguished from Babel,
Christ’s Church from Satan’s conspiratorial rot, by the distinguishing mark by
which Christ distinguished them: "He that is of God," saith he, "heareth the
words of God: therefore hear ye not; for ye are not of God" (John 8:47). To
summarize: The church is the kingdom of Christ; but Christ reigns by his word
alone; now should it still be dark to any man that these are lying words, if we
are led to believe that Christ’s kingdom can exist without his scepter, that is,
without his holy word?
IV,2,5 They accuse us of schism and heresy because we
preach a different doctrine (from theirs), because we do not obey their laws,
and because we hold special meetings among ourselves for prayer, baptism, the
celebration of Holy Communion, and other holy acts. This is certainly a very
serious charge, but it does not require a long and arduous defense. Heretics and
schismatics are the names given to those who cause a schism and thereby tear
apart the communion of the Church. Now this communion of the Church is held
together by two bonds: by unanimity in sound doctrine and by brotherly love.
Therefore, Augustine draws the following distinction between heretics and
schismatics: heretics corrupt the integrity of the faith with false doctrines,
whereas schismatics, sometimes even while maintaining the same faith, break the
bonds of communion (Questions on the Gospel of Matthew 11:2). But it must also
be remembered that this bond in love depends on unity in faith in such a way
that the latter must be its beginning, its goal, in short, its only guide.
Therefore, as often as ecclesial unity is praised to us, let us remember that it
is required of us that our minds be united in Christ, and at the same time that
our wills be united in mutual goodwill in Christ. This is how Paul does it: he
exhorts us to church unity and sets as its foundation that there is one God, one
faith and one baptism (Eph 4,5). Yes, wherever he teaches us to have the same
judgment and the same will, he immediately adds: "In Christ" or "after the
manner of Christ" (Phil 2,2.5; Rom 15,5). Thus he shows that what happens
outside the word of our Lord (in ecclesiastical fellowship) is a mob of the
ungodly and not a united fellowship (conspiratio) of believers.
IV,2,6 Cyprian agrees with this judgment of Paul: he finds
the source of all ecclesiastical harmony in the fact that Christ is the one
bishop. Then he adds: "The church, which by fruitful growth continues to expand
into a multiplicity, is nevertheless one church, just as the rays of the sun are
many, but the light is one, or as on a tree there are many branches, but the
trunk is only one, founded on one firm root. And if from a single source many
streams flow, then the impression of a scattered multiplicity may well arise
from the abundance of the overflowing water, but unity remains in the source.
Take away a ray of the sun from its body, and the unity of the sun cannot be
divided. Break a branch from the tree, so the cut off branch will not be able to
green. Separate a brook from its source, then it must dry up in its being cut
o ss. Thus also the Church, flowing with the light of the Lord, spreads over the
whole world, but it is a light that pours out everywhere" (On the Unity of the
Catholic Church 5). Nothing more fitting could have been said to express that
inseparable bond that all the members of Christ have among themselves. We see
how he constantly calls us back to the Head Himself. That is why he also
declares that all heresies and church divisions come from not going back to the
origin of the truth, from not seeking the Head and from not keeping the teaching
of the heavenly Master. So let them come here and cry out that we, who have
separated ourselves from their church, are heretics, when this separation has
had only one cause, namely that they are not able to bear the pure confession of
the truth in any way. But I will pass over in silence the fact that they drove
us out with curses and imprecations! Nevertheless, this is more than enough for
our acquittal, unless they also want to condemn the apostles for schism, with
whom we have the same cause. Christ, I say, foretold his apostles that they
would be thrown out of the synagogues for his name’s sake (John 16:2). Now the
synagogues of which he speaks were considered legitimate churches at that time.
Since, then, it is certain that we have been thrown out, and since we are
prepared to show that this has happened for the sake of the name of Christ, it
is undoubtedly necessary to make an investigation of the matter in dispute
before determining anything about us in one direction or another. But this I
will gladly remit to them, if they so desire; it is fully sufficient for me that
we have had to turn away from them in order to turn to Christ!
IV,2,7 ABut what we have to think of all the churches which
that tyranny of the Roman idol has seized upon, will come to light even more
clearly if we compare them with the ancient church in Israel, as it is outlined
to us in the prophets. Among the Judaeans and Israelites, the true church was at
that time when they persisted in the laws of the covenant, namely, by God’s
beneficence they had in possession the things in which the church consists. The
doctrine of truth they had in the law, the service of this doctrine was with the
priests and prophets. By the mark of circumcision they received the first access
to the worship of God; by other sacraments they were exercised to strengthen
their faith. There is no doubt that the praises with which the Lord honored the
Church applied to their community. But after they had forsaken the law of the
Lord, and thereupon degenerated into idolatry and superstition, that privilege
was partly lost to them. For who would dare to snatch the title of "church" from
those from whom God has given the preaching of his word and the observance of
his sacraments in preservation? On the other hand, who would dare to call a
congregation a church, without any exception, where God’s Word is trampled
underfoot publicly and with impunity, a congregation where His ministry, which
is after all the mainstay and very soul of the church, is subject to
destruction?
IV,2,8 Why then, someone might say, was there no bit of
church left among the Judeans since they had fallen away to idolatry? The answer
is easy. First of all, I maintain that there were certain stages in the apostasy
itself. For we will not be able to say that the apostasy of Judah and Israel was
the same at the time when they both first departed from the pure worship of God.
When Jeroboam made the calves against God’s clear prohibition and consecrated an
unauthorized place for their worship, he fully corrupted the worship of God. The
Judeans first tainted themselves with ungodly and superstitious customs, before
they evilly changed the set condition also in the outward form of the worship of
God. Certainly, under Rehoboam, they had already generally introduced all kinds
of perverse ceremonies; but nevertheless, the teaching of the Law and the
priesthood, along with the worship customs as God had established them, remained
in Jerusalem, and therefore the pious (still) found there a tolerable state of
the church. With the Israelites, until the reign of Ahab, the conditions were by
no means restored to their better state; indeed, in Ahab’s time they sank into a
worse condition. The kings who followed afterwards, until the downfall of the
kingship, were partly similar to Ahab, partly, if they wanted to be a little
better, they followed the example of Jeroboam; but all without exception were
godless and idolaters. In Judea, many changes took place, as some of the kings
perverted the worship of God with false and devised superstitious customs, while
others rebuilt the broken religion – until the priests themselves defiled the
temple of God with unholy and abominable customs.
IV,2,9 Now let the Papists, if they can, deny that the
state of God-worship – however much they may mitigate its vices – is as
degenerate and corrupt among them as it was in the kingdom of Israel under
Jeroboam. But the idolatry that exists among them is grosser, and also in
doctrine they are not purer by a single drop, if they are not even more impure
in this than the Israelites once were. God, yes, in general everyone who is
gifted with some judgment, will be a witness to this, and the facts themselves
also make it clear how purely nothing I am exaggerating here. Now, if they wish
to compel us to commune with their church, they require two things of us: first,
we are to participate in all their prayers, sacred acts, and ceremonies;
secondly, we are to transfer to their church all that Christ has conferred upon
his church in the way of honor, power, and judicial authority. (1) As to the
first, I admit that all the prophets who were at Jerusalem neither sacrificed
for themselves alone nor held assemblies set apart from others for prayer,
although conditions there were then altogether degenerate. For they had God’s
commandment, in virtue of which they were commanded to assemble at Solomon’s
temple, and they had also the Levitical priests; these had been ordained by the
Lord to preside at the sacred acts (Ex 29:9), and, unworthy as they might be of
that honor, had not yet been deposed, and therefore the prophets knew of them
that they did not yet rightly occupy that place. And then, what is the main
thing in the whole question: they were not forced to any superstitious worship
of God, indeed, they did not accept anything that had not been established by
God. But what similar thing is found among these people, I mean: among the
Papists? For we can hardly have any assembly in common with them in which we did
not stain ourselves with open idolatry. Undoubtedly, the most important bond of
their community is the mass, which we detest as the most terrible desecration of
the sanctuary. Whether we do so justly or without reason, we shall see
elsewhere. For now it is enough if I show that our cause in this piece is
different from that of the prophets, who, though they took part in the sacred
acts of the ungodly, were nevertheless not compelled to watch or practice
ceremonies other than those ordained by God. Now, if we wish to have an example
similar in all respects, let us take it from the kingdom of Israel. Because of
Jeroboam’s institution, circumcision remained, sacrifices were made, the law was
kept holy, and the God received from the fathers was invoked; but because of the
self-invented and forbidden cult customs, everything that happened in Israel was
disapproved of and condemned by God (1Ki 12:31). But now let them name me a
single prophet or even a single pious man who once worshipped or offered a
sacrifice in Bethel! For they knew that they could not do so without defiling
themselves with some kind of desecration of the sanctuary. It follows that the
fellowship of the church does not count so much among the pious that, if it
degenerates into unholy and defiled customs, one must join it immediately.
IV,2,10 (2) But as far as the second demand of the papists
is concerned, we oppose it even more vehemently. For if we regard the church in
such a way that we can respectfully accept its judgment, acknowledge its
authority, obey its exhortations, be moved by its chastenings, and reverently
maintain communion with it in all things, we cannot admit to the papists that
they are the church without necessarily at the same time subjecting ourselves to
the obligation of submission and obedience. We would gladly grant them what the
prophets granted to the Judeans and Israelites of their time, when things were
in the same or even better condition there. But we notice how they always loudly
declare that (in their people) the assemblies were something unholy (Isa 1:14)
and that one must not agree with them any more than one must deny God. And
truly, if these were churches, it follows that these men were set apart from the
church of God, that is, in Israel Elijah, Micah and others, but in Judah Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Hosea and others of this kind, these men who were hated and cursed
worse by the prophets, the priests and the people of their time than any
uncircumcised. If these were churches, then the church is not "a pillar of
truth" (1Tim 3:15), but a stronghold of lies, not a tent of the living God, but a
dwelling place of idols! So the prophets considered it necessary to separate
themselves from the agreement with the assemblies of such people; for this was
nothing else than a nefarious conspiracy against God. For the same reason, he
will be in grave error who recognizes the present assemblies, defiled with
idolatry, superstition and godless doctrine, as churches in whose full
fellowship a Christian man ought to remain, even to the extent of living in
harmony with their teaching. For if they are churches, they also hold the key
power; but the keys have an indissoluble connection with the word, which after
all is set down in these assemblies. Furthermore, if they are churches, then
Christ’s promise is valid for them: "What you will bind …" (Mt 16,19;
18,18; John 20:23). In fact, however, they expel from their fellowship all who
profess to be servants of Christ without hypocrisy. Consequently, either the
promise of Christ is without content, or else they are not churches, at least in
this respect! Finally, instead of the ministry of the Word, they have schools of
ungodliness and a pool of errors of all kinds. From this it follows: either they
are not churches in the sense of our evidence – or else there will be no mark
left to distinguish the legitimate assemblies of the faithful from the meetings
of the Turks.
IV,2,11 Nevertheless – as once among the Jews individual
special privileges of the church were left, so also today we do not deny to the
Papists what the Lord wanted to remain among them as traces of the church from
the disruption. God had once made his covenant with the Jews, and this covenant
maintained its existence more by gaining the upper hand against their
godlessness, based on its own firmness, than by being preserved by them. The
Lord’s covenant therefore remained with them for the sake of the certainty and
permanence of divine goodness; their faithlessness could not extinguish His
faithfulness, nor could circumcision be so defiled by their unclean hands that
it would not at the same time have been a true sign and sacrament of that
covenant of God. That is why the Lord also called the children born to them His
children (Eze 16,20 s.), and yet they could only have something to do with Him
through His special blessing! So he gave his covenant also (to the people) in
France, Italy, Germany, Spain and England in preservation; So that this covenant
of his, after these regions had come under the oppression of the tyranny of the
Antichrist, nevertheless remained inviolable, God first of all preserved baptism
there, which is the testimony of his covenant and which, sanctified with his own
mouth, retains its power in spite of all human ungodliness; secondly, he caused
it by his providence that other remnants also remained, so that the church did
not completely perish. Often buildings are torn down in such a way that
foundations and ruins remain. In the same way, God did not tolerate that his
church was overthrown from the foundation or razed to the ground by the
Antichrist. Admittedly, as punishment for the ingratitude of the people who had
despised his word, he allowed a terrible destruction and disruption to happen.
But he still wanted that even from the desolation there remained a
half-demolished building.
IV,2,12 Although we do not want to concede the name
"church" to the papists, we do not deny that there are churches among them, but
we argue with them only about the true and rightful organization of the church,
which is found on the one hand in the fellowship of the sacraments, which are
the signs of the confession, and on the other hand especially in the fellowship
of doctrine. Daniel (Dan 9,27) and Paul (2. Thess. 2,4) predicted that the
Antichrist would sit in God’s temple; as the leader and champion of this
sacrilegious and abominable empire among us we consider the pope at Rome. The
fact that the seat of the Antichrist is assigned to God’s temple indicates that
his kingdom will be of such a kind that it will not abolish the name of Christ
or the church. From this, then, it is clear that we are in no way denying that
churches will remain even under his tyranny. But these are churches which he has
desecrated with his sacrilegious godlessness, which he has oppressed with his
cruel rule, which he has corrupted and almost killed with evil, pernicious
doctrines and poisonous potions, In short, these are churches in which
everything is so confused that they look more like Babylon than the holy city of
God. In short, I say that here are churches, inasmuch as the Lord miraculously
preserves in them the remnants of his people, however miserably scattered and
dispersed they may be; churches are here inasmuch as some marks of the church
still remain, and especially those whose efficacy neither the devil’s craftiness
nor the wickedness of men is able to destroy. But because in these assemblies,
on the other hand, the marks have been erased, to which one must look above all
in this discussion, I maintain that both the individual assemblies and the whole
body lack the rightful form of the church.
Of the teachers and servants of the church, their election and
their official duty.
IV,3,1 Now we must speak of the order in which the church
is to be governed according to the will of the Lord. To be sure, he alone is to
rule and reign in the church; he alone is also to hold the leadership and the
highest place in it, and to exercise and rule this sovereign power by his word
alone. But he does not dwell among us in visible presence (Mt 26,11) in
order to verbally reveal his will to us in his own person, and therefore he uses
the service and, as it were, the representative activity of men, as I have
already explained. He does this, of course, not in order to transfer his right
and honor to them, but only in order to do his work through their mouths
themselves, just as a craftsman uses a tool to do his work. I am now compelled
to repeat again what I have already stated above. God could indeed do this work
of his purely of himself, without any other aid or tool, and could also do it
through the angels; but there are a whole number of reasons why he prefers to do
it through men. (1) For first of all he shows how dear and valuable we are to
him, and that in such a way that he takes out of men those who are to do the
messenger service for him in the world, to be the heralds of his hidden will,
yes, who in short are to represent his person. Thus he also proves by experience
that it is not without consequence when he calls us ever and anon his "temples"
(1Cor 3,16 s.; 6,19; 2Cor 6,16), since he speaks to men out of the mouth of
men, as out of his sanctuary (compare Augustin, Of Christian Instruction
IV,27,59). (2) And further, it is a very good and most profitable exercise in
humility when he accustoms us to obey his word, whether it be preached by men
who are like us, nay, who at times are inferior to us even in dignity. If he
himself spoke from heaven, then it would be no wonder if his holy proclamations
were received without delay by all ears and hearts in reverence. For who would
not fear his present power? Who would not be thrown to the ground at the first
sight of such mighty majesty? Who would not be upset by such immense splendor?
But where any little man who has come out of the dust speaks in God’s name, we
prove our piety and reverence to God Himself with a special testimony when we
show ourselves docile to His servant, although He is not higher than us in any
respect. For this reason he also hides the treasure of his heavenly wisdom in
fragile earthen vessels (2Cor 4:7): he wants to receive all the more certain
proof of how highly we esteem him. (3) And then: for the maintenance of mutual
love nothing was more suitable than to bind men together by the bond of one
being appointed shepherd to instruct the others together, but the others, being
commanded to be disciples, receiving from one mouth the common instruction. For
if each were self-sufficient, and none needed the service of another, then, in
the pride of our human nature, each would despise the others, and in turn would
be despised by the others. The Lord, then, bound his Church together with the
bond which he had previously seen would have the greatest strength to maintain
unity, namely, by giving the doctrine of salvation and eternal life to men to
keep, in order to communicate it to others through their hands. This is what
Paul had in mind when he wrote to the Ephesians: "One body and one Spirit, just
as you were called to one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all
of us. But to each one of us grace has been given according to the measure of
the gift of Christ" (Eph 4:4-7; not quite Luther text). "Therefore it is said,
’He ascended up on high, and led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men’ …
He that descended is the same that ascended above all heavens, that he might
fill all things. And he hath appointed some apostles, and some prophets, and
some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, that the saints should be
prepared for the work of the ministry, edifying the body of Christ, until we all
come to the same faith, and to the same knowledge of the Son of God, and become
a perfect man, according to the measure of a perfect age … that we should no
longer be children, being moved and swayed by every wind of doctrine … But let
us be righteous in love, growing in all things in him who is the head, Christ,
from whom the whole body is knit together, one member hanging on to another
through all the joints, one helping the other, according to the work of each
member in its measure, making the whole body grow for its own edification, and
all this in love" (Eph 4:8, 10-16; almost entirely Luther text).
IV,3,2 With these words the apostle first shows that the
ministry of men, which God uses for the government of His church, is the most
important bond by which the believers are held together in one body. Then,
further, he also sets forth that the church cannot be preserved unharmed in any
other way than by being sustained by these means which the Lord, according to
His good pleasure, has established for its preservation. He says: "Christ
ascended on high, that he might fill all things" (Eph 4,10; not Luther text).
But this "filling up" is done in such a way that he dispenses and distributes
his gifts to the church through the ministers to whom he has entrusted this
official duty and granted the grace to carry out this ministry, and thus in a
sense proves himself to be present by bringing the power of his Holy Spirit to
bear in this appointment of his, so that it may not be vain or fruitless. Thus
"the saints are made ready," thus "the body of Christ is edified" (Eph 4:12),
thus "we grow in all things in him who is the head" (verse 15), thus we also
join together among ourselves (verse 16), and we are all brought to the unity of
Christ, namely, when the prophetic office is in force among us, when we accept
the "apostles" and do not despise the teaching that comes to us through such
ministry. Anyone, then, who desires to abolish this order, which is the subject
of our discussion, and this kind of regiment, or who diminishes it as if it were
less necessary, is really endeavoring to disperse, or rather to bring about the
disintegration or ruin of the Church. For neither the light and heat of the sun,
nor even food and drink, are as necessary to the nourishment and preservation of
the present life as the ministry of apostles and pastors is to the preservation
of the church on earth.
IV,3,3 Therefore I have reminded above that God has often
praised us the dignity of this office with all possible praises, so that it
stands with us in highest honor and esteem, as it were as the most precious of
all things. He instructs the prophet to exclaim that the "feet" are "lovely" and
that the coming of "the messengers who proclaim peace" is blessed (Isa 52,7), he
calls the apostles "the light of the world" and "the salt of the earth" (Mt
5,13f.), and thus he testifies that he bestows a unique blessing on the people
by raising up teachers for them. He could not have adorned this office more
brilliantly than by saying: "He who hears you hears me, and he who despises you
despises me" (Lk 10:16). But the most glorious passage of all is found in
Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, where he treats this question, as it
were, as a theme. There he claims that there is nothing more excellent and
glorious in the church than the ministry of the gospel, because it is the
ministry of the spirit (2Cor 3:8), of "righteousness" (2Cor 3:9) and of eternal
life (2Cor 4:6). These words and similar ones have the purpose that the way of
governing and maintaining the church through the servants, which the Lord has
established for all time, does not fall into contempt among us and finally
disappears through disdain. How necessary this office is, the Lord has shown us
not only with words, but also with examples. When He wanted to shine the light
of His truth more abundantly on Cornelius, He sent an angel from heaven to
direct him to Peter (Acts 10:3-6). When he wanted to call Paul to his knowledge
and to insert him into the church, he addressed him with his own voice, but he
sent him to a man, so that he could receive from him the teaching of salvation
and the sanctification of baptism (Acts 9:6)! Surely it is not without reason
that the angel, who is God’s messenger, himself refrains from making known God’s
will, but gives (to Cornelius) the instruction to call a man to make it known;
it is not without reason that Christ, the some teacher of the faithful, entrusts
Paul to the teaching office of a man – Paul, whom He had decided to "rapture"
into the third heaven and to dignify with the revelation of unspeakable things
(2Cor 12:2-4)! If it is so – who will now dare to despise or pass over as
superfluous that ministry which God has willed to testify with such evidence?
IV,3,4 As those who preside over the church government
after the institution of Christ, Paul lists first the "apostles", then the
"prophets", thirdly the "evangelists", fourthly the "shepherds" and finally the
"teachers" (Eph 4,11). Among these, only the last two have a regular office in
the church; the other three were raised up by the Lord at the beginning of his
kingdom, and he raises them up from time to time as the needs of the times
require. What the official task of the apostles is, is clear from the
instruction: "Go … and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). They
are not assigned specific areas, but they are assigned the whole earth to bring
it to obedience to Christ: they are to spread the gospel to all nations where
they are able to do so, and to establish Christ’s kingdom everywhere. Thus Paul
also testifies; he wants to confirm his apostleship, and for this purpose he
reminds us that he did not acquire Christ any single city, but made the gospel
known far and wide, also that he "did not build on a foreign foundation", but
rather planted churches "where the name of the Lord was not known" (Rom 15,19.
20). The apostles were therefore sent out to lead the world back from its
apostasy to true obedience to God and to establish God’s kingdom everywhere
through the preaching of the gospel or, if one prefers, to lay its foundations
as the first master builders of the church in the whole world (1Cor 3:10).
"Prophets" is what the apostle (Eph 4,11) calls not any heralds of God’s will,
but those who distinguished themselves by a special revelation. Such people
either do not exist today, or they are less visible. By "evangelists" I mean
those who were inferior to the apostles in dignity, but who, after their
official duties, came very close to them and even worked in their place. Luke,
Timothy, Titus and others like them were of this kind, and perhaps also the
seventy disciples whom Christ appointed second to the apostles (Lk 10:1).
According to this interpretation, which seems to me to correspond to both the
words and the opinion of Paul, these three ministries in the church were not
established in such a way that they were to be permanent, but they were to exist
only for the time when it was necessary to establish churches where there had
been none before, or to bring churches over from Moses to Christ. However, I do
not deny that God sometimes raised up apostles or at least evangelists in their
place, as has happened in our time. For it took such men to bring the church
back from the apostasy of the Antichrist. Nevertheless, I call the ministry
itself "extraordinary" because it has no place in properly established churches.
Then follow the "shepherds" and "teachers" without whom the church cannot be at
any time. The difference between them, in my opinion, is that the "teachers"
have no leadership in the exercise of discipline, nor in the administration of
the sacraments, nor in exhortations and encouragements, but in the
interpretation of Scripture alone, so that sound and healthy doctrine may be
maintained among the faithful. The office of "shepherds," on the other hand,
comprehends all this in itself.
IV,3,5 Now we are clear as to which offices have existed in
the church government with temporal validity, and which are fitted to continue
perpetually; if we now connect the evangelists with the apostles, we are left
with two offices each of the same kind, which in a sense correspond with each
other. For the same similarity which our (present) teachers have with the former
prophets, exists also between the shepherds (pastors) and the apostles. The
office of the prophets was more excellent (than that of our teachers), and that
because of the special gift of revelation that had been given to the prophets.
But the office of the teachers has almost the same nature and quite the same
purpose. Likewise, those twelve whom the Lord chose to make the new preaching of
the gospel known to the world also had a higher place in rank and would than the
rest (Lk 6:13; Gal 1:1). However, due to the meaning and the linguistic root of
the word, all the servants of the Church can be properly called "apostles"; for
they are all sent out by the Lord and are His messengers. But because much
depended on the certain knowledge of the mission of those who were to bring
forward such a new and unheard-of thing, it was necessary that those twelve, to
whose number Paul was later added, should be distinguished above all others by a
special title. Admittedly, Paul himself gives this name in one place (Rom 16:7)
to Andronicus and Junias, of whom he says that they were "famous" among the
apostles, but when he wants to speak in the proper sense, he refers this name
("apostle") to the original rank alone. This is also the general usage of
Scripture (Mt 10:1). Nevertheless (i.e. despite the untransferable
specialness of the apostles) the shepherds (pastors) have the same official task
as the apostles – only that each one of them leads a certain church assigned to
him. How the official task of the pastors is now constituted, we want to hear
more clearly.
IV,3,6 When the Lord sent out the apostles, He instructed
them, as I have already explained, to preach the gospel and to baptize those who
believed for the forgiveness of sins (Mt 28,19). But before that he had
instructed them to distribute the holy marks of his body and blood according to
his example (Lk 22,19). Behold, we now have before us a holy, inviolable and
permanent law imposed on those who follow the apostles in their place, a law by
virtue of which they receive the commission to preach the gospel and administer
the sacraments. From this it follows for us that those who neglect these two
duties wrongly claim to be the bearers of the office of apostles. But what about
the shepherds (pastors)? Paul does not only speak of himself, but of all of
them, when he says: "For this everyone holds us: for Christ’s servants and
stewards over God’s mysteries" (1Cor 4:1). Likewise in another place: "Let a
bishop hold to the reliable word, which is according to doctrine, that he may be
mighty to exhort by sound doctrine, and to punish the gainsayers" (Tit 1:9;
first half not Luther text). From these and similar passages, which we encounter
again and again, it can be seen that the official task of pastors also consists
primarily in these two things: to preach the gospel and to administer the
sacraments. The instruction does not only take place in public sermons, but it
also extends to personal exhortations. Thus Paul draws on the Ephesians as
witnesses to the fact that he withheld nothing from them that was useful to
them, but that he preached it to them, taught them publicly and back and forth
in individual homes, and testified to "both Jews and Greeks" about "repentance
… And faith in … Christ" (Acts 20:20 s.). Likewise, shortly thereafter, he
calls them to witness that he has not "ceased" to "admonish every one" of them
"with tears" (Acts 20:31). However, it is not part of our present task to go
through the individual gifts of a good "shepherd," but only to show what kind of
activity those who call themselves "shepherds" actually declare themselves ready
for, namely, to exercise their office as overseers in the church in such a way
that they do not hold an idle dignity, but instruct the people in true piety
with the teaching of Christ, administer the holy sacraments, and preserve and
exercise right discipline. For to all those who are set as watchmen in the
church, the Lord announces that if anyone perishes in his ignorance through
their negligence, he will require his blood from their own hands (Eze 3:17f.).
What Paul says about himself also refers to all of them: "Woe to me if I do not
preach the gospel, when I am commanded to preach it!" (1Cor 9:16 s.; verse 17 not
Luther text). In short, what the apostles did to the whole world, let each
individual shepherd (pastor) do to his flock to which he is assigned!
IV,3,7 If we assign to the individual shepherds (pastors)
their particular churches, we do not deny in the meantime that he who is bound
to one church can also give assistance to other churches, be it that some
confusion occurs which requires his presence, or be it that one asks for his
advice in some dark question. But for the preservation of the peace of the
church, it is necessary that each one should be clearly told what he has to do:
not all should rush about together restlessly, running to and fro uncertainly
without a vocation, nor should all flock together in one place on the off
chance, nor should those who are more concerned about their welfare than about
the edification of the church abandon the churches after their pleasure!
Therefore, as far as possible, the division must be generally adhered to, that
each one should be content with his borders and not break into another’s
territory. This is also not a sin of man, but God Himself has arranged it this
way. For we read that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in the individual
churches of Lystra, Antioch and Iconium (Acts 14:22f.), and Paul himself
instructs Titus to "fill the cities back and forth with elders" (Titus 1:5). So
he also mentions elsewhere the bishops of the Philippians (Phil 1:1) and again
in another place Archippus, the bishop of the Colossians (Col 4:17). We also
find a glorious speech of his in Luke, which he addressed to the elders of the
church at Ephesus (Acts 20:18 ss.). So whoever has taken the leadership of an
individual church and the care for it into his own hands should know that he is
bound by this law of divine calling. This does not mean that he would be, as it
were, "bound to the sheol"-as the jurists say-that is, that he would have to be
a serf, or that he would be virtually chained and could not move a foot from the
spot if the public benefit should (also) require it-as long as the (latter) is
done only according to rule and order. No, he who is called to a certain place
must not himself think about his departure, nor should he seek his release from
service in such a way as he thinks it convenient for himself. And then: if it is
of use to one to be transferred to another place, yet he must not undertake it
by personal resolution, but must await the (arrangement by) public authority.
IV,3,8 8 That I have called the men who are to lead the
churches "bishops," "elders," "pastors," and "ministers" without distinction, I
have done so because of the language of Scripture, which mixes these expressions
together; for it grants the title "bishop" to all who exercise the ministry of
the Word. For example, Paul has just instructed Titus to appoint elders in the
cities (Titus 1:5) and then continues: "For a bishop must be blameless…"
(Titus 1:7). (Titus 1:7). So he also greets several bishops in one church in
another place (Phil 1:1). And in the Acts of the Apostles it is reported that
he called the "elders" of Ephesus together (Acts 20:17), whom he himself calls
"bishops" in his speech (Acts 20:28)! But here it is to be noted that so far we
have listed only those official duties which consist in the service of the Word;
Paul did not mention others in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the
Ephesians, which we quoted. In the letter to the Romans (Rom 12,7f.) and in the
first letter to the Corinthians (1Cor 12,28), on the other hand, he lists
others, e.g. power teachings (in miracles), the gift to make well,
interpretation, leadership and the care for the poor. Among these, I pass over
those that have been merely of temporal importance; for there is no need for us
to dwell on them. But there are two which remain perpetual, namely the direction
and the care of the poor. The "governors" (1Cor 12:28) were, in my opinion,
elders who were chosen from the people to oversee the way of life and to
exercise discipline together with the bishops. For when Paul says: "If anyone
governs, let him be careful" (Rom 12,8), it cannot be interpreted differently
(than in the above sense). From the beginning, each individual church had its
own council of elders (senatus), which was staffed with pious, serious and holy
men; this council also had the judicial power to correct vices (i.e. "moral
discipline"), which we will discuss later. But that the order of this kind did
not belong to only one century, experience itself shows. Consequently, this
office of leadership is also necessary for all times.
IV,3,9 The care for the poor was given to the "deacons".
However, in the Epistle to the Romans two kinds of deacons appear; Paul says
there: "If anyone gives, let him give simply … If someone practices mercy, he
does it with pleasure" (Rom 12,8). Since Paul is undoubtedly speaking here of
the public offices of the church, there must have been two distinct ranks. If my
judgment does not deceive me, in the first member he refers to deacons who
administered the alms. In the second member he refers to deacons who were
dedicated to the care of the poor and sick; of this kind were the widows he
mentions in the letter to Timothy (1Tim 5:10). For women could hold no other
public office than when they devoted themselves to the service of the poor. If
we now make this our own – and we certainly should! there will be two kinds of
deacons (also in our country): one who serve the Church by administering the
affairs of the poor, the other by caring for the poor themselves. Now, although
the term "deaconry" has a very broad meaning, yet the Scriptures designate as
"deacons" in a special way such people as the church appoints as overseers in
the distribution of the alms and the care of the poor, appointing them, as it
were, as stewards of the public poor. The origin, induction and official duties
of these deacons are described by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 6:3).
When "a murmur arose among the Greeks" because their widows were "overlooked" in
the ministry to the poor, the apostles apologized that they could not do justice
to the double office of preaching the word and ministering at table, and they
asked the crowd to choose seven righteous men to whom they could entrust this
ministry (Acts 6:1 ss.). There we see what kind of deacons the apostolic church
had and what kind we should also have after their example.
IV,3,10 Although in the holy assembly everything should be
done "honorably and orderly" (1Cor 14,40), this must be more carefully
observed in nothing than in the appointment of the (church) leadership; for
nowhere is there greater danger if something comes about disorderly. Now,
therefore, lest disorderly and rebellious men should intrude without cause to
teach or govern-which would otherwise be done-it is expressly forbidden that any
man should usurp a public office in the church without a calling. Therefore, if
someone wants to be considered a true servant of the Church, he must first be
legally called (rite vocatus), but furthermore he must also correspond to his
calling, that is: he must take up and carry out the tasks assigned to him. This
can often be observed in Paul: when he wants to prove his apostleship, he almost
always cites his calling in addition to his faithfulness in the exercise of his
office. If such an eminent servant of Christ dares to arrogate to himself the
authority of being heard in the church only because he is appointed to it by the
Lord’s commission, and if he now faithfully carries out what he is charged to
do, what shamelessness it is for any mortal, who lacks both or either of these,
to demand such an honor for himself! But since we have already briefly spoken
above about the necessity of taking upon oneself the (charged) office, we will
now only make a discussion about the calling.
IV,3,11 The treatment of the calling has now to deal with
four questions; we must know (1.) what kind of people are to be appointed
ministers (of the church), (2.) in what way this must be done, (3.) who is to
perform the appointment, and (4.) according to what custom and with what
ceremony the initiation is to take place. I am speaking here of the external and
solemn vocation, which has to do with the public order of the church; that
hidden vocation, on the other hand, of which every minister is conscious before
God, but of which he has not the church to witness, I pass over. This hidden
vocation is the good testimony of our hearts that we accept the office offered
to us neither out of ambition, nor out of covetousness, nor out of any other
desire, but out of sincere fear of God and out of zeal for the edification of
the Church. This, as I said, is necessary for each one of us if we want our
service to be pleasing to God. In the sight of the Church, however, even those
who have approached their office with a bad conscience are legitimately called,
as long as their wickedness has not been openly revealed. It is also customary
to say of unofficial people that they are called to the ministry, namely, when
it is seen that they are suitable and capable of holding this office, and this
because education, when combined with piety and the other gifts of a good
shepherd (pastor), is a certain preparation for the ministry. For those whom the
Lord has appointed to so great a task, He first equips with the weapons
necessary to fulfill it, so that they do not come empty and unprepared.
Therefore, in the (first) letter to the Corinthians, when Paul wanted to speak
of the official duties themselves, he also first enumerated the gifts with which
those who exercise such official duties must be equipped (1Cor 12:7-11). But
since this is already the first of the four main pieces I have set up above, let
us now go on to talk about them.
IV,3,12 What kind of people should be chosen as bishops is
thoroughly explained by Paul in two places (Tit 1:7 f.; 1Tim 3:1-7). The main
thing is this: only those should be chosen who are of sound doctrine and holy
living, and in whom no infirmity is recognizable that could rob them of
authority and bring disgrace to the office. The situation is similar with
deacons and elders (1Tim 3:8-13). One must always see to it that they are not
incapable or unsuited to carry the burden that is placed upon them, that is,
that they are equipped with the abilities that will be necessary to fill their
office. So too, when Christ sent out the apostles, He equipped them with the
weapons and tools they could not do without (Lk 21:15; 24:49; Mark 16:15-18;
Acts 1:8). And after Paul has drawn the picture of a good and true bishop, he
admonishes Timothy not to choose anyone as bishop who does not correspond to
this picture, and not to stain himself with it (1Tim 5:22). The second question
was in which way the servants of the church should be appointed. Now I do not
refer this to the procedure of election, but to the godly seriousness that is to
be maintained. This is the reason for the fasting and praying that Luke reports
the believers practiced when they appointed elders (Acts 14:23). For they saw
thatthey were doing a work of the utmost seriousness, and therefore they dared
to undertake anything only with the deepest reverence and care, but above all
they practiced fervent prayer to implore the spirit of counsel and discernment
from God.
IV,3,13 The third question in the division established
above was by whom the ministers of the church should be chosen. Now for this no
certain rule can be gathered from the appointment of the apostles; for this had
a character essentially different from the ordinary appointment of the rest. For
it was, after all, an extraordinary office, and therefore its bearers had to be
called and appointed by the mouth of the Lord Himself, so that this office might
be made visible by a particularly glorious mark. The apostles were therefore not
equipped with any human election, but only with the commission of God and
Christ, when they started their work. Therefore, when the apostles wanted to
appoint another apostle in the place of Judas, they did not dare to appoint a
single apostle, but put two apostles in their midst, so that the Lord would
announce by lot which of them should take his place according to his will (Acts
1:23-26). In this sense it must also be understood that Paul declares that he
was appointed as an apostle "not by men, nor through men", but by Christ and by
God the Father (Gal 1,1.12). The first namely: "not of men" – this Paul had in
common with all pious ministers of the word. For no one has ever been able to
exercise this ministry properly without being called to it by God. The second,
on the other hand, was unique and special to the apostle. So when he boasts of
this, he not only claims to possess what a true and rightful shepherd (of the
church) must have, but he also exhibits the marks of his apostleship. For indeed
there were those among the Galatians who endeavored to diminish his authority,
and therefore declared him to be an ordinary disciple, whom the original
apostles had added. Now, in order to preserve unabridged the dignity due to his
preaching, against which, according to his knowledge, those reproaches were
directed, he thought it necessary to show that he was in no way inferior to the
other apostles in any respect. Therefore he asserts that he was not chosen, like
an ordinary bishop, by the judgment of men, but by the mouth and the clear
revelatory word of the Lord Himself.
IV,3,14 But that it is quite according to the order of a
lawful calling when bishops are appointed by men, no reasonable man will deny;
for there are many testimonies of Scripture in this matter. This is not
contradicted by the testimony of Paul, according to which he was sent "not by
men, nor through men" (Gal 1:1); for he does not speak in this passage of the
ordinary election of the servants (of the church), but ascribes to himself that
which was especially due to the apostles. Admittedly: although the Lord
appointed Paul by himself by virtue of a special prerogative, he also held it so
with him that he at the same time made use of the order of ecclesiastical
calling. For Luke reports: "While the apostles were fasting and praying, the
Holy Spirit said, ’Set apart for me Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I
have called them’" (Acts 13:2; inaccurate). What was the purpose of this
selection and laying on of hands, after the Holy Spirit had already testified to
his election? But only for the preservation of the ecclesiastical order, by
virtue of which the ministers (of the church) are determined by men! God could
not have confirmed such an order by a clearer proof than by letting Paul, of
whom he had already said that he had appointed him as an apostle to the
Gentiles, nevertheless also be chosen by the church. The same can be seen in the
election of Matthias (Acts 1:23). For since the office of an apostle was of such
high importance that they did not dare to include a single one in this rank
according to their judgment, they placed two in the midst, on one of whom the
lot was to fall. This was done so that in this way the election received a
noticeable testimony from heaven, but at the same time the order of the church
was not by any means ignored.
IV,3,15 Now the question is whether the minister is to be
elected by the whole church or merely by his fellow ministers and by the elders
who have to exercise discipline, or whether he can also be appointed by virtue
of the authority of an individual. Some actually transfer this right to a single
person and draw on Paul’s word to Titus: "For this reason I left you in Crete,
that you should … …to occupy the cities to and fro with elders…" (Titus
1:5). Or likewise the word to Timothy: "Do not lay hands on anyone too soon"
(1Tim 5:22). But those people are mistaken if they think that Timothy had a
governmental authority in Ephesus or Titus in Crete, so that both of them would
have determined everything according to their discretion. For their leadership
had only the purpose that they preceded the people with good and salutary
advice, but not that they alone, to the exclusion of all others, carried out
what they pleased. Now, in order not to give the impression that I am making
things up for myself here, I will make my explanation clear with a similar
example. Luke reports about Paul and Barnabas: "And they appointed them elders
in the churches back and forth" (Acts 14:23); but at the same time he also
describes the manner or the procedure, namely by saying that this was done by a
vote (cf. Urtext, Acts 14:23). Namely, he says, "With stretching out their hands
they elected…. elders for each church" (literally; omitted is: "to them"). It
was thus: Paul and Barnabas themselves elected two men, but the whole multitude,
as the Greeks were accustomed to do at elections, testified with uplifted hands
which (of the two) they wanted. The Roman historians express themselves not
rarely in such a way, the consul, who held a people’s assembly, "elected" new
officials, and they use this expression only for the one reason that he received
just the delivered votes and led the people with the election action. Now it is
certainly not credible that Paul would have granted Timothy and Titus more than
he himself took in rights. But we see that he was in the habit of electing the
bishops on the basis of the people’s vote. The above-mentioned passages are
therefore to be understood in such a way that they do not detract from the
general right and freedom of the Church. It is therefore very apt when Cyprian
asserts that it is to be derived from God’s authority that the priest be chosen
in the presence of the people before all eyes and confirmed as worthy and
suitable by public judgment and testimony (Letter 67). We also see that the
Levitical priests were ordained by the Lord in such a way that they were
presented to the people before their ordination (Lev S:4-6; Num 20:2s. 27).
Nor was the enrollment of Matthias in the ministerial fellowship of the
apostles, and likewise the election of the seven deacons, done otherwise than in
the presence and with the approval of the people (Acts ),15 ss.; b,2-7). "These
examples," says Cyprian, "show that the ordination of a priest is to be done
only with the participation of the people present, so that the ordination may be
right and lawful, because it has undergone a trial before the testimony of all"
(Letter 67). It follows, then, that according to God’s word lawful is the calling
of a minister where, on the basis of the unanimous opinion and approval of the
people, those are elected who have appeared to be suitable. However, other
pastors should be in charge of the election, so that the crowd does not sin by
recklessness, evil machinations or even by sedition.
IV,3,16 Now there remains the procedure at ordination, to
which we gave the last place in the (discussion of) calling. It is now certain
that the apostles, when they ordained someone to an office, used no other
ceremony than the laying on of hands. This (worship) custom, in my opinion, came
from the custom of the Hebrews: when they wanted something blessed or
consecrated, they presented it to God, as it were, by laying on of hands. Thus
Jacob laid his hands on the heads of Ephraim and Manasseh when he wanted to
bless them (Gen 48:14). Our Lord also followed this custom when he prayed over
the infants (Mt 19,15). In my opinion, it had the same meaning when the Jews
laid hands on their sacrifices based on the precept of the law. So the apostles
indicated by the laying on of hands that they offered the one whom they
instructed in his office to God for sacrifice. Of course, they also laid their
hands on those who received visible gifts of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:6). Be
that as it may, this was in any case the common custom when they appointed
someone to an ecclesiastical office. In this way they sanctified the pastors and
teachers, but also the deacons (to their office). Now, there is no clear
commandment concerning the laying on of hands, but we see that it was in
continual use with the apostles, and the fact that they held this custom so
thoroughly should be as much as a commandment to us. It is also certainly of use
that by such a sign, on the one hand, the dignity of the office is put to the
heart of the people, and on the other hand, the one who is to be ordained is
reminded that he is now no longer his own master, but given to serve God and the
church. Moreover, it will not be an empty sign either, if only it is restored to
its pure, original meaning. For since the Spirit of God has established nothing
in vain in the church, we will also experience from this ceremony, which has
nevertheless proceeded from him, that it does not remain without use, provided
only that it is not turned into a superstitious abuse. Finally, we must know
that it was not the whole crowd that laid hands on their servants, but only the
shepherds (of the church). However, it is uncertain whether the laying on of
hands was always done by several or not. It is certain, however, that it was
done in the case of the deacons, Paul and Barnabas, and a few others (Acts 6:6;
13:3). On the other hand, Paul mentions elsewhere that he laid hands on Timothy,
but not several others. He says, "For such a cause I remind thee, that thou stir
up the gift of God which is in thee by the laying on of my hands" (2Tim 1:6). For
what we read in the other epistle of the laying on of the hands of the
"presbytery" (1Tim 4,14), I do not understand it as if Paul is talking about
the fellowship of the elders (i.e. our "presbytery"), but I understand it as if
this expression means the ordination itself (as a process) (translation of the
passage: "by the laying on of hands, which belongs to the office of an elder");
so it is as if Paul said: Take care that the grace, which you received by the
laying on of hands, when I ordained you as an elder, is not without effect.
Of the State of the Early Church and of the Manner of Government
in Practice before the Papacy
IV,4,1 So far our discussion has been about the order of
church government as handed down to us from God’s pure Word, and about the
offices of service as instituted by Christ. Now, in order that all this may
become more clearly and familiarly visible to us, and may also better settle in
our hearts, it will be of use to consider more closely in these matters the
figure of the early Church, which will, as it were, set before us a picture of
the divine institution. To be sure, the bishops of those times let go forth many
church statutes in which they seem to have expressed more than was done in the
Scriptures. But they nevertheless arranged their whole manner of government with
such care according to that single guide of the Word of God that it is easy to
see how they had almost nothing in this respect that was foreign to God’s Word.
But even if there might still be something to be desired in their institutions,
they have nevertheless made a sincere effort to preserve God’s institution, and
they have not strayed much from it; therefore, it will be very beneficial here
to briefly go over what kind of order this was, then, that they have so
scrupulously observed. Now, as we have stated above that we are commanded in
Scripture to have three kinds of ministers (of the church), so also the early
church divided all that it possessed of ministers into three orders. Namely,
from the order of presbyters ("priests") were chosen partly (1.) the pastors and
teachers; the remaining part had (2.) the leadership in the supervision of the
way of life and in the exercise of discipline; (3.) to the deacons was entrusted
the care of the poor and the distribution of alms. The terms "lector" and
"acolyte," however, did not refer to specific official duties. Rather, the
people who were called "clerics" were accustomed to the service of the church
from their youth through certain exercises, so that they would better recognize
what they were destined to do and so that in due time they could approach their
official duties all the more thoroughly prepared. I will soon explain this in
more detail. Accordingly, Jerome, after asserting the existence of five orders
in the Church, enumerates the following: Bishops, Presbyters ("priests"),
Deacons, Faithful, and Catechumens; to the rest of the "clergy" and the monks he
assigns no place of their own (On Isaiah 19:13)
IV,4,2 So all those to whom the teaching office was
entrusted were called presbyters ("priests"). These now chose one from their
number in each city, to whom they especially gave the title "bishop". This was
done so that no discord would arise from the equality (in rank), as usually
happens. But the bishop did not have such a primacy of honor and dignity that he
would have exercised dominion over his fellow bishops. Rather, in the assembly
of presbyters, he held an office corresponding to the duties of the leader
(consul) in the council (senatus): as is well known, he should report on the
business, ask the opinion of the others, precede them with advice, exhortation
and encouragement, lead the whole negotiation with his authority and finally
carry out what is decided in the common council. Also, the ancients themselves
admit that this arrangement was introduced by human agreement according to the
requirements of the time. Thus Jerome, in his interpretation of the Epistle to
Titus, says: "There is no difference between presbyter and bishop; and before
discord arose in religion at the instigation of the devil, so that it was said
among the people, ’I am Pauline,’ or, ’I am Cephian’ (1Cor 1:12), the churches
were governed by common consultation of the presbyters" (On chap. 1). "Later, in
order to root out all the germs of disunity, all concern was transferred to one.
As, then, the presbyters know that, according to the custom of the church, they
are subject to him who is in charge, so also the bishops must know that their
preeminence over the presbyters, and their obligation to govern the church with
them, arise more from custom than from the truth of the Lord’s arrangement."
(Ibid.). Elsewhere, however, he nevertheless states that this arrangement was
already ancestral; for he says that in Alexandria, from the evangelist Mark
onward until Heracles and Dionysius, the presbyters always chose one from among
themselves and gave him a higher rank, and this one they called "bishop" (Letter
146, to Euangelus and Euagrius, respectively). Thus, each individual city had a
college of presbyters who were "shepherds" and "teachers." For they all
exercised on the people the office of teaching, exhortation, and discipline that
Paul enjoins on bishops (Tit 1:9), and, so that they might leave seed, they
also took pains to educate the younger ones who had devoted themselves to holy
warfare. Each individual city was now assigned a certain territory, which took
from it its presbyters and was, as it were, counted among the body of that
church. The individual colleges were, as has been said, subordinated to a single
bishop for the preservation of order and peace; this bishop had, indeed,
precedence over the others in dignity, but still in such a way that he was
subject to the assembly of the brethren. If the territory under his bishopric
was too large for him to fulfill all the professional duties of a bishop
everywhere, presbyters were appointed over this territory in certain places, who
were to represent the bishop in less important business. These were called
"country bishops" (Chorepiscopi), because they represented the bishop for that
area.
IV,4,3 As for the official duty of which we now speak, the
bishop as well as the presbyters had to be responsible for the distribution of
the word and the sacraments. For only in Alexandria, as Socrates tells us in the
ninth book of the "Historia tripartita", was there a regulation that the
presbyter was not allowed to preach to the people; there Arius had brought the
church into confusion. Nevertheless, Jerome does not hide that he dislikes this
measure (Letter 52). In any case, it would have been considered something
monstrous if someone had pretended to be a bishop without also proving himself
to be a true bishop by deed. Thus, in those times there was such a strictness
that all servants of the Church were required to fulfill their official duties
as the Lord demanded of them. Nor am I reporting here the custom of a single age
alone; for not even at the time of (Pope) Gregory (I), when the Church had
already almost decayed or at any rate had substantially degenerated from its
former purity, would it have been tolerable for a bishop to abstain from
preaching. He himself says in one place: "A priest dies if no sound is heard
from him; for he provokes the wrath of the hidden judge against himself if he
goes along without the sound of preaching" (Letter 24). And elsewhere he says:
"When Paul testifies that he is ’pure from all blood’ (Acts 20:26), in this word
we are convicted, we are bound and declared guilty, who are called priests, who,
in addition to the evils we have for ourselves, inflict the death of others; for
we murder as many men as we see day by day lukewarm and silent wandering to
death" (Homilies on Ezekiel, XI:10). "Silent" he calls himself and others
because they would be less zealous at work than it should be. If he does not
spare even those who only half-fulfilled their official duty, what would he have
done if someone omitted it altogether? For a long time, then, it was held in the
Church that the first duty of the bishop was to nourish the people with the word
of God and to edify the Church publicly and in particular with sound doctrine.
IV,4,4 But that each province had an archbishop among its
bishops, that likewise at the Synod of Nicaea patriarchs were appointed who were
to be superior to the archbishops in rank and dignity, this served to maintain
discipline. However, in this discussion one cannot ignore the fact that this
regulation was very rarely applied. Those ranks were established mainly for the
following reason: if in any church something occurred which could not well be
put in order by a few, it should be possible to bring it before the provincial
synod; if the extent or difficulty of the matter required even further
negotiation, the patriarchs were consulted in communion with the synods, from
which then only an appeal to a general council was possible. The mode of
government thus regulated has been called by some a "hierarchy": this, in my
opinion, is an inappropriate name, at any rate unaccustomed to Scripture. For
the Holy Spirit has wished to prevent anyone, when it comes to the government of
the Church, from dreaming up a supremacy or a dominion. But if we leave out the
name and look at the matter alone, we will find that the bishops of the early
church did not want to conceive of a form of church government that would have
been different from the one that God prescribed in His Word.
IV,4,5 Also the deacons were not different from the
apostles. They took the daily offerings of the faithful and the annual income of
the church in order to put them to proper use, that is, to distribute them
partly for the entertainment of the servants and partly for the maintenance of
the poor. This was done, however, at the discretion of the bishop, to whom they
also gave an account of their administration every year. The ecclesiastical
legal statutes everywhere declare the bishop to be the distributor of all the
goods of the church. But this is not to be understood as if he himself had taken
care of it. It is rather expressed in this way, because it was his task to
prescribe to the deacon who should be included in the public maintenance by the
church, further: to whom what was left should be given, and how much each one
should receive of it, – and because he had the supervision whether the deacon
faithfully carried out what his official duty required. For in the legal
statutes (canones) attributed to the apostles we read: "We command that the
bishop have the property of the church in his power. For if the souls of men are
entrusted to him, which are more precious (than property), it is even more
proper that he take care of the funds. Therefore, by his authority, everything
should be distributed to the poor through the presbyters and deacons, so that it
may be administered with fear and all diligence" (Canones Apostolici 40). And at
the Council of Antioch (341) it was decided that the bishops who administered
the property of the Church without the knowledge of the presbyters and deacons
were to be rejected within its limits (ch. 25). But a lengthy discussion of this
point is unnecessary, since it appears with certainty from a great many of
Gregory’s letters that even at that time, when ecclesiastical orders were
otherwise already abundantly corrupted, the thoroughly observed custom continued
that the deacons, under the direction of the bishop, were the stewards for the
poor. The subdeacons were probably originally attached to the deacons so that
the latter should have their help in ministering to the poor. But this
distinction gradually became blurred. Archdeacons, however, began to be
appointed when the extent of the property required a new and more thorough type
of administration. However, Jerome mentions that this had already happened in
his time (Letter 146 to Euangelus or Euagrius). With the archdeacons now lay the
supreme administration of the revenues, the property, the house furnishings and
the daily offerings. Therefore, Gregory announced to the archdeacon of Salona
that he himself would be held responsible if any of the goods of the church were
lost through negligence or through someone’s fraud (Letter I,10). But the fact
that they were entrusted with the reading of the Gospel before the people and
the exhortation to prayer, and that they were also called upon to offer the cup
at the celebration of Holy Communion, was done in order to adorn their office,
so that they would observe it with all the greater reverence: they were reminded
precisely by such marks that their activity did not represent any kind of
worldly administration, but a spiritual task of office sanctified to God.
IV,4,6 From this we can also judge what use was made of the
ecclesiastical goods and how they were distributed. Again and again, in the
decisions of the synods, as well as in the ancient writers, one will find
(advocating the principle) that all that the Church had in possession of land or
money was the property of the poor. Therefore, in those documents, the bishops
and deacons are sung the song that they should remember that they do not
administer their own property, but that which is destined for the needs of the
poor, and if they now let it disappear in infidelity or squander it, they would
incur a blood debt, from which they are then admonished to distribute this
property with great trembling and utmost reverence, as it were before the face
of God, without regard to the person, to those to whom it belongs. This is also
the origin of the serious affirmations of Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine and
other bishops of their kind, with which they assure their integrity before the
people. But since it is right and proper and also decreed by the law of the Lord
that those who consecrate their service to the church should also be maintained
from the public funds of the church, and since at that time there were also some
presbyters who had consecrated their property to God and had thus voluntarily
become poor, the distribution was done in such a way that the servants did not
lack sustenance, but at the same time the poor were not neglected. Nevertheless,
care was taken that the servants themselves, who were supposed to be a model of
frugality for others, did not have so much that they could abuse their income
for opulence and pleasure; rather, they were to receive only so much that they
could satisfy their needs. "For the clergy who can subsist on their parental
wealth," says Jerome, "when they accept what is due to the poor, they commit a
desecration of the sanctuary, and by such abuse eat and drink judgment to
themselves" (From the Decretum Gratiani II,1,2,6).
IV,4,7 Originally the administration (of the church
property) was free and voluntary, since the bishops and deacons were faithful by
themselves and since for them the integrity of their conscience and the
innocence of their life stood in the place of the laws. Afterwards, however,
when the covetousness and evil deeds of certain people became a bad example,
legal statutes were established in order to put an end to such vices. These
divided the income of the church into four parts, one part was allocated to the
clergy, the second to the poor, the third was used to maintain the sacred
buildings and other structures in good condition, and the fourth was earmarked
for the non-local as well as the local poor. Admittedly, other legal statutes
assign this last part to the bishop; but this does not bring about any change
with respect to the division set forth. For the intention is not that this
property should belong to the bishop himself, so that he could devour it himself
or squander it as he sees fit, but that it should serve to enable him to fulfill
the (duty of) hospitality that Paul demands of a bishop (1Tim 3:2). This is
also the interpretation of Gelasius and Gregory; for in answer to the question
why a bishop may claim something for himself, Gelasius gives no other reason
than that: he must be put in a position to give something to the prisoners and
strangers (Decretum Gratiani II,16,3,2). Gregory speaks even more clearly; he
says: "The apostolic see has the custom to instruct the appointed bishop that
all incoming funds should be divided into four parts; namely, the first part
should go to the bishop and his household, so that he can be hospitable and
provide shelter, the second part should be for the clergy, the third for the
poor, and the fourth for the repair of the churches" (Decretum Gratiani
II,12,2,30). Thus, the bishop was not allowed to take anything for his own use
except what was sufficient for moderate and simple food and clothing. If someone
began to waste, whether by opulence or by pomp and splendor, he was immediately
rebuked by his peers, and if he disobeyed, he was declared to have lost his
position of honor.
IV,4,8 But what they continued to spend on the decoration
of the sanctuaries was very little in the beginning. When the church became a
little richer, they kept the moderate simplicity in this respect. However, all
the money they spent on this remained unabatedly for the poor when a greater
need arose. Cyril, for example, did the same: when the area of Jerusalem was
struck by a famine and the lack could not be remedied in any other way, he sold
the vessels and vestments and used the proceeds to feed the poor (Historia
tripartita V,37). Similarly, when a large crowd of Persians almost died of
hunger, the bishop Akatius of Amida did the same: he called the clergy together,
made an excellent address to them: "Our God has no need of bowls or cups, for he
neither eats nor drinks" – and then he had the vessels melted down to provide
food and ransom for the poor (Historia tripartita XI,16). Also, Jerome, in a
chastisement against the excessive splendor of church buildings, mentions with
honor Bishop Exuperius of Tolosa, who carried the Lord’s body in a woven basket
and the Lord’s blood in a jar, but did not let a single poor person go hungry
(Letter 125). What I just said about Acatius, Ambrose reports about himself;
when the Arians accused him of having broken the sacred vessels for the ransom
of prisoners, he excused himself with the following excellent words: "He who
sent the apostles without gold, he also gathered the church without gold. The
Church does have gold, but not to store it, but to distribute it and to come to
the aid of people in their needs. What is the point of keeping what is of no use
to anyone? Do we not know how much gold and silver the Assyrians took from the
temple of the Lord? If other help is lacking, is it not better for the priest to
melt it down for the sustenance of the poor than for an enemy who desecrates the
sanctuary to take it away? Will not the Lord say, ’Why did you allow so many
poor to die of hunger, when you had gold from which you could have provided
food?’ Why have so many captives been led away and not ransomed? Why were so
many killed by the enemy? It would have been better if you had received the
vessels of living men than those of metal!’ To these questions you will not be
able to give an answer; for what were you going to say? Are you going to answer:
’I was afraid that the temple of God would lack ornaments’? He would answer you:
’The sacraments do not demand gold, and what is not bought with gold is not made
pleasing by gold. The ornament of the sacraments is the ransom of the
captives!’" (Of the Official Duties of Servants II,28,137f.) In short, we see
that it was very correct for the same Ambrose to say elsewhere that all that the
Church then possessed was for the support of the poor, or likewise to declare
that a bishop possessed nothing that did not belong to the poor (Letter 18,16;
20).
IV,4,9 Those which we have enumerated were the offices of
the early Church. For the others mentioned by the ecclesiastical writers were
exercises and preparations rather than definite offices. For those holy men
wished to leave a little garden for the church, and for this purpose they took
into their loyalty and care, and also into their discipline, young men who, with
the consent and approval of their parents, had devoted themselves to the
spiritual service of war, and these they now trained from a tender age in such a
way that they did not once approach their ministry untrained and as novices. All
now who enjoyed such initial instruction were called "clergy" with a general
designation. I wish, of course, that they had been given another, more
appropriate name. For this designation arose from error or, in any case, from
wrong thinking; Peter, in fact, calls the whole church the "clergy," that is,
the "inheritance" of the Lord (1 Pet. 5:3; basic text). The institution itself,
on the other hand, was holy and extremely beneficial, since it consisted in the
fact that those who wanted to consecrate themselves and their service to the
church were educated under the care of the bishop in such a way that only those
entered the service of the church who were well educated, had absorbed the holy
teachings since early youth, had acquired a certain attitude of seriousness and
a holy way of life on the basis of quite strict discipline, knew no worldly
worries and were accustomed to spiritual worries and efforts. Now, just as
prospective men of war are trained for true, serious combat by means of practice
battles, so there were certain initial grounds in which those young men were
exercised at the time of their clerical life, before they were promoted to the
actual offices. Thus, at first, these men were charged with the care of opening
and closing the church buildings and were called "doorkeepers" (ostialii).
Afterwards they were called "acolytes": they were to assist the bishop with
domestic services and to accompany him constantly, first of all for the sake of
honor, but secondly also to prevent any suspicion. They were also given the
opportunity to read from the pulpit (as "lectors"). This was done so that they
would gradually become known to the people and acquire a good reputation, and
also so that they would learn to bear the sight of all the people and to speak
in the presence of all: they were not to become embarrassed when they became
presbyters and stepped forward to exercise their teaching ministry. In this way
they were promoted from step to step, proving their diligence in every single
exercise, until (finally) they became "subdeacons". I only want to show that we
are dealing here more with beginner exercises of neophytes than with the
exercise of ministries that would be counted among the true offices of the
Church.
IV,4,10 I have explained above that in the calling of
ministers the first and second questions are about which people to choose as
ministers and what reverent seriousness to apply. In this respect, the early
church followed Paul’s rule and the example of the apostles. For it was
customary to meet for the election of shepherds (pastors) with the highest
reverence and with zealous invocation of the name of God. Moreover, they had a
fixed form of examination, according to which they inquired about the lifestyle
and doctrine of those who were to be chosen, according to that standard of Paul.
Only here they sinned quite a lot by being unduly strict, namely by wanting to
demand more from a bishop than Paul does (1Tim 3:2-7); above all, they
demanded celibacy as time went on. But in the remaining points they kept it
according to Paul’s description. As for the question we mentioned in the third
place, namely: who should appoint the servants, the ancients did not always keep
the same order. In ancient times, not even among the "clergy" was anyone
admitted without the consent of the whole people. Thus Cyprian apologizes
emphatically for having appointed a certain Aurelius as a lector without
consulting the church; for this was against custom, though not without reason.
But his preface to this reads, "In the appointment of clerics, dear brethren, we
are wont to consult you beforehand, and in common deliberation to consider the
conduct of life and the merits of the individual" (Letter 38). But because there
was no great danger in those lesser exercises – since these people were accepted
for a long-lasting trial and not for an important official task – they ceased to
ask for the consent of the people for this.
IV,4,11 Later on, even in the case of the other ranks,
with the exception of the episcopate, the people consistently left the judgment
and the selection to the bishop and the presbyters: they were thus to decide
which people would be fit and worthy for it. It was different when the case
arose that new presbyters were appointed for the parishes; for then the
multitude in the place concerned had to expressly consent. Nor is it surprising
that in this respect the people attached less importance to upholding their
right. For no man was made a subdeacon who had not proved himself as a cleric,
and that under the rigor of discipline then existing, by a long-continued
probation. If he had proved himself at that rank, he was made a deacon, and from
there he attained to the honor of the presbyterate, if he had proved himself
faithful. Thus, no one was promoted who had not actually undergone his trial for
many years under the eyes of the people. Also, many legal statutes existed for
the punishment of their offenses, so that the church did not need to be burdened
with bad presbyters or deacons, if it did not neglect the available aids.
However, even in the case of presbyters, the consent of the citizens was always
required; this is also attested (in the Decretum Gratiani) Distinction 67, and
in Canon 1, attributed to Anaclet. Finally, all the investitures happened at
fixed times of the year, so that no one could sneak in secretly without the
consent of the faithful, or be promoted with even too much ease without
witnesses. In the election of bishops, the people’s freedom was preserved for a
long time: thus no one was to be imposed who was not agreeable to all. At the
Council of Antioch (341) it was therefore forbidden to impose anyone against the
will of the people. This is also emphatically confirmed by Leo I. Hence the
following statements: "Let him be chosen whom the clergy and the people, or (at
least) the majority, desire" (Letter 14:5). Likewise, "He who shall once preside
over all shall also be chosen by all. For if someone is appointed to preside who
is still unknown and untested, this necessarily means that he will be forced
upon the people" (Letter 10:6). Or likewise: "Let him be chosen who has been
chosen by the clergy and desired by the people, and let him then be consecrated
by the bishops of the province with the knowledge and will of the Metropolitan"
(Letter 167). The holy fathers were so careful that this freedom of the people
should not be abridged in any way that the general synod assembled at
Constantinople did not wish to carry out its intention of installing Nectarius
(as patriarch of Constantinople) without the consent of the whole clergy and
people, as it testified in its letter to the Roman synod. Therefore, if a bishop
appointed a successor for himself, it was valid only if the whole people decided
it. In Augustine we find not only an example of this, but also a fixed form of
procedure, namely in the appointment of Eraclius (Letter 110). Theodoret reports
that Athanasius had appointed Peter as his successor, but he immediately adds
that the priesthood had accepted this and that the authorities, including the
most distinguished and the entire people, had approved it by their declaration
of consent (Church History IV,20).
IV,4,12 However, I admit, there was also a very
well-founded reason for the decision of the Council of Laodicea, which forbade
to leave the election to the masses (ch. 13). For it hardly ever happens that so
many minds rightly arrange a matter in unanimous opinion, and throughout it
remains true what has been said: "The multitude is indefinite and divides itself
into conflicting aspirations" (Virgil). But against this danger a very effective
means was used. First of all, the clergy voted alone. Then they presented the
chosen one to the authorities or to the council and to the nobles. They
discussed the matter, and if the choice seemed right to them, they confirmed it;
if it did not seem right to them, they chose another man who suited them better.
Then the matter was submitted to the crowd, which was not bound to the decisions
made before, but could make less of an uproar. Or the first step was taken with
the crowd, but this was done only in order to find out whom they most desired;
then, after hearing the wishes of the people, the clerics finally carried out
the election. Thus, the clergy were not allowed to appoint whomever they wished,
nor were they bound, on the other hand, to comply with foolish wishes of the
people. Leo (I) establishes this order in one place. He says, "One must await
the wishes of the citizens, the testimonies of the people, the decision of the
officials, and the election of the clergy" (Letter 10:4). Similarly, he says,
"One should abide by the testimony of the officials, the consent of the clergy,
and the consent of the council and the people"; "there is no reason to proceed
otherwise" (Letter 10:6; 167). Even that decision of the Synod of Laodicea has
only the purpose that the clergy and the nobles should not be carried away by
the imprudent multitude, but on the contrary, when it is necessary, hold down
the foolish desires of the great mass with their wisdom and earnestness.
IV,4,13 This kind of election was still in force in
Gregory’s time, and it probably continued long after. There are very many
letters in Gregory that give clear testimony to this. In fact, whenever it is a
question of appointing a new bishop somewhere, Gregory used to write to the
clergy, to the council and to the people, sometimes also to the prince,
depending on how the government of the city in question was set up. And if, for
example, because of the disorderly state of the church, he asks a neighboring
bishop to supervise the election, he always demands a solemn decision, which
must be confirmed by the signatures of all (involved). This, too, can be read in
several letters. Thus a certain Constantinus had been appointed bishop of Milan;
but now, because of the invasions of foreign armies, many Milanese had fled to
Genoa: so even in this case Gregory considered the election lawful only if these
fugitives were also called together and declared their consent (Letter III,30).
Indeed, not even five hundred years have passed since Pope Nicholas (II)
established the procedure for the election of the Roman bishop (1059), that
first the cardinal bishops should go ahead, then they should take the rest of
the clergy to them, and finally the election should be put into effect by the
consent of the people. At the end, he then also lists the above-mentioned decree
of Leo (I) and gives the instruction that this should continue to be in force.
Even if the wickedness of the wicked has spread to such an extent that the
clergy are forced to leave the city in order to conduct a pure election,
Nicholas still gives the command that some people from the people should always
be present (Decretum Gratiani I,23,1). The consent of the emperor was, as far as
can be seen, required only in two churches, namely in Rome and Constantinople,
because these were the two residences of the empire. However, Ambrose was sent
to Milan with a warrant from the Emperor Valentinian to preside over the
election of a new bishop; but this was something extraordinary, and it was done
because of the serious factions into which the citizens had flared against each
other. In Rome, however, in ancient times the authority of the emperor in the
appointment of the bishop was of such importance that Gregory declares that he
was appointed to the leadership of that church by his command, when in fact he
had been requested by the people in solemn proceedings (Letter I,5). The custom
was as follows: when the nobles, the clergy and the people had appointed
someone, the former immediately reported to the emperor, so that he either
confirmed the election by his confirmation or made it null and void by his
rejection. This custom is not contradicted by the decrees collected by Gratian;
in them nothing is said other than that it must in no way be endured that the
king, suspending the canonical election, should appoint a bishop at his
pleasure; furthermore, it is decreed that the metropolitans must not consecrate
a bishop who had been appointed under violent exercise of power. For it is
different whether the Church is deprived of its right, so that everything is
left to the discretion of one man – or whether the king or the emperor is given
the honor of confirming the lawful election with his authority.
IV,4,14 Now we must go on to consider the (fourth)
question, according to what custom the ministers of the early Church were
ordained into office after their election. The Latin called this process
"ordination" or "blessing" (consecration), the Greek "cheirotonia" or sometimes
also "cheirothesia" ("raising of hands" or sometimes also "laying on of hands");
admittedly "raising of hands" (cheirotonia) means in the actual sense that
election procedure, in which the casting of votes is made recognizable by
raising of the hands. Now there is a decision of the Council of Nicaea,
according to which the metropolitan was to meet with all the bishops of the
province in order to ordain the one who had been elected. If, however, because
of the great distance or because of illness or some other emergency, some were
prevented from attending, at least three were to meet, and those who were absent
were to give their consent in writing. When this law fell into disuse, it was
subsequently renewed by many synods. The order that all, or at least those who
had no excuse, had to be present, had the purpose that a stricter examination of
the doctrine and the way of life of the one who was to be ordained was made. For
without such examination the ordination was not performed. It is also clear from
the words of Cyprian that these bishops were not summoned only after the
election, but that in ancient times they were usually present also at the
election itself, and this had the purpose that they acted, as it were, as
leaders, so that no confusion arose among the crowd. Cyprian, in fact, first
declares that the people have the authority to elect worthy priests and to
reject unworthy ones; but then, shortly after, he adds: "Therefore, as it is
done in our country and in almost all the provinces, it must be diligently
observed and maintained, on the basis of divine and apostolic tradition, that
for the proper execution of the ordinations the bishops of the province in
question all meet in the congregation for which the superior is ordained, and
that the bishop is elected in the presence of the people" (Letter 67). But since
the meeting of the bishops often took too long and there was a danger that some
people would abuse this delay as an opportunity to canvass for votes, it was
decided that it would be sufficient if the bishops came after the election was
completed and blessed the elected one after a lawful examination.
IV,4,15 Although this was done everywhere without
exception, a different custom gradually grew up, namely that the elected went to
the capital to seek ordination. Now this happened more out of ambition and
perversion of the old order than for any good reason. Not long after, when the
authority of the Roman See had already increased, a worse custom broke out,
namely, that the bishops of almost all Italy sought their blessing (ordination)
from Rome. This can be seen from the letters of Gregory. Only a few cities,
which could not be pushed back so easily, kept their old right. Thus, Gregory
mentions the example of Milan (Letters III,30). Possibly only the capitals (i.e.
the seats of the metropolitans) retained their prerogative. For the blessing
(ordination) of the archbishop, all the bishops of the province used to meet
precisely in the capital. By the way, the custom of ordination was the laying on
of hands. As far as I can read, no other ceremonies were used, except for the
fact that the bishops wore certain ornamental vestments during the solemn
assembly in order to be distinguished from the other presbyters. The presbyters
and deacons were also ordained by the laying on of hands alone. But each bishop
ordained his presbyters together with the college of (other) presbyters.
Although all (i.e. bishop and presbyters) did the same, the ordination was
called "by the bishop", because the bishop preceded and the act took place under
his guidance. Therefore, the ancients often said that the presbyter differed
from the bishop only in that he did not have the authority to ordain.
The old form of church government has been completely destroyed
by the tyranny of the papacy.
IV,5,1 Now it is necessary to examine the order of church
government as it is held today by the Roman See and all its satellites, and also
the whole picture of that hierarchy which they are always talking about, and to
compare it with the order of the original, old church described above. From this
comparison it should then become clear what kind of church it is that is held by
those people who arrogantly insist on this title alone in order to weigh us down
or rather to crush us with it. It is best if we start with the calling, so that
we can see which people are called to the ecclesiastical office, what kind of
people they are and how the calling is done. Then we will also look at the
faithfulness with which they fulfill their office. But we want to give the first
place to the bishops – oh, if it could bring them honor to be first in this
discussion! But the cause itself will not bear my touching this subject even
lightly, without the greatest dishonor to them. And yet I shall keep in mind
what kind of writing I am engaged in here, and I shall not let my expositions,
which are to serve the simple instruction, go beyond their limits. Nevertheless,
one of those who have not yet completely lost all shame should give me an answer
as to what kind of bishops are chosen everywhere nowadays. It is true that it
has become too difficult to examine doctrine. If doctrine is taken into
consideration in any way, then some legal scholar is chosen who knows better how
to conduct a dispute in court than to preach in church. It is certain that in
the last hundred years, among a hundred bishops, hardly one has been chosen who
knew anything about the sacred doctrine. I spare the preceding centuries not
because they were much better, but because I want to speak here only of the
church of the present. If an evaluation of the way of life is to occur, we will
find that there were only a few or almost none who would not have declared the
old legal statutes unworthy. He who was not a drunkard was a fornicator; he who
was also pure from this vice was a gambler or a hunter or otherwise without
discipline in some part of his life. The faults, in fact, which, on the basis of
the ancient legal statutes, exclude a man from the episcopate, are lighter (than
those just mentioned). But by far the most absurd thing is that boys of barely
ten years of age have been made bishops with the approval of the pope. One has
just reached such a degree of shamelessness and callousness that one does not
even shrink from that extreme and downright monstrous outrage, which is
completely repugnant even to natural sensibilities. From this it is clear what
kind of "God-fearing" elections these were, in which such a careless
carelessness was involved.
IV,5,2 Furthermore, in the election all the right of the
people, of which we spoke, has been abrogated. Wishes, grants, signatures and
all things of that nature have disappeared. All power has passed exclusively to
the canons. These confer the episcopate on whom they will; the one they appoint
they then indeed immediately bring before the face of the people – but not for
examination, but for worship! (Leo I), however, declares that such a procedure
is not permissible under any circumstances; he expressly says that (the bishop
is) violently imposed on the people! Cyprian testifies that it follows from
divine law that the election may only take place with the consent of the people,
and thus he shows that the opposite custom is in contradiction with the word of
God. So many synodal resolutions strictly forbid any other procedure, and if
something so forbidden is done, they command that it be invalid. If this is
true, there is not a single election left in the whole papacy today that would
be constitutional according to divine or ecclesiastical law. But how, even if
there were no other evil, will they be able to excuse the fact that they have
deprived the Church of its right in such a form? They say: Among the people and
the authorities, in the election of bishops, hatred and zeal carried more weight
than right and sound judgment, and so the corruption of the times required that
instead the decision in this matter should be entrusted to a few. – Let us admit
that this really would have been the utmost remedy against such an evil under
such miserable circumstances. But in the meantime it has come to light that the
medicine is more harmful than the disease itself – why is this new evil not
counteracted? – Yes, they answer, but the canons themselves are prescribed
exactly which rules they have to follow in their choice. – But do we maintain
that in ancient times the people might not have known that they were bound by
most sacred laws, when they saw that a rule was set for them from the word of
God when they met to elect a bishop? For that one word of God, in which he
describes the true image of a bishop, must surely have deservedly more weight
than uncounted thousands of ecclesiastical legal statutes. But nevertheless, the
people were corrupted by evil sentiments, so that they had no regard for right
and equity! It is the same today: although very good laws are written, they
remain buried in the books. In the meantime, it has been generally accepted by
custom, and approved as if it were for a just cause, that drunkards,
fornicators, and dice-players are everywhere promoted to such honor (that is, to
that of the episcopate), nay, I say too little, that the episcopal sees are
rewards for adultery and procuring. For if they are given (merely) to hunters
and fowlers, then one must (already) think that the thing has turned out
excellently! To excuse such unworthiness in any way is too impudent. The people
had, I said, in ancient times a very good guideline (to choose from); for the
word of God prescribed to them that a bishop should be "blameless", "doctrinal",
"not quarrelsome", etc. (1Tim 3:1-7). Why was the task of electing bishops taken
away from the people and given to the canons? Because (so they say) in the midst
of the turmoil and the factions of the people the word of God was no longer
heard. And why is this task not taken away from the canons today, who not only
violate all laws, but also throw away all shame, and in their licentiousness,
their greed for money and honor, mix and confuse the divine and the human?
IV,5,3 But it is a lie when they say that this (new)
procedure has been applied as a remedy. We do read that in ancient times the
cities were often in turmoil over the election of bishops, but still no one
dared to think that this right should be taken away from the citizens. For one
had other ways either to oppose such errors or, if they had already been
committed, to provide a remedy. But I will say how the matter stands. When the
people began to become more lax in the execution of the election and, as if it
were less their duty, entrusted this care to the presbyters, they abused the
opportunity to seize a tyrannical power, which they subsequently strengthened by
establishing new legal statutes. But ordination (among the papists) is nothing
but a pure mockery. The simulacrum of an examination which they display is so
empty and lacking in content that it even lacks any illusionary color. If,
therefore, in some places the princes have obtained from the Roman popes, by
treaty, the right to nominate bishops themselves, no new harm has thereby been
done to the Church, because the election has thus been taken away only from the
canons, who had robbed or at any rate stolen it without any right. If in such a
way the bishops are sent out by the (princely) court to take possession of the
churches, then this is certainly a very bad example, and pious princes would
have the duty to refrain from such a corrupt custom. For it is every time an
ungodly robbery of the church to impose on any people a bishop whom they have
not desired or at least confirmed with free expression of opinion. But, in fact,
that disorderly habit, which has existed for a long time in the churches, has
given the princes the opportunity to usurp the appointment of bishops. For they
preferred that this benefit should come from them rather than from those who had
no right to it and abused it no less evil.
IV,5,4 So this is the glorious vocation for which the
bishops boast that they are the successors of the apostles! But now they
continue to claim that the right to appoint presbyters belongs to them alone.
But they corrupt the old institution in the worst way, because with their
ordination they do not appoint presbyters to lead and shepherd the people, but
rather priests who are to sacrifice. Likewise: when they ordain deacons, they do
not attend to their true and proper official duty, but ordain them only to
certain ceremonies at the chalice and bowl. At the Synod of Chalcedon (451),
however, it was decided that no "absolute" ordinations should take place, that
is, none in which the ordained person was not at the same time assigned a place
in which to exercise his office (cf. Decretum Gratiani I,70,1). This decision is
of the greatest use in two respects. First, it serves to ensure that the
churches are not burdened with superfluous expenses and that money is not spent
on idle people that should be distributed to the poor. Secondly, it serves to
make those who are ordained remember that they are not promoted to an honor, but
are charged with an office, to the performance of which they commit themselves
by solemn testimony. The Roman masters, on the other hand, who think that in
religion one should provide for nothing but one’s belly, declare that by the
"title" (in the sense of the above decision) is to be understood an income
sufficient for subsistence, whether it be derived from parental patrimony or
from a priestly office. So when they ordain a deacon or a presbyter, they do not
worry about where they are to exercise their office, but confer their rank on
them, if they are only rich enough to support themselves. But what man will wish
to suppose that the "title" required by the decision of the Council means an
annual income for subsistence? Now, the more recent legal statutes, in order to
curb their even too great concession (in ordination), have condemned the bishops
to the maintenance of those whom they have ordained without a suitable "title".
But then, a precautionary measure was devised to avoid the punishment with their
help. The one who is ordained, after naming some "title", promises to be
satisfied with it. This agreement deprives him of the right to sue for
maintenance. I will not mention the thousands of frauds that occur in this
process. Thus, some people invent vain "titles" of priestly positions, from
which they cannot collect five heller a year. Others receive a benefice on the
basis of a secret agreement, and they promise to return it immediately, but
sometimes do not return it. Then there are other "secrets" of this kind.
IV,5,5 But even if these grosser abuses should be remedied
- does it not then still remain an absurdity to appoint a presbyter to whom one
does not assign a place (to exercise his ministry)? For the papists, in fact, do
not ordain anyone to any other service than sacrificing alone. The lawful
ordination of a presbyter, on the other hand, occurs when he is called to govern
a church, that of a deacon when he is called to administer alms. True, they
surround what they do with much ostentation, so that under such pretense it
enjoys veneration among plain people. But what value can such larvae have among
reasonable people, when there is nothing solid and true behind them? For they
use ceremonies, which they either fetch from Judaism or concoct out of
themselves – and from which one had better refrain! But of the true test (in the
doctrine) – for with that shadow which they maintain, I do not dwell – of the
consent of the people and of other necessary things there is no mention. A
"shadow" I call those ridiculous gestures, which are made after to imitate the
old time inappropriately and without content. The bishops have their vicars who
make an inquiry about doctrine before ordination. But what questions do they
ask? They inquire whether the aspirants can also read their Masses, whether they
can decline any common noun occurring in the reading, or conjugate any tense
word, or whether they know the meaning of a single expression – for it is not
necessary that they should know how to render the sense of even a single verse!
Nevertheless, even those who fail in these infantile beginnings are not
immediately excluded from the priesthood if they contribute only some
recommendation of money or favor. From the same flour is then baked the next:
when those who are to be ordained are placed before the altar, then one asks
three times with words that no one understands whether they are also worthy of
this honor; then there is one who never got to see them, but who, so that
nothing is lacking in the set form, has come over this role in the game – and
who answers: "You are worthy"! What other accusation can be brought against
these venerable fathers than this, that they play their game in such open
sacrilege, laughing at God and men without shame? But because they have already
been in the "possession" of this thing for a long time, they think that this is
now allowed to them. But if someone dares to open his mouth against such obvious
and terrible vices, he is immediately dragged by them before court, as if he had
committed a crime worthy of death – like the man who had once brought the holy
secrets of Ceres into the public! Would they do that if they thought there was a
God?
IV,5,6 Now what about the distribution of benefices, which
was once connected with ordination, but is now completely separated from it? How
much better do the papists conduct themselves in this? Now here exists with them
a manifold manner. For the bishops are not the only ones who confer priestly
positions, and even in the case of such positions, of which they are called
"collators" (occupants), they do not always have full right, but others (often)
have the right of appointment (praesentatio), but the bishops themselves retain
to their honor the title of occupant. In addition, there are the conferring of
benefices on the school bench, the "resignations", whether "simple" or also
those that take place on the basis of an exchange, plus the letters of
recommendation, the "preventions" (rights of anticipation) and whatnot. But the
participants all behave in such a way that none of them can reproach the other!
Thus I maintain: in the papacy today, among a hundred benefices, hardly one is
granted without simony, if we understand simony as the ancients defined it. I do
not say that they all buy their benefices with hard cash – but let them show me
even one out of twenty who would not come to the priesthood by any hidden
recommendation! Some attain their promotion by blood relationship or affinity,
others by the reputation of their parents, still others acquire favor by
willingness to serve. In short, the benefices are not given for the purpose of
providing for the churches, but rather to provide for the people who receive
them. That is why they are called "benefices" – a name which sufficiently
indicates that they are not valued differently from the donations of princes,
with which the latter acquire the favor of their men of war or also reward their
efforts. I am ignoring the fact that such "rewards" are also given to barbers,
cooks, muleteers and other people of the same ilk. Moreover, nowadays the courts
echo with almost no disputes more than with those that revolve around benefices
- one could almost say that benefices are nothing but a prey thrown to the
hounds for hunting! Isa it not intolerable to hear people called "shepherds" who
have broken into the possession of a church as if it were an enemy territory,
who have won this possession as spoils of victory by quarreling in court, or
bought it with money, or acquired it with dirty services, who, as boys barely
able to stammer, have grown into such possession as if it were an inherited
possession from their uncles or relatives, or sometimes even – if they are
bastards – from their fathers??
IV,5,7 Would the licentiousness of the people, however
depraved and lawless they may have been, ever have gone so far? But it is an
even greater monstrosity that a single man – I say nothing of what kind, but in
any case one who is not able to govern himself – is placed at the head of five
or six churches to "govern" them. One can see nowadays at the courts of princes
young men who are three times abbots, twice bishops and once archbishops.
Throughout, however, they are canons, burdened with five, six, seven benefices,
about which they are quite concerned only insofar as they take care to receive
income from them. I do not want to make the objection that God’s word objects to
this everywhere – because this has ceased to have even the slightest
significance with these people a long time ago. I also do not want to make the
objection that at many councils the most severe decrees have been issued against
this insolence – for they also despise it bravely, as often as it suits them.
But I say this: that a single robber should seize many churches at the same
time, and that a man should be called a "shepherd" who, even if he wants to,
cannot be with his flock – these are both monstrous infamies, utterly repugnant
to God, to nature, and to church government. And yet, in one’s shamelessness,
one conceals such repugnant abominations behind the name of the church in order
to escape any reproach. Yes, "if it please God," in these uselessnesses there
exists that most holy succession (of bishops) whose merit, as they boast, has
brought it about that the Church has not perished.
IV,5,8 Now let us observe with what fidelity they exercise
their office; for this is the second characteristic by which a legitimate pastor
is to be judged. Among the priests appointed by the papists, some are monks,
others are so-called secular priests. At the same time, the first bunch was
unknown to the early church. Also, the holding of such a position (namely the
priesthood) in the Church is in such contrast with the monastic profession that
people who were once admitted to the clergy from the monasteries ceased to be
monks. Yes, even Gregory (I), in whose times the Church already had a great deal
of impurity about it, nevertheless did not tolerate that such confusion
occurred. He wants people who have become abbots to renounce their status as
clerics, because no one can be a monk and a cleric at the same time, since one
is an obstacle to the other (Letter IV,11). If I now ask why one whom the
ecclesiastical legal statutes declare unfit can rightly fulfill his office –
what answer will they give me, I would like to know? They will, of course, quote
to me those untimely ordinances of Innocent and Boniface, according to which
monks are admitted to the dignity and authority of the priesthood and yet at the
same time remain in their monasteries. But what is the matter that some
unlearned ass, as soon as he has seized the Roman chair, throws the whole old
order over with a single word? But about that later. For now, let it suffice to
say that in the purer church it was considered a great absurdity for a monk to
exercise the priesthood. For Jerome declares that as long as he lives among the
monks, he does not perform the official duty of a priest; no, he considers
himself one of the people, governed by the priests. But if we let them get away
with this, the question remains what kind of official duty they actually
fulfill. Some of the mendicant monks preach. All the other monks sing and mumble
masses in their corners. As if it were according to the will of Christ, or as if
the nature of this office tolerated that they should be made presbyters
("priests") for this purpose! After all, Scripture openly and clearly testifies
that a presbyter has the task of governing his own church (Acts 20:28). Isa it
not then an ungodly profanation to take the holy foundation of God in another
direction, nay, to transform it fully? For when the monks are ordained, they are
expressly forbidden to do what God has imposed as a duty on all presbyters
("priests"). The little song is sung to them: A monk shall be content with his
monastery, and shall not presume to administer the sacraments, or to do anything
else which is the business of the public ministry. Now let them deny it, if they
can, that it is an open mockery of God to appoint one as presbyter for the
purpose of abstaining from his true and pure official duty, and if one who has
the name cannot have the (pertinent) thing!
IV,5,9 Now I come to the worldly priests. These are partly
benefactors, as they say; that is, they have priesthoods to live on. On the
other hand, they hire out their daily services for reading mass and singing, and
they live off the wages they earn. The benefices include in part pastoral care,
such as bishoprics and parishes; in part they are a salary for pampered people
who earn their bread by singing, such as praebends, canonships, personates,
dignities (certain canonships), chaplaincies, and the like. However, where
things above and below are already fully overturned, abbatial and priory
positions are also given not only to secular priests, but also – by "privilege,"
that is, according to general, customary usage – to boys. Now, as for the wage
priests, who day by day seek their sustenance – what should they do differently
from what they really do? What should they do otherwise than allow themselves to
be abused for filthy lucre in a manner unworthy of a free man and which is
shameful? Especially in the quantity in which nowadays the world is overflowing
with them! Because they do not dare to beg in public, or because they think that
they achieve too little in this way, they run around like hungry dogs and
squeeze something from the people who do not want it, by their impudent leering
and barking, in order to fill their meager bodies. If I tried to explain in
words what shame it brings to the church that the honor and the office of a
presbyter have degenerated so far, I would not find an end. The readers,
therefore, have no reason to expect from me a speech corresponding to such
shameful unworthiness. I will only say briefly: according to the precept of the
Word of God (1Cor 4:1) and also according to the requirements of the old
church statutes, the presbyter has the official duty of feeding the church and
administering Christ’s spiritual kingdom; but if it is so, then it is true of
all such Mass priests who find their work and wages merely in dealing in Masses,
that they not only neglect their official duty, but have no lawful office at all
to exercise. For they have no opportunity for instruction at all, nor do they
have a congregation to govern. In short, there is nothing left for them but the
altar to "sacrifice" Christ on – but, as we shall see elsewhere, this does not
mean offering sacrifices to God, but to the devils!
IV,5,10 I do not touch here the infirmities added from the
outside, but exclusively the inward damage, which adheres to their arrangement
of things from the root. I want to add a word that will sound bad in their ears,
but because it is true, it must be spoken: All canons, deans, chaplains,
provosts, and all those people who live on idle priestly offices are to be put
(with the above-mentioned Mass priests) in the same line! For what service can
they render to the Church? They have put off the preaching of the word, the care
for the ecclesiastical discipline and the administration of the sacraments as
too uncomfortable burdens! What, then, is left to them on the basis of which
they could boast that they are true presbyters? Of course, the singing and the
splendor of the ceremonies. But what has this to do with the matter? If they
plead habit, practice, and the compelling influence of long time, I refer, on
the other hand, to Christ’s provision (of the office), in which he has described
to us the true presbyters, and has thus shown what those must have who wish to
be regarded as such. Now if they are not able to bear such a hard law as to
submit to the rule of Christ, let them at least allow this matter to be settled
on the authority of the original church. But they will by no means be better off
if their condition is judged according to the old church statutes. The people
who (nowadays) have degenerated into canons should actually be presbyters, as
were once those who together with the bishop directed the church and were, as it
were, in the pastoral office his officemates. Those so-called "dignitaries in
the chapters" (dignitates capitulares) have nothing at all to do with the true
government of the Church, much less the chaplaincies and the other dregs of such
titles. For what, therefore, shall we hold them all together? In any case, the
Word of Christ, as well as the custom of the early Church, excludes them from
the honor of the presbyterate. Nevertheless, they claim to be presbyters. But
the mask must be torn from their faces; then we shall find that their whole
profession has purely nothing to do with, and is far removed from, that office
of presbyters which the apostles describe to us and which was required in the
original Church. All such ranks, then, by whatever titles they may be
distinguished, are new fiefs, which are in any case founded neither on God’s
foundation, nor on the order of the early Church, and therefore they must have
no place in the order of the spiritual regiment which the Church has received as
sanctified by the mouth of the Lord Himself. Or – if you prefer me to speak more
crudely and coarsely – since the chaplains, canons, deans, provosts, and such
like lazy bellies do not touch even with the smallest finger any bit of that
official duty which is necessarily required of presbyters, it is not to be
endured that they should falsely arrogate to themselves such honor and thereby
profane Christ’s holy foundation.
IV,5,11 Now there are left the bishops and the presbyters.
Oh, if only they would make an effort to stick to their official duty! For we
would gladly admit to them that they have a pious and glorious office – if only
they would exercise it! But when they abandon the churches entrusted to them,
shift the care of them to others, and still want to be taken for "shepherds,"
they act just as if the office of a shepherd consisted in doing nothing. If a
usurer, who would never have set foot outside the city, were to pass himself off
as a farmer or a vine dresser, or if a war servant, who lived continuously on
the battlefield or in the camp, but never got to see a court or books, were to
sell himself for a jurist – who would want to endure such nonsensical
uselessness? But these people do something much more absurd, in that they want
to appear and be called rightful shepherds of the church, and yet they do not
want to be (once). For how few there are among them, who even in appearance lead
the government of their church! Most of them consume all their lives the income
of churches which they never even visit for the purpose of overseeing. Others go
there once a year themselves or send their steward so that nothing of the rent
is lost. When this corruption first arose, those who wanted to enjoy this kind
of idleness still made themselves free by (special) privileges; but now it is a
rare example if someone lives in his church. For they see in the churches
nothing but country houses, the management of which they entrust to their vicars
like stewards or tenants. But this is also contrary even to the natural feeling
that one is the shepherd of a flock who has never seen a sheep from it.
IV,5,12 Already in the time of Gregory (I) there were
evidently certain germs of the evil that the rulers of the churches began to be
quite negligent in instruction; for in one place he makes a serious complaint
about this. "The world," he says, "is full of priests, and yet one seldom finds
a laborer in the harvest; for we do indeed assume the priestly office, but the
work which belongs to this office we do not direct" (Homilies on the Gospels
I,17,3). Likewise, "Because they do not have the lifeblood of love, they want to
be considered lords; but that they are fathers they do not recognize at all; the
place of lowliness they transform into the pride of lordship" (Ibid.). Or
likewise, "But we, shepherds, what do we do when we receive the reward but are
not workmen? … We have fallen into things that are none of our business. We
take on one thing, but we do another. We leave the ministry of preaching, and I
see that to our punishment we are called bishops, we who alone have the title of
honor, but not of virtue" (Ibid.). If Gregory uses such harsh words against
people who were merely less zealous and diligent in their office – what would he
say, I ask, if he saw that among the bishops almost none, or at any rate only
rarely one, among the rest hardly one in a hundred ever mounts a pulpit? For one
has become so out of one’s senses that it is generally considered a thing
beneath the dignity of a bishop for one to preach a sermon to the people. In the
time of Bernard (of Clairvaux) things had already fallen into much worse decay
(than in Gregory’s time); but we see also with what bitter reproaches he goes
off against the whole state; and yet it is to be supposed that it was not a
little better in order then than it is now.
IV,5,13 If someone considers and examines the whole form
of the church regime as it exists today under the papacy, he will find that
there is no den of robbers in which the robbers raged more arbitrarily without
law and measure. In any case, everything there is so dissimilar, even alien, to
the institution of Christ, they have so fallen away from the old institutions
and customs of the church, they live in such contradiction to nature and reason
that no greater dishonor can be done to Christ than by using his name as a
pretext for defending such disorderly regiment. We are – they say – the pillars
of the Church, the chiefs in religion, we are the representatives of Christ, the
heads of the faithful; for apostolic authority has come to us through the
succession (of bishops). They are always boasting about such uselessness – as if
they were speaking to blocks! But every time they insist on it, I ask them again
what they have in common with the apostles. For it is not a question here of a
hereditary dignity that could be conferred on one in his sleep, but of the
office of preaching, which they so much avoid. And similarly, when we declare
that their regiment is the tyranny of the Antichrist, they always object that it
is that venerable "hierarchy" so often praised by great and holy men. As if the
holy fathers, when they praised the ecclesiastical hierarchy or the spiritual
regiment, as it was handed down to them by the apostles, would have thought in a
dream of this deformed and desolate chaos, where the bishops are either mostly
uneducated donkeys, who do not even know the first and most known basic elements
of the faith, or even children just fresh from the wet nurse, where, if there
are some who are a little more learned – which is seldom the case – they
consider the episcopate to be nothing but a title of pomp and pageantry, where
the rulers of the churches think as little of feeding their flocks as the
cobbler thinks of tilling the soil, and where everything is so confused in a
more than Babylonian confusion that no intact trace of the institution of the
fathers appears.
IV,5,14 How does it look now, when we speak about the way
of life? Where is the "light of the world" that Christ demands, where is the
"salt of the earth" (Mt 5,14.13)? Where is that holiness which could serve
as a constant rule of life? No class among men is more notorious today for its
debauchery, its effeminacy, its pleasures, in short, every kind of lust; from no
class come more skillful and experienced masters of all kinds of falsehood,
deceit, treachery and disloyalty; nowhere is there so much impulsiveness and
audacity to do harm! I am still silent of the pomposity and the arrogance, the
rapacity and the wildness. I am silent about the unrestrained arbitrariness in
all aspects of life. The world is so tired of putting up with such things that I
need not fear to appear as if I were exaggerating something too much. I say only
one thing, which they themselves will not be able to deny: if one were to pass
judgment on their way of life on the basis of the old church statutes, there
would be almost not one bishop among the bishops, not one among the heads of the
parishes among a hundred, who would not have to be banished or at least deprived
of his office. It seems as if I were saying something unbelievable, so much has
the old discipline, which required a stricter examination of the conduct of the
clergy, fallen into disuse; but the circumstances are indeed like that! Now let
those who do war service under the banner and direction of the Roman See go
quietly and boast of the priesthood which is with them. In any case, the one
they have is obviously not from Christ, nor from his apostles, nor from the
fathers, nor from the early church.
IV,5,15 Now the deacons are to come forward, in addition
to that highly sacred distribution of the ecclesiastical goods which they
practice: However, they by no means employ their deacons for this purpose any
longer; for they charge them with nothing but that they perform altar service,
read and sing the Gospel, and do who knows what other antics. No mention of
alms, no mention of caring for the poor, no mention of the whole ministry they
once held! I am speaking here of the actual institution (of the office of
deacon); for if we look at what they perform, they have in fact no office, but
it is only a step to the dignity of presbyter. In one single item, those who act
as deacons at Mass display an empty semblance of the old institution: namely,
they receive the offerings before the consecration. The ancient custom was for
the faithful to kiss each other and offer their alms at the altar before the
communal enjoyment of Holy Communion; thus, first by that sign (the kiss) and
then by doing good themselves, they indicated their love. The deacon, who was
the administrator for the poor, received what was given in order to distribute
it. Nowadays, however, the poor do not benefit from those alms any more than if
they were (all) thrown into the sea. So with such lying "diaconate" one mocks
the Church. In any case, the papists have nothing in it that would have any
resemblance to the apostolic endowment or even to what the ancients observed.
But the distribution of the goods itself they have taken elsewhere and arranged
in such a way that nothing more irregular can be imagined. In fact, just as
robbers, after twisting men’s necks, distribute the booty among themselves, so
do they: after the light of God’s word has been extinguished and the church
strangled, as it were, they have come to think that everything consecrated to
sacred use is given up to robbery and plunder. Therefore, they distributed it,
and then everyone grabbed as much as he could.
IV,5,16 Here all those ancient principles we have set
forth are not only confused, but obliterated and nullified. The best part (from
the church goods) was distributed plunderingly among themselves by the bishops
and the city presbyters (city priests), who, having become rich through this
booty, were transformed into canons. The fact that the distribution was
nevertheless carried out in turmoil is evident from the fact that to this day
they are at odds with each other over the (mutual) boundaries. Be that as it
may, this agreement ensured that not a single penny of all the church’s goods
went to the poor, to whom at least half of them belonged. For the church
statutes expressly assign them the fourth part (of the church property), and
another fourth they assign to the bishops for the purpose of spending it on
hospitality and other duties of charity. I am silent as to what the clergy
should do with their portion and to what use they should put it; for I have
already sufficiently shown that even the remainder, which is appropriated for
churches, buildings, and other expenses, must be at the disposal of the poor in
time of need. I only ask: if these papists had even a single spark of godliness
in their hearts – would they be able to bear the consciousness that everything
they turn to for food and clothing comes from theft, even from temple robbery?
But since these people are not moved by God’s judgment, they should at least
consider that they are human beings, endowed with sensibility and reason, whom
they want to make believe that they have such glorious and well-ordered estates
in their church, as they boast. Let them answer me briefly whether diakonia is
really the arbitrary freedom to steal and rob. If they deny this, then they must
of necessity admit that they no longer have any diakonia; for with them the
whole administration of the church goods has obviously become a desecration of
the sanctuary!
IV,5,17 But here they apply a very fine cover: namely,
they say that through this display of splendor the dignity of the church is
maintained in a very proper way. They also have in their sect certain people who
are so impudent that they dare to openly boast that those prophecies with which
the old prophets describe the glory of Christ’s kingdom would only be fulfilled
by such royal splendor being visible in the priesthood. God, they say, promised
his church: "Kings will come and worship before you and bring you gifts" (Ps
72:10 s.; not Luther text), he promised: "Arise, arise, Zion! Put on your
strength, adorn yourself gloriously, Jerusalem! … They shall all come from
Sheba, bringing gold and incense, and shall declare the praises of the Lord. All
the flocks in Kedar shall be gathered to you …" (Isa 52:1; 60:6f.)! These
prophecies, they think, were not made in vain after all! If I now wanted to
refute this impudence in detail, I would have to fear that I might appear silly.
Therefore I have no desire to lose words without reason. But I do ask: if now
some Jew would abuse such testimonies, what explanation would they give him?
They would, of course, rebuke his obtuseness, because he would relate what is
said spiritually about Christ’s spiritual kingdom to the flesh and the world.
For we know that under the image of earthly things the prophets have marked out
for us God’s heavenly glory, which is to shine in the church. For of those
blessings which the words of the prophets express, the Church has never had less
abundance than under the apostles, and yet all men admit that at that time the
power of Christ’s kingdom was in its highest bloom! Now what is the meaning of
those statements of the prophets? But this: everything that is ever precious,
exalted and glorious must be subjected to the Lord. But what is expressly read
of the kings, namely that they will submit their power to Christ, throw their
crowns at his feet and consecrate their riches to the church – when shall this,
one will say (with me), have been more truly and completely fulfilled than when
Theodosius threw off the purple, left the imperial signs of power behind him and
submitted to solemn penance before God and the church like any man of the
people? When should it have been more completely fulfilled than when he himself
and other pious princes of his ilk turned their zeal and concern to the
preservation of pure doctrine in the church and to the support and protection of
right-minded teachers? How purely the priests of that time did not indulge in
superfluous possessions is sufficiently shown by a single word of the Synod of
Aquileia, which Ambrose presided over: "In the servants of the Lord poverty is
glorious. Certainly, at that time the bishops possessed some wealth, with the
help of which they could have given the Church a visible splendor, if they had
thought that such things were the true adornment of the Church. But since they
knew that nothing is more repugnant to the official duty of the pastors than to
display splendor and to be arrogant by the pleasures of the table, the splendor
of the vestments, the grandeur of the servants, and the magnificence of the
palaces, they took pains and paid homage to humility and modesty, yes, to
poverty itself, which Christ sanctified among his servants.
IV,5,18 But so as not to be too prolix, let us again
summarize in a brief sum how far the distribution or (rather) waste of church
goods practiced today is from true diakonia, as the Word of God lays it to our
hearts and as the early church also preserved it. What is spent on the adornment
of the church buildings is, I maintain, misapplied, unless the measure is kept
which the nature of the sanctuaries prescribes, and which also the apostles and
other holy fathers have set before us by instruction as by their own example.
But what do you get to see of it in the churches today? Everything that – I do
not say: according to that original simplicity, but – at all according to any
decent mediocrity, that is contemptuously pushed aside. In general, only that
which tastes of opulence and of the corruption of time is approved of. In the
meantime, one is so far from taking proper care of the living temples that one
would rather let many thousands of poor people perish from hunger than break
even the smallest cup or the smallest jug to remedy their lack. In order not to
say anything too harsh on my part, I only wish the pious reader would consider
the following: if the above-mentioned Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse, if Acatius,
if Ambrosius or any of their kind should rise from the dead today – what should
he say? These men would probably not approve of the fact that, in the case of
such need of the poor, the goods were given to another purpose, as if they were
superfluous (to their actual purpose)! I will still remain silent about the fact
that the kinds of use to which they are made to serve would be harmful in many
respects, but in no way beneficial, even if there were no poor. But I leave
aside the people. These goods, after all, are sanctified to Christ, and
therefore they must be distributed according to his judgment. In vain, however,
the papists will pretend that they have spent that part on Christ, which they
have squandered without his command. However – to tell the truth – by this
expenditure (namely for the church buildings) not very much is lost from the
ordinary income of the church. For the bishoprics, however rich, the abbeys,
however fat, the parish foundations, however numerous, however splendid, are not
enough to satisfy the voracity of the priests. On the contrary, they want to
spare themselves, and therefore, through superstition, they make the people
spend the resources that should really go to the poor on the construction of
church buildings, the erection of statues, the purchase of vessels, and the
acquisition of costly vestments. In this way, the daily alms are devoured by
this abyss.
IV,5,19 Now what shall I say of the income they receive
from lands and possessions but what I have already set forth and what is also
before all eyes? We see with what fidelity the people called bishops and abbots
administer the greater part of it. What madness is it to seek ecclesiastical
order here? Isa it fitting that those whose lives should be a unique example of
frugality, modesty, abstinence, and humility should rival the prosperity of
princes in the number of their servants, in the splendor of their houses, and in
the splendor of their vestments and banquets? God’s eternal and inviolable
command forbids them to seek filthy lucre and requires them to be satisfied with
simple food (Titus 1:7); but how much is this then contrary to their official
duty, that they not only lay hands on villages and castles, but also throw
themselves upon the most extensive principalities and finally seize whole
kingdoms? If they despise the word of God, what will they answer (at least) to
those decrees of the synods in which it is stated that the bishop should not
have his little house far from the church, that his table and household goods
should be simple? What will they say to that statement of the Synod of Aquileia,
in which it is said that poverty is glorious in the priests of the Lord? For the
instruction which Jerome once gave to Nepotian, that the poor and the stranger
should have access to his table, and with them Christ as a guest at table, they
will probably reject as too severe! But what he immediately adds, they will be
ashamed to deny, namely: the glory of a bishop is to care for the property of
the poor, but a disgrace for all priests if they sought their own riches. This,
however, they cannot accept without condemning themselves all to disgrace. But
it is not necessary to persecute them more severely here, because I had no other
intention than to prove that among them the rightful status of deacons has long
since disappeared. I wanted to show this so that they would not continue to
haughtily boast of this title at the price of their church. And I believe that I
have accomplished this sufficiently..
Of the Supremacy of the Roman See
IV,6,1 So far we have treated those ranks in the church
which already existed in the government of the early church, but which have
subsequently been corrupted with time and then more and more falsified, and
today in the papal church have only retained their name, but in reality
represent nothing but masks. The purpose of this discussion was that the pious
reader, on the basis of the comparison, should gain a judgment of what kind of
church the Romans actually have, for the sake of which they accuse us of schism,
because we have divorced ourselves from it. But we have not touched the head and
the top of the whole hierarchy, namely the supreme power (the "primacy") of the
Roman See, from which they strive to prove that the Catholic Church is with them
alone. For this supremacy has taken its origin neither from the institution of
Christ nor from the custom of the early Church – in contrast to the offices
mentioned above, which, as we have shown, have proceeded from the old time,
admittedly in such a way that they have been completely degenerated by the
corruption of the times, indeed, they have taken on a completely new form. And
yet the Romans try to persuade the world that the noblest and almost the only
bond of ecclesiastical unity is given when we adhere to the Roman See and remain
in obedience to it. The support, I say, on which they build above all, when they
deny us the church and want to appropriate it to themselves, consists in the
assertion that they possess the very head on which the unity of the church
depends and without which it would necessarily have to crack and break. They
mean it in this way: the Church would be, so to speak, an incomplete, mutilated
body if it were not subject to the Roman See, as its head, so to speak.
Therefore, when they discuss their "hierarchy," they always take as their
starting point the principle: the bishop of Rome is, as it were, the governor of
Christ, who is the head of the Church; as such, he has the leadership of the
entire Church in Christ’s stead, and the Church is only properly constituted
when the Roman (episcopal) See has supreme authority over all others. Therefore
we must also examine how this stands, so that we do not pass over anything that
belongs to the right regiment of the Church….
IV,6,2 The question posed, then, is whether it is necessary
for the true form of what they call the "hierarchy" or ecclesiastical government
that one (bishop’s) See should take precedence among the others in dignity and
power, so that it would thus be the head of the whole body. However, we subject
the church to very unreasonable laws if we impose such a necessity on it without
the Word of God. If, therefore, our opponents wish to prove what they demand,
they must first show that this order was instituted by Christ. For this purpose
they cite the high priest from the law, and also the supreme court which God had
instituted in Jerusalem. But this is easily answered, and in many ways, unless
the adversaries are satisfied with a single answer. First of all: there is no
compelling reason to extend to the whole world what was of use in one nation.
Yes, it will be something essentially different whether it is about a single
people or about the whole world! The Jews were surrounded by idolaters, and in
order that they should not be divided by a multiplicity of religions, God set up
the seat of his worship in the midst of the land, and there he appointed a
single ruler to whom they should all look, so that they might be better
preserved in unity. But now the true religion is spread over the whole world,
and who does not see that it would be completely absurd to hand over the
government of the East and the West to one man? That would be just as if someone
were to assert that the whole world must be governed by a single bailiff, and
that precisely because a single territory would not have several bailiffs! But
there is a second reason why that fact (mentioned above) must not be taken as an
example. Everybody knows that the high priest was an example of Christ. But now
"the priesthood is changed", therefore "the law must also be changed" (Hebr
7,12). But to whom has the priesthood been transferred? But certainly not to the
pope, as he brazenly dares to boast when he refers this statement to himself,
but to Christ, who exercises the office without any governor or successor and
accordingly does not leave the honor to anyone else. For this (high) priestly
office consists not only in teaching, but in the propitiation of God, which
Christ accomplished by his death, and in that intercession which he now
exercises with the Father.
IV,6,3 EIt is therefore not acceptable for them to bind us
to that example which, as we see, was temporal, as if it were a perpetual law.
They have only one fact from the New Testament to support their opinion: namely,
that only one apostle was told, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
church" (Mt 16:18), and also, "Peter, do you love me? Feed my sheep"
(John 21:15-17; not quite Luther text). But if such proofs are to be solid, the
papists must first of all show that the one who is given the instruction to feed
Christ’s flock is thereby entrusted with the power over all churches;
furthermore, they must prove that "binding" and "loosing" mean nothing else than
to hold the leadership of the whole world. Just as Peter received that
commission from the Lord, he in turn exhorts all other presbyters to shepherd
the church (1Pet 5:2). From this we can draw the conclusion that either nothing
at all was given to Peter by that word of the Lord which he would have had in
advance of others, or else Peter shared the right he had received with the
others in equal measure. But we have, so that we do not argue in vain, in
another place from the mouth of Christ a clear interpretation (which shows us)
what "binding" and "loosing" means; namely, it means to "keep" and "remit" sins
(John 20:23). But how such "binding" and "loosing" is done is shown to us over
and over again in the whole Scripture; especially clearly, however, Paul gives
us to understand it by explaining that the ministers of the gospel have the
commission to reconcile men with God, and at the same time they have the
authority to exercise punishment against those who spurn such benefits (2Cor
5:18; 10:6).
IV,6,4 How unworthily the papists twist those passages that
mention "binding" and "loosing", I have already touched upon in another place,
and it will have to be developed in more detail soon. Now it is only necessary
that we see what they get out of that famous answer of Christ to Peter. Christ
promised Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven", he promised him that what he
would bind on earth would also be bound in heaven (Mt 16,19). Now, if there
were unanimity among us about the expression "key" and about the way of
"binding", any dispute would immediately cease. For even the pope would gladly
let go of the task assigned to the apostles; for it is full of labor and toil,
and would drive out his good life without bringing him any profit. Since the
heavens are opened to us through the teaching of the gospel, it is aptly called
the "key. But then men are "bound" and "loosed" in no other way than by the fact
that some are reconciled to God in faith, while others are only more deeply
entangled by their unbelief. If the pope could only do this, then in my opinion
there would be no one who would envy him this or who would want to start a
quarrel with him because of it. In fact, however, this succession, which is
laborious and by no means profitable, is not at all to the liking of the pope,
and therefore the starting point of the dispute (between him and us) arises
precisely from the question of what Christ promised Peter. I draw from the facts
themselves the conclusion that with this promise exclusively the dignity of the
apostolic office is designated, which cannot be separated from the burden of
this office. For if one accepts that determination (of the terms "binding" and
"loosing") which I have set up above – and which can only be rejected out of
impudence – then nothing is given to Peter here which was not also common to his
ministers; for otherwise not only would injustice be done to the persons, but
the majesty of the doctrine itself would come to a limp. The papists now object
to this. But I pray you, what good will it do them to strike at this rock? For
they will not be able to change the fact that the apostles, just as they were
all charged with the preaching of the same gospel, were also equipped together
with the authority to bind and loose. The papists say, "When Christ promised
Peter that he would give him the keys, yet he appointed him head of the whole
church." But what he promised to one apostle, he gave to all the others at the
same time (Mt 18:18; John 20:23)! If then all have been granted the right
that was promised to one, what is the priority of this one? "His special
position," they say, "consisted in the fact that he received this right both
jointly (with the others) and for himself especially, while it was given to the
others only jointly." But what are they going to do if I now reply with Cyprian
and Augustine that Christ did this not in order to prefer one man to the others,
but in order in this way to uphold the unity of the Church? Cyprian says that in
the person of one man the Lord gave to all the keys to show the unity of all,
because the others were the same as Peter, endowed with the same share of honor
and power; but Christ began with one to show that his Church was one (On the
Unity of the Catholic Church 4). But Augustine declares, "If there were not in
Peter the mystery of the Church, the Lord would not say to him, ’To you I will
give the keys’ for if this is said to Peter (alone), then the Church does not
have the keys; but if the Church has the keys, then Peter, when he received the
keys, signified the whole Church" (Homilies on the Gospel of John 50:12). And
elsewhere he says: "Yet all were asked (of Christ), but Peter alone answered,
’You are Christ …’ then it was said to him, ’I will give you the keys …’ –
as if he alone had received the power to bind and to loose; but because he had
given that answer for the others alone, and accordingly also received this
commission together with the others, and as it were as one who represented unity
itself in his own person, therefore he alone is called for all, because indeed
there is unity between all" (Homilies on the Gospel of John 11:5).
IV,6,5 Yes, they say, but it is written somewhere that the
word: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" (Mt 16,18),
was (ever) said to another! As if Christ here said something different about
Peter than Paul and also Peter himself said about all Christians! Paul, in fact,
declares Christ to be the chief cornerstone on which all are to be built, who
are to grow up into a temple holy to the Lord (Eph 2:20-22). But Peter commands
us to be "living stones" so that as such, founded on that "chosen and precious"
stone, we may be united to our God and to one another by this bond and knit
together (1Pet 2:5 ss.). Yes, they say, but Peter still stands before all
because he holds the name (rock, stone) in a special way. Certainly, I gladly
grant Peter the honor of having his place among the first in the building of the
church, or – if they also demand it – of being the first among all believers.
But I will not allow them to infer from this that he has a supremacy over the
others. What kind of conclusion is it to say: he surpassed the others in ardor
of zeal, in instruction and greatness of spirit – therefore he also has power
over them? As if one could not (then also) conclude with better appearances:
Andrew is ahead of Peter in rank because he preceded him in time (in
discipleship) and led him to Christ (John 1:40, 42)! But I’ll leave that aside.
Peter may certainly have first place. But surely there is a great difference
between rank honor and – power. We see how the apostles consistently gave Peter
the task of leading the word in the assembly and, as it were, leading the way
with reports, exhortations and encouragements. Of a (special) authority against
it (which Peter would have had) we nowhere read a word.
IV,6,6 But we are not yet occupied with this discussion.
For the moment I would like to state only this: if our opponents want to
establish Peter’s dominion over the entire church from his name alone (which is
associated with "rock"), then this is too superficial a demonstration. For those
old sillinesses with which they tried to fool the people at the beginning are
not worth refuting, indeed, not worth mentioning. They said that the church was
founded on Peter, because it is said: "On this rock…". But this is what some
of the (church) fathers said, they will say! Certainly, but here the whole
Scripture raises an objection, and under these circumstances, what is the point
of putting forward the authority of these church fathers against God? Yes, why
do we argue about the meaning of these words, as if they were obscure or
ambiguous, when nothing clearer and more certain could have been said? Peter had
confessed in his name and in the name of the brethren that Christ is the Son of
God (Mt 16,16). On this rock Christ builds His church, because, as Paul
says, He is the one foundation, apart from which no other can be laid (1Cor
3:11). Again, I do not reject the authority of the Fathers because I lack
testimonies from their side to confirm my assertion, if I had a desire to draw
on them; no, as I have already stated, I do not want to be uselessly troublesome
to the readers by arguing about such a clear matter, especially since this
matter has already been treated and unfolded with sufficient thoroughness by our
men long ago.
IV,6,7 And yet, indeed, no one can settle this question
better than the Scriptures themselves, if we bring together all the passages in
which they teach what office and what power Peter possessed among the apostles,
how he behaved, and how he was also received by them. If you go through all the
existing reports, you will find nothing else than that he was one of the number
of the Twelve, equal to the others, their comrade, but not their lord. He does
indeed bring forward in their council what is ever to be done, and he admonishes
them what must be done; but at the same time he listens to the others, and he
not only gives them the opportunity to express their opinion, but leaves the
decision to them; where they have determined something, he follows and obeys
(Acts 15:5 ss.). When he writes to the shepherds, he does not give his
instructions on the basis of a command, as if he were above them, but he treats
them as his fellow ministers and admonishes them amicably, as it is customary
among equals (1Pet 5,1ff). He was accused because he had gone to Gentiles; this
happened without him deserving such reproach, but nevertheless he answered and
purified himself (Acts 11:3 ss.). The officemates instructed him to go to Samaria
with John – and he did not refuse (Acts 8:14). By sending him out, the apostles
make it clear that they do not consider him their superior at all; by obeying
himself and taking on the mission assigned to him, he admits that he is in
fellowship with them but does not exercise lordship over them. Even if all these
accounts were not present, the letter to the Galatians alone could easily remove
any doubt from our minds. There, for almost two chapters, Paul asserts nothing
other than that he is equal to Peter in terms of the dignity of apostleship.
From there he recalls that he came to Peter, not to show his subjection, but
only to have all witness their agreement in doctrine. He goes on to report that
even Peter himself did not ask anything of the sort of him, but gave him "the
right hand" (as a sign) of fellowship, so that they might work together in the
Lord’s vineyard. He declares that no less grace was given to him among the
Gentiles than to Peter among the Jews (Gal 1:18; 2:8). Finally, he tells how
Peter, when he had not acted completely faithfully, was rebuked by Him and also
rendered obedience to this rebuke (Gal 2:11-14). All this makes it evident that
either there was equality between Paul and Peter, or at any rate that Peter had
no more power toward the others than they had toward him. But this Paul treats,
as I said before, with full intention: no one should prefer Peter or John to him
in the apostleship, because these were just his officemates, but not his
masters.
IV,6,8 But I will admit to them once with reference to
Peter what they would like to have; I will therefore acknowledge that he really
was the chief among the apostles and had a precedence in dignity over the rest.
Even if I do this, there is no cause to make a general rule out of a singular
example, and to refer to eternal times what has happened once: for that is an
entirely different matter. Among the apostles (I will admit this once) one was
supreme, because they were just few in number. Now if one man was set over
twelve men, does it follow that one man must also be set over a hundred thousand
men? That the twelve had had a man under them, who should govern them all, that
would not be surprising. For nature brings it about, and the nature of men
requires it, that in every circle, even when all are equal in power, yet one
acts, as it were, as a leader, to whom the others are to look. There is no
council without a mayor, no court without a chairman or an examiner, no college
without a head, no cooperative without a master. So there would be nothing
absurd in admitting that the apostles had given Peter such supreme authority
(over their circle). But what is valid among a few cannot be applied to the
whole world, for the government of which one man alone is not sufficient. But,
they say, this is no less true in nature in general as well as in the individual
parts, that a supreme head is above all. And for this assertion they take, if it
pleases God, the proof from the cranes and bees, which also always choose one
head and not several. However, I allow the examples brought forward by them. But
do the bees flock from the whole world to choose a single king (!)? No, the
individual kings are content with their own beehives! Likewise also among the
cranes each individual swarm has its own king. What (therefore) can the papists
gain from these examples other than that each individual church must have its
particular bishop assigned to it? Then they refer us to examples from civil
life, they draw on the word from Homer: "Much rule does not do good" (Iliad
II,204), in addition also to what one gets to read in the same sense for the
recommendation of the monarchy in secular writers. The reply is easy to give:
when Homer’s Ulysses or other people praise the monarchy, it does not happen in
the sense as if one man should rule the whole world with his command, but they
want to show that an empire cannot hold two kings and that, as someone once
said, power is not able to bear a comrade (Lukan, Pharsalia I,92f.).
IV,6,9 But let us allow it once as they want it, let us
admit once that it would be good and useful if the whole world would be under
(one) monarchy – it would, however, be highly absurd; but let it be once! Even
then, however, I will not admit that the same would be valid for the leadership
of the church. For the Church has Christ as her only Head, under whose rule we
are all bound together, according to the order and form of government which he
himself has prescribed. The papists, therefore, do very great injustice to
Christ when they demand that one man should govern the whole Church, and when
they use the pretext that the Church cannot do without just such a Head. For
Christ is the Head, "from whom the whole body is knit together, one member
hanging on to another through all the joints, one helping the other according to
the work of each member in its measure, and making the whole body grow …"
(Eph 4:15f.). Do we see how the apostle assigns to all men, without any
exception, their place in the body, but reserves the honor and the name of the
head to Christ alone? Do you see how he assigns to all the individual members a
certain measure, a fixed and limited task, so that the perfection of grace as
well as the supreme power of government may rest with Christ alone? Nor am I
unaware of the evasion sought by the papists when this is reproached to them;
for they say: Christ is called the one Head in the proper sense, because he
alone rules by virtue of his own authority and in his own name; but this does
not prevent the existence under him of a second, "servant Head" – so they
express themselves! – who leads his representation on earth. But they will get
nowhere with this subterfuge if they have not first shown that Christ has
ordained this office. The apostle teaches that the whole "handing out" is
scattered among the members, but the power flows from that one heavenly head
(Eph 4:16). Or if they want to hear something clearer: since the Scriptures
testify that Christ is the head, and since they ascribe this honor to him alone,
it may be transferred to another only if Christ himself has made him his
governor. This, however, is not only nowhere to be read, but can be abundantly
refuted on the basis of many passages (Eph 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18; 2:10).
IV,6,10 Paul paints a vivid picture of the church before
our eyes a few times. However, we do not read anything about the one (human)
head. No, we can rather draw the conclusion from his description that this "one
head" has nothing to do with Christ’s institution. Christ has withdrawn his
visible presence from us through his ascension; nevertheless he "ascended …
that he might fill all things" (Eph 4,10). So the church has him present even
now and will have him present always. Now, in wanting to describe the way in
which Christ shows himself, Paul refers us to the offices of which Christ makes
use. "In us all," he says, "is the Lord, according to the measure of grace which
he has bestowed on each member. For this reason he has appointed some to be
apostles, others shepherds, others evangelists, others teachers …"
(Eph 4:7, 11, inaccurate). Why doesn’t Paul say that Christ appointed one man over all to
lead His substitution? Because the passage (which, after all, talks about unity
all the time) required that in the highest degree, and it should not have been
omitted under any circumstances if it were true. He says, "Christ is with us."
Why? Through the ministry of the people whom Christ has appointed to govern the
Church! Why does he not rather say: through the "ministering Head" to whom he
has given his substitution? He expressly speaks of unity: but that is unity in
God and in faith in Christ. To men he ascribes nothing but a common service, and
to each his particular "measure" (verse 16). He had spoken of the "one body",
the "one Spirit", of the one "hope of calling", he had said: "one God, one
faith, one baptism" (Eph 4,4-6, inaccurate) – why does he not also add in this
praise of unity that there is also a supreme bishop who should keep the church
in unity? Nothing more fitting could have been said – provided only that reality
was so! Let us consider this passage carefully: there is no doubt that Paul
wanted to portray here the holy, spiritual regiment of the church, which the
later have called "hierarchy". On the other hand, he not only did not establish
a monarchy among the servants (of the Church), but he showed that there is none.
There is also no doubt that he wanted to express the kind of bond in which the
faithful are related to Christ, their Head. Now, not only does he not mention a
"servant head," but he ascribes to each individual member a special "work"
(verse 16), according to the measure of grace allotted to each. Nor is there any
occasion for them to philosophize shrewdly about the comparison of the heavenly
with the earthly "hierarchy"; for it is not without danger to wish to be wise
beyond measure in regard to the heavenly, and in the establishment of the
earthly one is not to follow any other model than that which the Lord Himself
has circumscribed in His word.
IV,6,11 But I will also let them get away with this other
thing, which they will never be able to assert with reasonable people, namely
that in the person of Peter a supreme power was established for the church, and
that in such a way that it would always be maintained by continuous succession.
But from what do they then want to prove that the seat (of this supreme power)
was established in Rome, so that anyone who was bishop of this city would also
have dominion over the whole world? By what right do they tie this dignity to a
place, when it was given without mention of a place? Peter, they say, lived and
died in Rome! But how is it with Christ himself? Did he not, while he lived,
hold the episcopate in Jerusalem, and did he not, by dying, fulfill the
priesthood? The chief of the shepherds, the highest bishop, the head of the
church was not able to acquire honor to the place (of his ministry) – and Peter,
who is by far inferior to him, was able to do it? Are these not more than
childish silliness? Christ – so they say – gave the honor of the supreme power
to Peter, but Peter had his seat in Rome, so he set up the seat of this supreme
power there. In this way the Israelites should have established the seat of the
supreme power in the wilderness, where Moses as the highest teacher and chief of
the prophets had performed his office and died (Deut 34,5)!
IV,6,12 But let us see how splendidly the papists carry
out their proof. Peter, they say, had the leading position among the apostles,
therefore the church in which he had his seat must have this privilege. But
where did Peter first have his seat? In Antioch, they say. So the church at
Antioch rightly claims supremacy for itself! They admit that it was once the
first. But then, they claim, Peter departed from there, and he transferred the
honor he brought with him to Rome. There is preserved, under the name of Pope
Marcellus, a letter to the presbyters of Antioch, in which he expresses himself
as follows: "The seat of Peter was at first with you; afterwards, by the Lord’s
direction, it was transferred to here. Thus the church at Antioch, which was
once the first, has given place to the Roman see" (Decretum Gratiani
II,24,1,15). But by what word of revelation did the good man know that the Lord
had so commanded? For if this matter is to be rightfully decided, the papists
must answer whether this prerogative is, according to their will, personal,
factual, or else partly personal, partly factual (mixtum). For one of these
three it must be necessary. If they say that it is a personal prerogative, it
has nothing to do with the place. But if they say that it is material, then once
it is given to the place, it cannot be taken away because of the death or
removal of the person. It remains, then, for them to claim that it is partly
personal and partly factual; in this case, however, the consideration must not
simply turn to the place, unless the person is related to it at the same time.
They may choose what they like – in any case, I will counter immediately and
prove with ease that Rome arrogates to itself the supremacy without any reason.
IV,6,13 But let it be so for once! Let us admit that the
supremacy had been transferred from Antioch to Rome, as they are saying. But why
then did Antioch not keep the second place? For if Rome takes the first place
because Peter had his seat there to the end of his life, to whom should the
second be given rather than to the city where he had had his first seat? How
then did it come about that Alexandria gained precedence over Antioch? How does
it rhyme that the church of a (common) disciple (Mark) precedes the seat of
Peter? If each church has an honor according to the dignity of its founder, what
shall we say of the other churches? Paul names three men who were considered
pillars, namely James, Peter and John (Gal 2:9). Now, if the Roman episcopate
is given first place in honor of Peter, do not the episcopates of Ephesus and
Jerusalem, where John and James worked, deserve second and third? But in fact,
among the patriarchates, Jerusalem used to have the last place, and Ephesus
could not even establish itself in the farthest corner! Other churches were also
passed over: all those that Paul had founded, as well as those in which other
apostles had worked as overseers. But the seat of Mark (Alexandria), who was
only one of the disciples, has come to honor. The papists must now either admit
that this order was improper, or else they must admit to us that it is not at
all a continuing rule that each individual church should be accorded the rank of
honor which its founder possessed.
IV,6,14 However, I do not see how far what they report
about Peter’s official stay in the church at Rome has to be believed. In any
case, what Eusebius says, that Peter led the church there for twenty-five years,
can easily be refuted. For as is certain from the first and second chapters of
the Epistle to the Galatians, Peter was still in Jerusalem about twenty years
after Christ’s death (Gal 1:18; 2:1 ss.); then he came to Antioch (Gal 2:11),
and how long he was there is uncertain. Gregory counts seven years, but Eusebius
twenty-five. But it will be found that the period between Christ’s death and the
end of the reign of Nero, under which Peter is reported to have been put to
death, is merely thirty-seven years. The Passion of the Lord, in fact, falls in
the reign of Tiberius, and in its eighteenth year. If we now subtract (from the
thirty-seven years mentioned) twenty years that Peter spent in Jerusalem
according to Paul’s testimony, then seventeen at the most remain. These must now
be distributed over that twofold activity as bishop (in Antioch and in Rome). If
Peter stayed in Antioch for a long time, he could not have stayed in Rome,
except for a very short time. This very fact can be shown even more clearly.
Paul wrote the letter to the Romans from a journey when he moved to Jerusalem
(Rom 15,25); there he was captured and then later led to Rome. So it is likely
that this letter was written four years before he arrived in Rome. In this
letter there is still no mention of Peter, and such a mention could not have
been omitted if Peter had led this church (at that time). Yes, even at the end
of the letter, where Paul lists a long list of pious people, whom he commands to
greet, a list in which he summarizes all people known to him (Rom 16,3-16), he
is still completely silent about Peter. With people of reasonably sound
judgment, no long and astute proof is needed here either; for the facts
themselves and the entire contents of the letter testify loudly that Paul should
not have passed over Peter if the latter had been in Rome..
IV,6,15 Then Paul was brought captive to Rome (Acts
28,16). Luke reports that he was received by the brethren (Acts 28:15f.). Not a
word from Peter! Paul writes from Rome to many churches. In some letters he
writes greetings in the name of some men. But he does not indicate with a single
word that Peter was in Rome at that time. Who, I would like to know, would think
that Paul could have kept silent if Peter had been there? Yes, in the letter to
the Philippians he first says that he has no one to do the Lord’s work as
faithfully as Timothy, and then he complains, "They all seek their own …"
(Phil 2:19-21). And in a letter to the same Timothy the complaint is even more
severe: "In my first responsibility no one stood by me, but they all forsook me"
(2Tim 4:16). Now where was Peter at that time? For if he is said to have been in
Rome, what bad stain does Paul burn upon him, as if he had shamefully forsaken
the gospel? For he speaks of believers, because he adds: "God will not impute it
to them" (2Tim 4:16; not Luther text). So how long did Peter hold this
bishop’s seat and at what time? Yes, they say, it is the firm conviction of the
writers that he ruled this church until his death! But among the writers
themselves there is no unanimity about who should have been his successor: some
call Linus, others Clemens. They also tell many absurd tales about a dispute
that took place between Peter and Simon the sorcerer. Augustine, in a discussion
of superstitious beliefs, does not hide the fact that in Rome, due to an
ill-considered opinion, the custom arose of not fasting on the day when Peter
won the palm of victory over Simon the Sorcerer (Letter 36). In short, the
events of that time are so entangled by the multiplicity of opinions that where
we find something written, we must not immediately believe everything
unthinkingly. And yet, because of this unanimity of writers, I do not deny that
Peter died in Rome; but that he was bishop there, especially for a long time, I
cannot be convinced. Nor do I care much about it, because Paul testifies that
Peter’s apostleship refers in a special way to the Jews, but his to us
(Gentiles). So that the covenant fellowship that they (Peter and Paul Gal 2,9)
made with each other remains in force among us, yes, so that the order of the
Holy Spirit is considered constant among us, it is fitting that we look more to
the apostleship of Paul than to that of Peter. For the Holy Spirit distributed
the tasks among them in such a way that he appointed Peter for the Jews, but
Paul for us. Therefore let the Romans seek their supremacy elsewhere than in the
word of God; for there it can by no means be found founded.
IV,6,16 Now let us come to the early church, so that it
may also become clear that our adversaries boast no less unfoundedly and falsely
with their approval than with the testimony of the Word of God. The Romans now
boast of their fundamental article, according to which the unity of the church
can be maintained only if there is a supreme head on earth, to whom all the
members are then to obey; for this very reason, they further assert, the Lord
gave the supreme power to Peter, and afterwards also, by virtue of the right of
succession, to the Roman See, that it might remain with him to the end. And now
they assert that this has always been the case from the beginning! But since
they distort many testimonies, I will say first of all that I do not deny that
the ancients everywhere attach great dignity to the Roman Church and speak of it
with reverence. I think that this is mainly for three reasons. (1) That opinion,
which came to be held in who knows what way, that this church was founded and
established by the ministry of Peter, had the power to give it favor and
prestige in the highest degree. For this reason, the Church of Rome was called
the "apostolic see" in the West in honor of it. (2) Secondly, Rome was the
capital of the empire, and for this reason it could be assumed that there were
men there who were more distinguished by learning, intellect, experience and
skill in many matters than anywhere else. Therefore, this fact was deservedly
taken into account, so that it would not appear that the high rank of the city
and also other, much more glorious gifts of God were held in low esteem. (3) To
this was added the third. While the churches of the East and Greece, including
the African church, were in turmoil with many disputes among themselves, the
church at Rome had been more peaceful and less agitated. Thus it happened that
pious and holy bishops who had been driven from their sees took refuge in Rome,
as if it were, as it were, a sanctuary or a haven. For the people of the West
are less sharp and quick-witted than the Asiatics and Africans, and accordingly
they seek less innovation. Thus it contributed very considerably to the
strengthening of the reputation of the church at Rome that it was not so
restless in those unclear times as the others, and that it held more tenaciously
than all the others to the doctrine once delivered. We shall soon discuss this
more fully. For these three causes, I say, the Church in Rome enjoyed unusual
honor and was praised in many glorious testimonies of the ancients.
IV,6,17 But if, on the basis of these facts, our
opponents want to give the church at Rome supremacy and supreme power over the
other churches, then, as I have already said, they are acting completely
wrongly. In order to make this clearer, I will first briefly show what the
ancients thought about the unity on which the papists place such emphasis.
Jerome, in a letter to Nepotian, first enumerates many examples of such unity,
and then he finally comes to speak of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. There he
says: "Every single bishop of a church, also every archipresbyter, every
archdeacon and in general every ecclesiastical rank relies on its regents" (The
letter is addressed to Rusticus, letter 125). Here a presbyter of the church at
Rome is speaking; he praises the unity in the ecclesiastical rank – but why does
he not mention that all churches are connected with each other by the one head
as by a bond? There was nothing that could have better served the cause he was
discussing! Nor can it be said that this bypassing (of the alleged human head of
the church) was done out of forgetfulness; for Jerome would have liked nothing
better (than this) – if the cause had suffered it! He saw, then, without any
doubt, that the true type of unity is that which Cyprian so aptly describes when
he says: "It is an episcopate of which each individual (bishop) fully holds a
piece, and it is a church which spreads out with increasing fruitfulness in its
multiplicity to greater breadth. The rays of the sun are many, and yet the light
is one; the tree has many branches, but a single trunk founded on a firm root;
from a single source flow many streams, and even if the abundance of the
overflowing water gives the impression of a scattered multiplicity, the unity
remains in the origin. In the same way, the Church, flooded with the light of
the Lord, spreads her rays over the whole world, and yet it is one light that
pours out everywhere, and the unity of her body is not divided; she stretches
out her branches over the whole world, she pours out overflowing streams, and
yet it is one head and one fountain…" (Of the Unity of the Catholic Church 5).
And then it goes on to say, "The bride of Christ cannot be deceived into
adultery: she knows the one house, and she guards the sanctity of the one
chamber in chaste shame" (Of the Unity of the Catholic Church 6). There one sees
how he alone declares Christ’s episcopate to be universally effective because it
encompasses the whole Church under it, and how he states that every individual
who holds an episcopate under this headship has a piece of it fully. Where does
the supremacy of the Roman See remain, if with Christ alone his episcopate
remains unabridged and each individual fully holds a part of it? The purpose of
these remarks is that the reader may realize in passing that the main principle
of the unity of the earthly head in the hierarchy, which the Romans regard as
established and undoubted, was quite unknown to the ancients.
From the beginning and the growth of the Roman papacy until it
rose to its present sovereignty, by which the freedom of the Church has been
suppressed and at the same time all right measure has been overthrown.
IV,7,1 As for the age of the supremacy of the Roman See, we
have nothing older for its confirmation than that decision of the Council of
Nicaea (325), by virtue of which the bishop of Rome is given the first place
among the patriarchs, and at the same time is instructed to take care of the
churches situated in the neighborhood of the city. Now, when the Council divides
between him and the other patriarchs in such a way that it assigns to each his
territory, it truly does not make him the head over all, but makes him one of
the most distinguished. Vitus and Vincentius were present at the council in the
name of Julius, who ruled the church in Rome at that time; they were assigned
the fourth place. I would like to know whether the delegates of Julius would
have been relegated to the fourth place if he himself had been recognized as the
head of the church at that time! Would Athanasius then have presided over the
council, since it is precisely in this that the form of the hierarchical order
is supposed to shine forth most brightly? At the Synod of Ephesus (431),
Coelestinus, who was then Roman bishop, evidently used a hidden artifice to
ensure the dignity of his chair. For, although he sent his people there, he
charged Cyril of Alexandria, who was also to preside in any case, with his
"representation". What was the purpose of such a commission other than that in
some way his name should be attached to the first place? For his delegates were
seated in a subordinate place, they were asked for their opinion like others,
and they signed according to their own rank; but meanwhile the patriarch of
Alexandria attached the name of the Roman bishop to his own! What shall I say of
the second council at Ephesus (449)? There the envoys of Leo (I) were present,
but nevertheless the Patriarch Dioskur of Alexandria presided, as it were, by
his own right. The papists, of course, will object that this council condemned
the holy man Flavian, but acquitted Eutyches and approved his impiety, and
therefore it was not orthodox. Yes, but when the synod met, and when the bishops
divided the seats among themselves, the delegates of the Church of Rome sat
among the others, no differently than in a holy and lawful council!
Nevertheless, the Roman envoys did not dispute for the first place, but left it
to someone else, and this they would never have done if they had believed that
this place rightfully belonged to them. For the bishops of Rome have never been
ashamed to unleash the greatest quarrels for the sake of their honor, and for
this reason alone to often trouble and confuse the Church with many and
dangerous battles. No, Leo just saw that it would be too impertinent a request
if he claimed the first place for his emissaries, and therefore he refrained
from it.
IV,7,2 Then followed the Council of Chalcedon (451). At
this the emissaries of the Church at Rome took the first place with the consent
of the emperor. But Leo himself admits that this was an extraordinary
prerogative; for when he asks it of the Emperor Marcian and the Empress
Pulcheria, he does not claim that it belongs to him, but he only needs the
pretext that the bishops of the East, who had presided at the Council of Ephesus
(449), had made a mess of everything at that time and had misused their power.
Since, therefore, a serious-minded leader was needed, and since it was not
likely that those who had once been so frivolous and rebellious would be fit for
the task, Leo asked that he be given the task of leadership because of the
faultiness and lack of fitness of the others. If he asks this by virtue of a
special prerogative and outside the order, it is in any case not based on a
general law. If he now uses the excuse that a new chairman is needed because the
previous ones behaved badly, it is clear that this was not done before, nor must
it be done in the long run, but is done exclusively in view of the present
danger. The Roman bishop, then, has the first place at the Council of Chalcedon,
not because it belongs to his See, but because the Synod lacks a serious and
skilful leader, in that those to whom the presidency is due exclude themselves
from it by their licentiousness and arbitrariness. What I say was actually
confirmed by a successor of Leo (I). For when he sent his delegates to the fifth
synod of Constantinople (553), which was held a long time later, he did not
dispute for the first place, but allowed with ease that the patriarch Mennas of
Constantinople presided. Likewise, we also see that at the Council of Carthage
(418), in which Augustine participated, it was not the envoys of the Roman See
who presided, but the local Archbishop Aurelius, and this despite the fact that
the dispute was precisely over the authority of the Roman chief priest. Yes,
there has even been held in Italy itself a general council in which the bishop
of Rome did not participate, namely the Council of Aquileia (381). It was
presided over by Ambrose, who was then held in very high esteem by the emperor.
The Roman bishop was not even mentioned there. Thus, due to the dignity of
Ambrose, the episcopal see of Milan stood in higher splendor than that of Rome.
IV,7,3 WAs for the title of "supreme power" and the other
arrogant terms of which the pope nowadays boasts, it is not difficult to judge
when and in what way they arose. Cyprian often mentions the (bishop) Cornelius
(of Rome); but he uses for his designation no other names than "brother," "
co-bishop," or "officemate." But when he writes to Stephen, the successor of
Cornelius, he not only treats him as equal to himself and others, but also
proceeds quite sharply against him, accusing him sometimes of presumption,
sometimes of ignorance (Letter 72:3 and 75:3). From the time after Cyprian we
know what the whole African church thought about this. For a council at Carthage
(397) forbade anyone to be called "chief of the priests" or "first bishop," and
allowed only the designation "bishop of the first see." If someone looks through
older documents, he will find that at that time the bishop of Rome was satisfied
with the common title "brother". In any case, as long as the true and pure form
of the Church lasted, all those hopeful names with which the Roman See
afterwards began to be boisterous were wholly unheard of; what was "the supreme
bishop" and the "one head of the Church on earth" was not known. If the bishop
of Rome had dared to presume such a thing, there were at least courageous men to
reject his folly immediately. Jerome was a presbyter of the church at Rome, and
he was therefore not stingy in boasting of the dignity of his church as far as
the cause and the circumstances of the time permitted. Nevertheless, we see how
he also puts this church of his in order. "If you ask about prestige," he says,
"the circle of the earth is greater than a city. What dost thou hold up to me
the custom of a single city? Wherefore dost thou plead a small number, from
which pride has proceeded, against the laws of the church? Wherever a bishop has
been, whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium – he has
the same merit and the same priesthood! The power of riches or even the
lowliness of poverty does not make a bishop higher or lower" (Letter 146, to
Euangelus and Euagrius respectively).
IV,7,4 About the title "universal bishop" (universalis
episcopus) a dispute arose only in the time of Gregory (I). The reason for this
was the ambition of John of Constantinople. For the latter wanted to make
himself the universal bishop, which no one else had ever attempted before. In
this dispute Gregory does not give as a reason that the right which John desired
for himself would thereby be snatched from him; no, he raises a courageous
objection and declares that this is an unholy, even sacrilegious designation,
indeed, it is a harbinger of the Antichrist. "Indeed, the whole Church falls
from her position," he says, "when he who lets himself be called general bishop
falls" (Letter V,37). And in another place he says: "It is a very sad thing to
bear patiently that our brother and fellow bishop should be called bishop alone,
in contempt of all. But what else is revealed in this arrogance of his but that
the pages of the Antichrist are already near? For he imitates him who despised
the communion of angels and tried to ascend to the summit of autocracy" (Letter
V,39). Elsewhere, he writes to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch:
"None of my predecessors has ever wanted to use this unholy term, for it is so:
if one is called ’general patriarch’, the name ’patriarch’ is thereby denied to
the others. But let it be far from a Christian sense that anyone should presume
to do anything by which he might in the least detract from the honor of his
brethren" (Letter V,41). (Or elsewhere:) "To consent to this wicked name is
nothing else than to ruin the faith" (Letter V,45). "It is something else," he
says, "what we are to do to preserve the unity of the faith – and something else
what we are to undertake to curb arrogance. But I say freely that anyone who
calls himself a ’general priest’ or desires to be so called is in his arrogance
a forerunner of Antichrist, because he sets himself above others by his haughty
behavior" (Letter VII:30). Likewise, again to Anastasius of Alexandria, he
writes: "I have said that he cannot be at peace with us unless he abandons the
arrogance of that superstitious and haughty appellation which the first apostate
invented. Also, to say nothing of the injustice done to your honor, if one is
called ’general bishop’, the whole church collapses as soon as this ’general
bishop’ falls" (Letter VII,24). He then also writes that this honor was offered
to Leo at the Council of Chalcedon. But this has no semblance of truth. For one
reads nothing of the sort in the proceedings of that synod. Also, Leo himself in
many letters fights the decision made there in honor of the See of
Constantinople, and he undoubtedly would not have omitted this piece of
evidence, which would have been the most convincing of all, if it had been true
that he had been offered such dignity and had rejected it. Moreover, Leo was
more than fond of honor, and he would not have liked to omit something that
would have been praise enough for him. Gregory was therefore in error when he
thought that this title had been given to the Roman See by the Synod of
Chalcedon (Letter V,37; V,41). I will not mention that it is ridiculous for him
to testify that this title came from the Holy Synod, while at the same time he
says of it that it is criminal, unholy, nefarious, arrogant and sacrilegious,
even conceived by the devil and brought to the public by a herald of the
Antichrist (Letter IX,156). And yet he adds that his predecessor Leo rejected
this title, lest, by giving something to one for himself alone, all priests
should be deprived of the honor due to them (Letter V,37). Elsewhere it is said:
"No one has ever wanted to be addressed with such a designation, no one has
taken this imprudent name to himself, lest he should appropriate to himself in
biblical rank the glory of a unique special position and thereby give the
impression that he had deprived all his brethren of this glory" (Letter V,44).
IV,7,5 II now come to the jurisdictional power which the
Roman bishop claims to have over all the churches without contradiction. I know
what great disputes have taken place about this in ancient times; for there has
never been a time when the Roman See has not sought dominion over the other
churches. Nor will it be out of place at this point to examine the way in which
it gradually rose to a certain power at that time. I am not yet speaking of the
present unlimited dominion which he acquired not so very long ago; for we shall
postpone that until the place appointed for it. Here, however, it is necessary
that I show in a few words how and in what manner he once rose to assume some
right over other churches. When the churches of the East under the emperors
Constantius and Constans, the sons of Constantine the Great, were divided and
confused by the Arian disputes, and Athanasius, who was the most distinguished
defender of the Orthodox faith there, was driven from his episcopal see,
Athanasius saw himself forced by such need to come to Rome, in order to both
dampen the rage of his enemies to some extent and to strengthen the pious who
were in the struggle, by virtue of the authority of the Roman see. He was
received with honor by the then Bishop Julius and managed to get the churches of
the West to take up the defense of his cause. Since the faithful were in great
need of foreign help, and since they saw that the Church of Rome was a very good
protection for them, they gladly gave it as much authority as they could. But
all this was nothing else than that the communion with the church of Rome was
highly esteemed and on the other hand it was considered shameful to be banned by
it. Later on, even the wicked and ungodly added much to this authority: namely,
in order to escape the lawful courts, they went to Rome as to a free place. So
when any presbyter was condemned by his bishop or any bishop by his provincial
synod, they immediately appealed to Rome. And the bishops of Rome accepted these
appeals more eagerly than was fair, and that because it seemed to be a kind of
extraordinary power to interfere with things far and wide in this way. For
example, when Eutyches had been condemned by Flavian of Constantinople, he
complained to Leo that he had been wronged. The latter did not hesitate for a
moment and took over the protection of this evil cause as rashly as suddenly; he
went off against Flavian violently, as if he had condemned an innocent person
without investigating the case – and with this his eagerness for honor he
brought it about that the impiety of Eutyches was strengthened for a time! In
Africa this evidently happened often; for as soon as any babbler was defeated in
the ordinary tribunal, he went to Rome at once, and charged his own with many
invectives; but the Roman see was always ready to lay itself in the mean! This
insolence forced the bishops of Africa to decree that no one beyond the sea (in
Rome) was allowed to appeal under penalty of excommunication.
IV,7,6 However this may have been – we want to examine
what right or what power the Roman See possessed at that time. The power of the
church now consists in four main parts: it includes (1) the ordination of
bishops, (3) the calling of councils, (4) the hearing of appeals or
"jurisdiction," and (2) the admonitions in the sense of church discipline or the
"censures." (1) All ancient synods command that bishops should be ordained by
the competent bishop of the capital (the metropolitan); a summons of the bishop,
from Rome they nowhere order, except in its own patriarchate. Gradually,
however, the custom arose that all the bishops of Italy came to Rome to seek
their ordination, with the exception of the metropolitans, who did not allow
themselves to be forced into this servitude. Rather, if a metropolitan was to be
ordained, the bishop of Rome sent one of his presbyters there, who was merely to
be present, but not to preside. An example of this we have before us in Gregory
(I) in the ordination of Constantius of Milan, after the death of Laurentius
(Letter III,29). I do not believe, however, that this procedure was very
ancient. Rather, it was like this: in the beginning, they sent emissaries back
and forth, in honor and goodwill: these were to be witnesses of the ordination,
to manifest mutual communion; later, what was voluntary began to be regarded as
necessary. Be that as it may, it is in any case certain that the bishop of Rome
once possessed the power of ordination solely in the territory of his
patriarchate, that is, in the churches adjacent to the city, as the statute of
the Council of Nicaea says. The ordination was connected with the sending of the
synodal final letter. In this, too, the bishop of Rome had no higher position
than the others. The patriarchs, immediately after their ordination, used to
vouch their faith in a solemn letter, in order to testify thereby that they
agreed with the (decisions of the) holy and orthodox synods. Thus, having given
an account of their faith, they mutually pronounced their recognition. Now if
the bishop of Rome had received this confession from the others, but had not
himself made it, he would have been recognized as superior. But in fact he had
to make it as well as he required it from the others, he had therefore to be
subject to the common law, and this was certainly a sign of communion, but not
of dominion. An example of this is found in Gregory’s letter to Anastasius
(Letter I,25), in another to Cyriacus of Constantinople (VII,5), and elsewhere
in a letter to all the patriarchs at the same time II,,24).
IV,7,7 (2) Then follow the admonitions or "censures". These
the bishops of Rome have once practiced against others, but just as well had to
endure on their part. Thus Irenaeus sharply rebuked (bishop) Victor (of Rome)
for rashly confusing the church with dangerous division for the sake of a
completely insignificant matter. And Victor raised no objection, but obeyed! At
that time it was common among the holy bishops that they exercised the brotherly
right with admonition and punishment towards the bishop of Rome, if he once
sinned. The latter, in turn, admonished the others of their official duty, if
the matter required it; and if there was a mistake, he reprimanded him. Thus
Cyprian asks Stephen (of Rome) to admonish the bishops of Gaul; but he does not
borrow the reason for this from his greater authority, but from the general
right that the priests have among themselves. I would like to know: would
Cyprian, if Stephen had had the right of leadership over Gaul at that time, not
have had to say: "Chastise them, for they are your people"? But in fact he
speaks quite differently: "This brotherly fellowship," he says, "with which we
are bound together, requires that we admonish one another" (Letter 68). And we
also see with what bitter words this otherwise so mild-minded man starts against
Stephen himself, where he thinks that the latter is even getting too cocky
(Letter 74). Thus, even in this piece it does not appear that the bishop of Rome
had any jurisdiction over those who did not belong to his territory.
IV,7,8 (3) As for the convocation of synods, each
metropolitan had the official duty of assembling the provincial synod at fixed
times. In this the bishop of Rome had no right. But only the emperor was able to
call a general council. If any of the bishops had attempted to do so, not only
would those outside his domain have refused to obey his call, but there would
have been an immediate uproar. Therefore, the emperor sent a message to all
equally to be present. It is true that (the church historian) Socrates reports
that (the bishop) Julius (of Rome) had complained to the bishops of the East
because they had not summoned him to the synod of Antioch, although it was
forbidden by the church statutes to decide anything without the knowledge of the
bishop of Rome (Historia tripartita IV,9). But who does not see that here one
must think of such decisions binding the whole Church? Now it is not at all
surprising, when so much honor is done to the age and importance of the city, as
well as to the dignity of its episcopal see, that a general resolution on the
worship of God is not passed in the absence of the bishop of Rome, provided that
he does not decline to be present. But what has this to do with ruling over the
whole Church? For we do not deny that the bishop of Rome was one of the most
distinguished; but we do not want to assume what the Romans claim today, namely,
that he had a dominion over all.
IV,7,9 (4) Now there remains the fourth kind of
(ecclesiastical regimental) power, which consists in the appeals (in
ecclesiastical trials). It is certain that with him to whose judgment-seat one
appeals the supreme rule lies; many have now, and often, appealed to the bishop
of Rome, even he himself has tried to draw the investigation of cases to
himself; but he has always been laughed at when he overstepped his bounds. I do
not want to say anything about the East or Greece, no, it is certain that even
the bishops of Gaul bravely resisted when it seemed that he wanted to usurp a
dominion over them. In Africa this matter has been disputed for a long time. In
fact, when at the Council of Mileve, in which Augustine took part, the people
who made an appeal "beyond the sea" were banned, the bishop of Rome tried to
have this decision reversed. He sent emissaries to show that this privilege had
been given to him at the Council of Nicaea. These delegates presented records of
the Council of Nicaea, which they had taken from the archives of their church.
The Africans resisted, saying that the bishop of Rome should not be believed in
their own cause, and that they would therefore send messengers to Constantinople
and to other cities in Greece, where they would have less suspicious copies (of
these council acts). Thereby it was clearly found out that nothing of the kind
was written in it, as the Romans had put forward! Thus that decision, which had
denied the bishop of Rome the supreme right of investigation, remained in force.
In this matter the shameful insolence of the bishop of Rome himself came to
light. For he had fraudulently interpolated the (decisions of the) Synod of
Sardica (347) for those of Nicaea, and was now shamefully caught in open fraud.
But even greater and more shameless was the uselessness of those who added to
the records of the Council a forged letter in which I know not what bishop of
Carthage condemns the insolence of his predecessor Aurelius for daring to evade
obedience to the apostolic see, submits himself and his church, and humbly begs
pardon! These, then, are the glorious documents of ancient times, on which the
majesty of the Roman See is founded; (they come about) by lying so childishly,
under the pretext of quite ancient origin, that even the blind can gropingly
notice it! "Aurelius," says this "Bishop of Carthage," "made wanton by
diabolical presumption and contumacy, has revolted against Christ and St. Peter,
and therefore he must be condemned with the anathema." What then did Augustine
do? What then did the many fathers who participated in the Council of Mileve do?
But what is the use of refuting with many words this foolish writing, which not
even the Romans themselves can look at without great shame, if they still have
some sense of honor? In the same way (as the above-mentioned impostors) Gratian
does it, whether out of malice or out of ignorance, I do not know: he first
reports of that decision, according to which all who appeal "beyond the sea"
shall be forfeited from the ecclesiastical communion – and then he adds the
exception: "Unless they appeal to the Roman See" (Decretum Gratiani II,2,6,35)!
What are we to do with such wild animals, who are so devoid of common sense that
they exclude from a law precisely the one thing for which, as everyone knows,
this law was established? For if the Council condemns the vocations "beyond the
sea", its prohibition is directed only against the fact that someone appeals to
Rome. And here the good interpreter excludes Rome from the general law!
IV,7,10 But – we want to bring this question to an end -:
how the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome was once, a story will openly bring
to light. The bishop Caecilian of Carthage had been accused by Donatus of Casae
Nigrae. The accused had been condemned without interrogation and trials. For he
knew that the bishops had conspired against him, and therefore would not appear
(before their court). Thereupon the matter came to the Emperor Constantine. The
latter wanted the matter to be settled by an ecclesiastical judgment, and
therefore he entrusted the investigation to Bishop Melciades of Rome, to whom he
assigned as fellow officers some bishops from Italy, Gaul and Spain (Augustine,
Letters 43 and 88 and Small Report of a Meeting with the Donatists,12). Now, if
it was part of the ordinary judicial power of the Roman See to investigate
appeals in ecclesiastical legal cases – why did the bishop of Rome tolerate
other bishops being placed at his side after the decision of the emperor,
indeed, why did he assume the judgment more by order of the emperor than by
virtue of his official duty? But let us hear what happened afterwards. Caecilian
was victorious in the trial, and Donatus of Casae Nigrae failed with his
slanderous accusation. He appealed. Then Constantine entrusted the judgment of
the appeal to the bishop of Arles, and the latter took the chair of judgement in
order to pass, after the bishop of Rome, the sentence which seemed to him to be
correct! Now, if the Roman See has the supreme (judicial) power, so that an
appeal cannot further occur – why then does Melciades tolerate such a
conspicuous dishonor to be inflicted upon him that he is preferred to the bishop
of Arles? And who is the emperor who does this? But Constantine, of whom the
Romans boast that he turned not only all his zeal, but almost all the power of
his empire, to increasing the dignity of their see! So we can already see how
far then the bishop of Rome was in every respect from that supreme dominion
which, according to his assurance, is given to him by Christ over all the
churches, and which he mendaciously claims to have held at all times with the
consent of the whole world.
IV,7,11 II know well how many letters, how many rescripts
and edicts there are in which the popes ascribe everything conceivable to the
Roman See and confidently claim it for him. But all who have the least sense or
the least knowledge know this too, that most of these documents are so tasteless
that one can easily find out at the first taste what kind of workshop they come
from. For which reasonable and sober person will think that the famous
interpretation really comes from Anaclet, which is found under the name of
Anaclet in Gratian, namely that interpretation which says that "Cephas" means
"head"; (Decretum Gratiani I,22,2). Very many foolish things of this kind, which
Gratian has packed together without judgment, the Romans abuse against us today
in defense of their chair, and such stupid stuff, with which they once fooled
inexperienced people in the darkness, they still want to bring to the man in
such bright light! But I do not want to spend much effort on the refutation of
such things, which clearly refute themselves because of their too great
tastelessness. I admit that there are also genuine letters of earlier popes in
which they extol the importance of their chair with grandiose praises; of this
kind are some letters of Leo (I). For, educated and eloquent as this man was, he
was also beyond measure fond of glory and dominion; but the question is, whether
at that time, while he was thus exalting himself, the churches gave credence to
his testimony. It is evident, however, that many were annoyed by his ambition
and also resisted his covetousness. In one place he charges the bishop of
Thessalonica with his representation of Greece and other neighboring territories
(Letter 14:1), in another with the bishop of Arles or anyone else for Gaul
(Letter 10:9). Likewise, he appoints Bishop Hormisdas of Hispalis as his
governor for Spain (Letter 15:17). But everywhere he makes the restriction that
he gives such orders according to the order that the traditional prerogatives of
the metropolitan remain unabridged and unrestricted. Leo himself declares that
one of these prerogatives is that in case of any doubt about a matter, the
metropolitan must be consulted first. These governorships were therefore carried
out under the condition that no bishop should be hindered in his ordinary
jurisdiction, no metropolitan in the hearing of appeals, and no provincial synod
in the order of the churches. But what did this mean other than to abstain from
all jurisdiction and to intervene only in so far as the law and the nature of
ecclesiastical communion require, in order to settle disputes?
IV,7,12 By the time of Gregory, this old state of affairs
had already changed considerably. For the empire was shaken and torn, Gaul and
Spain had suffered many defeats one after the other and lay on the ground,
Illyria was devastated, Italy was plagued and Africa was almost ruined by
continuous hardships. In order to preserve at least the purity of the faith, or
at least not to destroy it completely, all bishops from all sides joined more
closely to the bishop of Rome. Thus it came about that not only the dignity but
also the power of this see grew enormously. However, I am not so much concerned
about the way in which this came about. In any case, it is certain that this
power was greater then than in the preceding centuries. And yet there was still
much lacking in the fact that it would have been that unbound rule, so that one
could have ruled over the others according to his arbitrariness. But the Roman
See enjoyed such reverence that it was able to restrain and push back with its
authority the wicked and recalcitrant who could not be held to their duty by
their peers. In any case, Gregory repeatedly testifies with emphasis that he
preserves the rights of others no less faithfully than he himself demands his
rights from them (Letter III,29). "From no one," he says, "incited by ambition,
do I deprive what is his right, but I strive to honor my brothers in every way"
(Letter II,52). In his writings there is no word in which he extolled the
importance of his supremacy with more arrogance than the following: "I know not
what bishop would not be subject to the apostolic see if found guilty."
Nevertheless, immediately afterwards he adds, "Where there is no guilt that
required it (otherwise), all are equal to one another after the manner of
humility" (Letter IX,27). Thus, he ascribes to himself the right to punish those
who have erred; but if all do their duty, he makes himself equal with the
others. Moreover, although he attributed this right to himself, and those who
wanted it agreed to it, others who did not like it were allowed to object with
impunity, and it is known that some did. Moreover, in this passage he speaks of
the chief bishop of Byzantium: he had been condemned by the provincial synod and
had rejected the whole sentence. This recalcitrance of the man had been reported
to the emperor by his peers. The emperor had the will that Gregory should make a
decision in this matter. We see, then, that he does nothing to violate ordinary
jurisprudence, and that even the very things he does to be helpful to others he
does exclusively at the Emperor’s behest.
IV,7,13 DThe whole power of the bishop of Rome, then,
consisted in opposing unruly and untamed minds where some extraordinary means
was required, and this was done to help the other bishops, not to hinder them.
Therefore, Gregory does not take more liberties with the others than he admits
elsewhere with himself, confessing that he is ready to be punished by all, to be
corrected by all (Letter II,50). In another place he gives the bishop of
Aquileia the order to come to Rome to answer for a religious dispute that had
arisen between him and others; but he does not give this order on the basis of
his own authority, but because the emperor had instructed him to do so. Nor does
he announce that he alone will be judge, but he promises to assemble the synod
by which the whole matter is to be judged (Letter I,16). Thus there still
existed such a moderation that the power of the Roman See had its definite
limits beyond which it could not go, and that the bishop of Rome himself did not
stand above the others to a greater degree than he was at the same time subject
to them. But although it was so, it is clear how much this state of affairs
displeased Gregory; for he sometimes complains that he had been brought back to
the world under the appearance of the episcopate, he complains that he was more
involved in earthly cares than he had ever been in the lay state, that he was
crushed in his honorary rank by a tangle of worldly business (Letter I,5). In
another place he says: "I am weighed down by such burdens of business that my
heart can no longer rise to higher things. Many things shake me like waves, and
after that (former) leisure of rest I am so tormented by the storms of a
confused life that I can justly say, ’I have come into the depths of the sea,
and the storm has made me sink’" (Jonah 2:4; not an exact quote; Letter I:7;
I:25). From this we can infer what he might have said if he had lived in our
times. Though he did not fully fulfill the office of shepherd, he did perform
it. He abstained from leading a civil rule, and he confessed that he was subject
to the emperor together with the others. He did not interfere in the care of
other churches, unless necessity forced him to do so. And yet he has the
impression of being in a maze, because he cannot simply be completely free for
the exercise of his official duty as bishop
IV,7,14 At this time the bishop of Constantinople was
fighting with that of Rome for supremacy, as has already been pointed out. For
after the residence of the Empire had been established in Constantinople, the
majesty of the Empire seemed to demand that the Church there should also hold
the second place of honor after that of Rome. And certainly in the beginning
nothing had been more important for the transfer of a supreme power to Rome than
the fact that the head of the empire was located there at that time. In Gratian
there is a letter under the name of Pope Lucius, in which he declares that the
cities in which metropolitans and chief bishops were to be in charge were to be
determined exclusively according to the kind of civil government that had
existed there before (Decretum Gratiani I,80,1). There is also another similar
letter under the name of Pope Clement, in which he says that in the cities that
once had the chief priests, patriarchs were also appointed (Decretum Gratiani
I,80,2). Although this is now without actual content, it is nevertheless taken
from the true facts. For it is certain that, in order to allow as few changes as
possible, the territories were distributed on the basis of the then existing
state of affairs, and that the chief bishops and metropolitans were given their
seats in those cities which had precedence over the others in honor and power.
Therefore, at the Council of Turin (401), it was decided that the cities which
were first in civil government in each province should also be the first
episcopal sees; but if it happened that the honor of civil government was
transferred from one city to another, the right of (ecclesiastical) capital
should also pass to it (chap. 1). But when Bishop Innocent of Rome saw how the
ancient dignity of the city had declined since the seat of the empire had been
transferred to Constantinople, he feared for his see and issued a contrary law:
in this he declared that it was not necessary that with each change of the
imperial capitals the ecclesiastical ones should also be changed. But the
authority of the Synod is deservedly preferable to the opinion of one man.
Besides, Innocent himself must be suspect to us (for he speaks) in his own
cause. But however that may be: he shows, in spite of everything, by his
precautionary measure, that it had been so arranged from the beginning, that the
(ecclesiastical) capitals were set up according to the external order of the
empire
IV,7,15 On the basis of this ancient custom, it was
established at the first synod of Constantinople (381) that the bishop of that
city should succeed the bishop of Rome in honorary prerogatives, because
Constantinople was the new Rome (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History V,8, Historia
tripartita IX,13, Decretum Gratiani I,22,3). A long time later, however, when a
similar decision was taken at Chalcedon, Leo strongly objected. And not only did
he allow himself to consider as nothing what six hundred bishops or more had
decided, but he also attacked them with fierce reproaches for having taken from
other episcopal sees the honor they had dared to bestow on the church at
Constantinople. I would like to know: what else could provoke this man to shake
the world over such an insignificant matter than pure honor? He declared that
what the Synod of Nicaea had once established must remain inviolate. As if the
Christian faith would be put at risk if one church were preferred to another! Or
as if the patriarchates had been established at Nicaea for any other purpose
than for the sake of external order! But we know that the external order ever
undergoes, indeed requires, manifold changes with changing times. It was,
therefore, a futile pretext when Leo declared that the honor given by virtue of
the authority of the Council of Nicaea to the episcopate of Alexandria should
not be transferred to that of Constantinople. For common sense tells us that
this decision was of such a nature that it could be revoked according to the
needs of the time. How is it that no one from the bishops of the East raised an
objection, although the case concerned them the most? In any case, Proterius was
present, who had been made patriarch of Alexandria in place of Dioscorus, and
other patriarchs were also present, whose honor had been diminished (by such a
decision). These would have had the duty to object, but not Leo, who remained in
his place without any diminution! But while these all remain silent, even agree,
the bishop of Rome alone opposes. He foresaw what happened not long afterward,
namely that Constantinople would not be satisfied with the second place and
would fight with Rome for the supremacy. Nevertheless, Leo, with his objection,
did not manage to prevent the Council’s decision from coming into force.
Therefore, his successors, realizing that they were powerless, peacefully
refrained from that obstinacy; they tolerated that the bishop of Constantinople
was considered the second patriarch.
IV,7,16 A short time later, however, John, who ruled the
church at Constantinople in the time of Gregory (I), went so far as to call
himself patriarch for the whole church (universalis patriarchus). Against this
Gregory, in order not to omit the defense of his See in so excellent a cause,
steadfastly resisted. And certainly the arrogance as well as the nonsense of
John, who wanted to make the boundaries of his bishopric equal to the boundaries
of the Empire, was also intolerable. Nevertheless, Gregory does not himself lay
claim to what he denies to the other, but he detests this name ("universal
patriarch") as sacrilegious, godless and nefarious – by whomsoever it may
ultimately be used. Yes, he even drives off at one point against Bishop Eulogius
of Alexandria, who had honored him with such a title. "You see," he says, "in
the preface to the letter which you addressed to me, despite my prohibition, you
had a word written which signifies a hopeful designation: namely, you called me
"Pope of the universal Church" (Papa universalis). This, I ask, may Your
Holiness not do in the future; for you are deprived of what is given to another
beyond what is justified. I do not consider as honor that of which I see that
the honor of my brothers is thereby diminished. For my honor is the honor of the
whole Church and the undiminished legal status of my brothers. But if Your
Holiness calls me the ’Pope of the universal Church’, she thereby declares that
what I am, according to her confession, for the entirety, she is not for her
part" (Letter VIII,29). Gregory’s cause was good and honorable, but John, who
was helped by the favor of the Emperor Mauritius, could not be dissuaded from
his purpose. Even his successor Cyriacus never softened in the matter.
IV,7,17 Then Phocas took Mauritius’ place after his
murder. He was more friendly to the Romans – I don’t know for what reason,
indeed: because he had been crowned in Rome without dispute. This Phocas then at
last conceded to Boniface the Third what Gregory had by no means demanded,
namely, that Rome should be the head of all the churches. In this way the
dispute was settled. Nevertheless, even this show of favor by the emperor would
not have been of so much use to the Roman See if other things had not been
added. For Greece and all Asia were torn from communion with it shortly
afterward. And France paid its respects to the pope in such a way that it obeyed
only as far as it suited him. In fact, it was brought into servitude (under
Rome) only when Pipin usurped the royal power. For the Roman bishop Zacharias
had aided and abetted him in disloyalty and brigandage, so that after the
expulsion of the rightful king he seized the kingdom as if it were given up for
plunder. For this Zacharias received the reward that the Roman See should have
jurisdiction over the French churches. As robbers are wont to divide the common
booty among themselves, so also these good people made a settlement among
themselves: the earthly, civil dominion should fall to Pipin after robbing the
true king, but Zacharias should become the head of all bishops and have the
spiritual power! This was unstable in the beginning, as new things tend to be;
but then it was strengthened by the authority of Charles – and for almost the
same reason. For Charles was also indebted to the Roman pope, because he had
attained the imperial dignity through his efforts. Although it can be assumed
that the churches everywhere had already been greatly disfigured before that
time, it is certain that it was only then that the old form of the church in
France and Germany was completely forgotten. In the archives of the supreme
court in Paris there are still brief records from those times which, where
ecclesiastical matters are concerned, mention treaties which Pipin or also
Charles concluded with the Roman pope. From these it is concluded that at that
time the change of the old state of affairs took place.
IV,7,18 From this time on, when the conditions everywhere
were daily worsening, the tyranny of the Roman See then also gradually came to
strength and to greater extent, partly through the ignorance and partly through
the laxity of the bishops. For while one man took all liberties with himself,
and continued without measure to exalt himself more and more against right and
equity, the bishops did not exert themselves with due zeal to keep his arbitrary
power in check, and though they might not have been without the will to do so,
yet they would have lacked proper instruction and experience, so that they were
by no means fit to take up so important a matter. Thus we see of what kind and
of what abomination, in the time of Bernard (of Clairvaux), was the profanation
of all that was holy and the destruction of the entire ecclesiastical order at
Rome. He complains that from all over the world greedy, avaricious people,
people who practiced simony, desecration of the temple, fornication, incest, and
other monsters of this kind flocked to Rome in order to gain or retain
ecclesiastical honors there through apostolic authority; fraud, deception, and
acts of violence, he complains, had become rampant (Von der Betrachtung an Papst
Eugen III,I,4f.). He declares that the way of administering justice, which was
common at that time, was abominable and it was unseemly not only for the Church
but also for the (secular) court (Ibid. I,10,13). He exclaims that the Church is
full of ambitious people, and that there is no one more abhorrent to the
commission of outrages than robbers in their den when they distribute the booty
taken from travelers (Ibid.). "Few," he says, "look at the mouth of the
lawgiver; but all look at his hands. But this is not done without reason. For
all papal business is done precisely through the hands" (Ibid. IV,2,4). "What
does this mean" (he writes to the Pope), "that the people who say to you,
’Splendid, splendid!’ – are bought by plunder taken from the churches? The
livelihood of the poor is strewn in the alleys of the rich. The silver shines in
the dirt. One hurries from all sides – but not the poorer, but the stronger
takes it up or also the one who just runs the fastest ahead! But this fixing or
better: this deadly decomposition (mos iste, vel potius mors ista) does not come
from you – oh, would it end with you! In the midst of all this you walk along as
a ’shepherd’, surrounded with many and precious ornaments. If I may dare to say
it – this is rather a pasture for devils than for sheep. So then Peter also did,
so also Paul mocked?" (Ibid. IV,2,5. "Your court is accustomed to receive more
good people into itself – than to make people good. For the wicked do not become
better in it, but the good become worse!" (Ibid IV,4,11). No pious person will
be able to read the abuses in the appeal proceedings, which he then reports,
without great disgust (Ibid. III,2,6 ss.). Finally he speaks of that unbridled
covetousness of the Roman See in the usurpation of the judicial power,
concluding: "I pronounce the murmurings and the common complaint of the
churches. They cry aloud that they are being mutilated and deprived of their
limbs. And there are none left at all or only a few who do not feel this blow
painfully or do not fear it (at least). Do you ask what kind of blow? That the
abbots are deprived of their bishops (with regard to judicial power and other
rights) and the bishops of the archbishops …! It would be a miracle if this
could be excused. By acting in this way, you prove that you have full power –
but not full justice. You do it because you can; but whether you may, that is
the question. You are set to preserve each one’s honor and rank, but not to
begrudge them" (Ibid. III,4,14). I wanted to report these few things out of
many, so that the readers on the one hand see what a serious case the church had
done at that time, and also on the other hand realize how much this distress has
put all pious people into mourning and groaning.
IV,7,19 Now if we were to grant to the bishop of Rome
today also the excellent position and the great power in jurisdiction that this
See possessed in the middle ages (of development), such as in the times of Leo
or Gregory – what good would that do to the present papacy? I do not speak yet
of the earthly rule, also not of the civil power; about that we will still make
our considerations later at suitable place. No, what does the spiritual
government itself, which they praise, have in common with the conditions of
those times? For the pope is described in no other way than this: he is the
supreme head of the church on earth and the general bishop of the whole world.
But when the popes themselves speak of their authority, they declare with great
arrogance that they have the authority to command, and that the others have to
obey; in this way all their orders are to be regarded as if they were confirmed,
as it were, by the divine voice of Peter. The provincial synods – it is further
said – since they take place without the presence of the pope, have no force.
The popes further declare that they can ordain clerics for any church and call
those who are ordained elsewhere to their chair. Countless statements of this
kind can be found in the compilation of Gratian; I do not enumerate them in
order not to be too burdensome for the reader. The main content, however, boils
down to this: with the bishop of Rome alone lies the supreme decision on all
ecclesiastical matters, whether it is a matter of judging and establishing
doctrines, enacting laws, regulating discipline, or exercising jurisdiction. It
would also be tedious and superfluous to enumerate the prerogatives they take
for themselves with what they call "reservations" (rights reserved to the Pope).
But the most intolerable of all is this: they leave no court on earth that could
restrain or curb their arbitrariness when they abuse such immense power. "No
one," they say, "shall be permitted to oppose the judgment of this See, for the
sake of the supreme power of the Church at Rome" (Decretum Gratiani II,17,4,30).
Or likewise: "This judge (the pope) shall not be judged by the emperor, nor by
kings, nor by any clergy, nor by the people" (Decretum Gratiani II,9,3,13). It
is already more than imperious enough when a single person sets himself up as
judge over all, but is not willing to submit to the judgment of another. But
what shall we say when he exercises his tyranny against the people of God, when
he scatters and devastates Christ’s kingdom, when he brings the whole church
into confusion, when he turns the pastoral office into robbery? Yes, even in the
event that the pope were the most wicked of all men, he denies that he is
compelled to give account! For it is sayings of popes when it is said: "The
affairs of other men God has willed to be settled by men, but the bishop of this
see God has reserved to his own judgment without judicial inquiry (by men)" (Decretum
Gratiani II,9,3,14). Or likewise, "The deeds of our subjects are judged by us,
but ours by God alone" (Decretum Gratiani II,9,3,15).
IV,7,20 Now, in order to give more weight to such decrees,
the names of old bishops (of Rome) have been falsely slipped in, as if things
had already been regulated this way from the beginning. And yet it is more than
certain that everything that is attributed to the bishop of Rome more than,
according to our report, the old councils gave him, is new and only recently
concocted. Yes, they have gone so far in their impudence as to issue a letter
under the name of Patriarch Anastasius of Constantinople, in which he testifies
that it was established by the ancient rules that nothing should be done even in
the most distant provinces that had not previously been reported to the Roman
See (Decretum Gratiani II,9,3,12). Apart from the fact that this is certainly a
complete lie, I would like to ask: who would find it credible that such a praise
of the Roman See would have come from someone who was its adversary and
jealously fought with it for honor and dignity? But these antichrists had to be
carried away to such nonsense and blindness that their uselessness is obvious to
all people of sound mind who only want to open their eyes. The decrees collected
by Gregory IX, as well as the "Clementines" and the "Extravagantes Martini",
show even more clearly and with fuller cheeks this terrible unruliness and this
tyranny, which is almost appropriate to barbarian kings, everywhere. But these
are the words of revelation by which the Romans want their papacy to be judged!
From these have arisen the glorious principles, which today in the papacy
everywhere have the validity of revelatory words, such as: the pope cannot err,
the pope is superior to the councils, the pope is the general bishop of all
churches and the supreme head of the church on earth. I am silent about even
more absurd inconsistencies that foolish canon lawyers spout in their schools –
and yet the Roman theologians not only agree with these, but they witness their
applause in order to flatter their idol!
IV,7,21 I will not deal with them according to the
harshest law. Against such great arrogance, some other might set a saying of
Cyprian, which the latter applied to the bishops whose council he presided: "No
one among us calls himself a ’bishop of bishops,’ or forces his fellow-officers
with tyrannical pressure into the necessity of obeying him." He (that "other")
could also interject what was decided some time afterward in Carthage: no one
should call himself Supreme of Priests or First Bishop. He could collect from
the history books many testimonies, from the (acts of the) synods ecclesiastical
statutes, and from the books of the ancients many statements in which the bishop
of Rome is forced to order. But I refrain from doing so, so as not to give the
impression that I am too harsh on them. But let the best protectors of the Roman
See answer me how they would dare to defend the title of "general bishop"
(bishop of the universal Church), when they see that this title is so often
condemned by Gregory (I) with a solemn curse. If the testimony of Gregory is to
be in force, by making their bishop the "general bishop" they declare at the
same time that he is the Antichrist! Also the name "head" (of the church) was by
no means more common. For Gregory says in one place thus: "Peter was the most
distinguished member of the body (of Christ); John, Andrew, and James were the
heads of particular churches. But all under the one head are members of the
church; yea, the saints before the time of the law, the saints under the law,
the saints in grace – they all make the body of the Lord complete, and are
placed in the ranks of the members, and none of them ever willed to be called
’general’" (Letter V,44). But that the bishop of Rome arrogates to himself the
power to command is not at all in accordance with a statement that Gregory makes
elsewhere. When the bishop Eulogius of Alexandria declared that he had received
a "command" from Gregory, the latter replied in the following manner: "This word
’command’, I beg you, do not let me hear; for I know who I am and who you are:
according to your position you are my brothers, according to your conduct you
are my fathers; I have therefore not commanded, but I have endeavored to show
what has seemed useful to me" (Letter VIII,29). The fact that the pope extends
his jurisdiction so boundlessly does a grave and terrible injustice not only to
the other bishops, but also to each individual church, because he tears the
churches apart and mutilates them in such a way that he builds his chair out of
their fragments. That he further evades all judgment and wants to rule in a
tyrannical manner in such a way that he regards the arbitrariness, which he
himself alone exercises, as law, is in any case too unworthy and too different
from the ecclesiastical way of acting for one to be able to bear it in any way.
For it stands in gaping contradiction not only to the sentiment of piety, but
also to that of humanity.
IV,7,22 But in order not to be compelled to go through and
examine the particulars, I turn again to those who nowadays wish to be
considered the best and most faithful advocates of the Roman See, and ask them
if they are not ashamed to defend the present state of the papacy; for it is
certain that it is a hundred times more depraved than it was in the times of
Gregory or Bernard, and yet even that state at that time displeased these holy
men so much. Gregory complains again and again that he is dragged to and fro by
foreign business, that he was led back to the world under the pretense of the
episcopal office, and that he now has to serve so many earthly concerns in his
office that he cannot remember ever having been subjected to so many in his
former lay state, he was so crushed by the tangle of worldly affairs that his
heart could not rise to the heavenly ones, the many waves of legal cases
shattered him, and the impetuous storms of life brought him into contestation,
so that he could justly say: "I have come into the depths of the sea …"
(Letter I:5; 1:7; 1:25; 1:24). Certainly, in the midst of such earthly business,
he could instruct the people in sermons, yes, especially admonish them;
certainly, he could still punish those with whom it had to be done, order the
church, give counsel to the ministers and admonish them of their duty; moreover,
he also had some time left for writing – and yet he laments his distress,
because he had sunk into the deepest depth of the sea. If the administrative
work at that time was a "sea," what will it have to be said of the present
papacy? For what else do they have in common? Here there is no preaching, no
concern for discipline, no zeal for the churches, no spiritual ministry-in
short, here is nothing but the world. And yet this maze is praised as if nothing
more orderly and well-ordered could be found! But what lamentations Bernhard
pours out, what sighs he lets be heard, looking at the infirmities of his time!
What would he do if he looked at our age, which is "iron" or at best even worse
than iron? What an impertinence it is to stubbornly defend as something holy and
divine what all the saints have at all times unanimously rejected, and not only
this, but even to misuse their testimony in defense of a papacy that was
undoubtedly completely unknown to them! However, I admit with regard to the time
of Bernard that at that time the corruption of all things was so great that this
time was not very different from ours. But such people who want to take any
pretext from that middle time, namely that of Leo, Gregory and similar men, lack
all shame. For these people do exactly the same as if someone wanted to praise
the old state of the Roman Empire in order to confirm the sole rule of the
(Roman) emperors, that is: borrowed the praise of freedom to adorn tyranny.
IV,7,23 In conclusion, even if all this may be granted to
the Romans, a whole new controversy arises for them if we deny that there is a
church in Rome where such benefits could have their place, and if we further
deny that there is (there) a bishop who possesses such dignitary prerogatives.
Let us suppose that all those (previous) assertions are true – we have, however,
already beaten them out of hand! Let us suppose, then, that Peter was really
appointed head of the whole Church by Christ’s word, that he had given the honor
conferred upon him to the Roman See, that this was established by the authority
of the early Church and confirmed by long practice, that the supreme power had
always been unanimously conceded by all to the bishop of Rome, that he had been
judge of all legal matters as well as of all men, and even that he had not been
subject to the judgment of any man. Yes, the Romans can have still more, if they
want – I answer in any case with the one word that all this has no value if
there is no church and no bishop in Rome. They must admit to me that something
which is not a church cannot be the mother of the churches, and that one who is
not a bishop cannot be the head of the bishops. Do they now want to have the
"apostolic" chair at Rome? Then they must show me (there also) the true,
rightful apostleship! Do they want to have the highest bishop there? Then they
must also show me a bishop! But how now? Where will they show us any
recognizable figure of the church? According to the name they do that, of
course, and they always lead the church in the mouth. But now the church is
certainly recognized by its certain marks, and "bishopric" is the name of an
office. I do not speak here of the people, but of the church regiment itself,
which is to be seen constantly in the church. Now, where at Rome is the office
after the manner required by Christ’s foundation? Let us remember what was said
above about the official duty of presbyters and bishops. If we measure the
office of cardinals by this standard, we must admit that they are nothing less
than presbyters. And what the bishop himself is supposed to have somehow
episcopal about him, I should like to know. The first main part of the bishop’s
office is to instruct the people with God’s word, the second, which immediately
follows this, is to administer the sacraments, and the third is to exhort and
encourage, and also to punish those who transgress, and to keep the people in
holy discipline. What of all this does the bishop of Rome do? Yes, what does he
at least pretend to do? Tell me, then, in what sense one wants a man to be
considered a bishop who does not touch any part of his official duty even with
the smallest finger, even if only in pretense.
IV,7,24 It is not the same with a bishop as with a king;
for even if he does not exercise what actually belongs to a king, he
nevertheless retains the honor and the title. In judging a bishop, on the other
hand, one looks to Christ’s commission, which must always remain in force in the
Church. So let the Romans untie this knot for me. I declare that their bishop is
not the supreme of the bishops precisely because he is not a bishop! They must
now necessarily first prove that the latter assertion is false, if they want to
prevail with respect to the former. But what will they say, when their bishop
has not only nothing of what constitutes the peculiarity of a bishop, but rather
nothing but qualities contrary to it? But, O God, where shall I begin? With the
doctrine or with the way of life? What should I say or – what should I conceal?
And where should I stop? I say this: if the world today is so full of so many
perverse and godless doctrines, if it is filled with so many superstitions, if
it is blinded by so many errors and sunk in so much idolatry, there is nowhere
anything of all this that has not taken its origin from Rome or at least
received its approval. And when the popes act with such fury against the
reemerging doctrine of the gospel, when they exert all their powers to suppress
it, when they incite all kings and princes to cruel rage, it is for no other
reason than because they see that their whole rule will collapse and break down
once the gospel of Christ has gained currency. Leo (X) has been cruel, Clement
(VII) bloodthirsty, and Paul (III) grim. But it was not so much their nature
that drove them to deny the truth as the fact that this was the only way to
maintain their power. Since, therefore, they can only persist when Christ is
struck down, they toil in this cause no differently than when they fought for
house and hearth and for their own lives! How then, shall there be for us the
"apostolic chair" where we see nothing but terrible apostasy? Shall this be the
"governor of Christ" who persecutes the Gospel in dogged attacks and thus openly
reveals that he is the Antichrist? Shall this be the "successor of Peter" who
rages with fire and sword to tear down everything Peter built up? Shall he be
"the head of the church, who tears and cuts off the church from Christ, its
united head, and then cuts it up and tears it apart in itself? Rome may have
been the mother of all churches in ancient times, but it has ceased to be what
it was since it began to be the seat of the Antichrist.
IV,7,25 Some have the impression that we are doing too
much blasphemy and even too much malice when we call the Pope of Rome the
Antichrist. But those who think so do not realize that they are accusing Paul of
immoderateness, whom we join with such language, indeed, whose own words we
repeat. Now, so that no one will accuse us of referring to the bishop of Rome in
a mistaken way Paul’s words, which in themselves have a different meaning, I
will briefly show that these words cannot be understood in any other way than
that they refer to the papacy. Paul writes that the Antichrist will take his
seat in the temple of God (2Thess 2,4). Also in another place the Holy Spirit
draws us a picture of the Antichrist, namely in the person of Antiochus, and
there he shows that his rule will consist in grandiloquence and blasphemies
(Dan 7,25). From this we draw the conclusion that this kingdom of Antichrist is
a tyranny that is directed more against souls than against bodies, a tyranny
that rises up against Christ’s spiritual kingdom. Furthermore, it is clear that
this kingdom is of such a kind that it does not abolish the name of Christ or
the church, but rather misuses Christ as a pretext and hides under the name
"church" as if behind a mask. Admittedly, all heresies and sects that have
existed since the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist. However, when
Paul predicts that an apostasy will come (2Thess 2:3), he indicates with this
description that the seat of abomination will be set up when a general apostasy
has taken hold of the church, even if many members of the church persist in the
true unity of faith. But when Paul then adds that already in his time the
Antichrist secretly begins to work the work of wickedness, which he will then
carry out publicly (2Thess 2,7), we learn from this that this misery should
neither be raised by a single man nor should it come to an end in a single man.
When he then further describes the Antichrist with the characteristic that he
will snatch away God’s honor and usurp it for himself (2Thess 2:4), this is
the most important sign we must follow if we want to look for the Antichrist,
especially where such arrogance progresses to the public dispersion of the
church. Now it is certain that the pope at Rome has unashamedly transferred to
himself that which was proper to God alone and to Christ in the highest degree,
and therefore there can be no doubt that he is the supreme and leader of this
godless and abominable empire.
IV,7,26 Now the Romans may go and hold the old time
against us. As if, in the face of such a reversal of all things, the honor of a
(episcopal) see could remain where there is no episcopal see at all! Eusebius
reports that God, in order to make room for his vengeance, transferred the
church that was in Jerusalem to Pella (Church History III,5,3). What happened
once, according to what we hear here, could also happen more often. Therefore it
is ridiculous and inconsistent to tie the honor of the supreme power to a place
in such a way that one who in reality is the most determined enemy of Christ,
the most distinguished opponent of the gospel, the greatest devastator and
destroyer of the Church, and the cruelest slayer and executioner of all the
saints, is nevertheless regarded as the "governor of Christ," the "successor of
Peter," and the "first ruler of the Church," solely because he occupies a seat
which was once the first of all! I am still silent about what a great difference
there is between the office of the Pope and a properly established order of the
Church. And this I do, although this one fact is excellent to remove any doubt
about this question. For no man in his right mind will enclose the episcopate in
lead and bulls, much less in such a mastery of all frauds and overreaching – for
these are the things by which the "spiritual regiment" of the pope may be
recognized. It is therefore very appropriate when someone once said that the
Roman church, of which one boasts, had already been transformed into a court for
a long time, and that this alone is now to be seen in Rome. Now I am not
accusing here the infirmities of men, but I am proving that the papacy itself is
utterly repugnant to the ecclesiastical nature.
IV,7,27 If we now want to speak about men, we know well
enough what kind of "governors of Christ" we will find there: Julius (II.) and
Leo (X.) and Clemens (VII.) and Paul (III.) will be the "pillars of the
Christian faith" and the "supreme teachers of religion" – people who know
nothing else about Christ than what they have learned in the school of (scoffer)
Lucian! But for what purpose do I enumerate here three or four popes? As if it
would be doubtful what kind of religion the popes together with the whole
college of cardinals have already confessed for a long time and confess even
nowadays! Because the first main piece of the hidden theology, which leads the
regiment among them, is this: There is no God. And the second one is: Everything
that is written and taught about Christ is a lie and a fraud. And the third: The
doctrine of the future life and of the last resurrection – these are all fables!
Not everyone thinks like that, and only a few speak out like that, I admit. But
nevertheless this has long begun to be the common religion of the popes, and
although it is fully known to all who have known Rome, yet the Roman theologians
do not cease to boast that by a privilege given by Christ provision has been
made against the pope’s being able to err – for to Peter it was said, "I …
have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32). I would like to
know: what will they achieve with this shameless mockery other than that the
whole world sees how they have reached such the highest peak of nefariousness
that they neither fear God nor shy away from men?
IV,7,28 But let us suppose that the ungodliness of the
aforementioned popes remained hidden, because they did not make it public either
in sermons or in writings, but merely spoke it at the table, in the closet, or
at least between their walls. If, however, they want that privilege which they
claim to have its validity, they must (in any case) strike out John XXII from
the number of popes who openly asserted that souls are mortal and perish
together with the bodies until the day of the resurrection. But in order to see
that at that time the whole (papal) See, together with its most noble supports,
completely collapsed, (let the following fact be pointed out): none of the
cardinals opposed such a great folly, but the school of Paris made the King of
France force the man to recant! The king forbade the (ecclesiastical) communion
with him, if he did not repent soon; and he also had this announced by a herald
according to custom. Under this coercion, the pope then renounced his error.
John Gerson, who lived at that time, is a witness to this. This example has the
effect that I no longer have to argue with our opponents about their statement
that the Roman See and its popes could not fall in faith because it was said to
Peter: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not cease …" (Lk 22,32).
Certainly, that John XXII strayed from the right faith in such an abominable way
of apostasy to offer an excellent proof to the descendants that not all those
who follow Peter in the episcopate are also Peterites! However, this assertion
is too childish in itself to need an answer. For if they want to refer
everything that has been said about Peter to his successors, then it also
follows that all popes are satans – for the Lord also said to Peter: "Get thee,
Satan, off me! You are annoying me" (Mt 16,23). For it will be as easy for
us to turn the latter against them as it may be for them to hold the former
against us!!
IV,7,29 But I have no desire to carry on my argument with
silliness – so I will return to that from which I had digressed. If Christ, the
Holy Spirit and the church are tied to one place in such a way that anyone who
is in charge there, even if he is the devil, is still considered Christ’s
governor and the head of the church, because Peter’s seat was once there, I
maintain, this is not only ungodly and a blasphemy of Christ, but also too
absurd and contrary to common sense. For a long time now, the Roman popes have
been either completely without religion or even the worst enemies of religion.
Therefore, they are no more "Christ’s governors" for the sake of the chair they
occupy than an idol is to be considered God when it is set up in God’s temple (2
Thess. 2:4). But if one wants to judge their way of life, then the popes
themselves may give the answer, what it should be at all, by which they could be
recognized as bishops. First of all, that they live in Rome as they do, and that
they not only look through their fingers and remain silent, but also approve of
it, as it were, with silent consent, is quite unworthy of a bishop; for a bishop
has the duty, after all, to keep the boisterousness of the people in check by
the severity of discipline. But I do not want to be so ruthless against them
that I burden them with other people’s misdeeds. But that they themselves,
together with their household, together with almost the whole college of
cardinals, together with the whole bunch of their clergy, are so devoted to all
wickedness, immorality and impurity, to every kind of vice and turpitude, that
they are more like monsters than men – in this they certainly show that they are
nothing less than bishops. Nevertheless, they need not now fear that I will
continue to expose their shame. For it disgusts me to deal with such stinking
mud, moreover I have to consider shameful ears – and then I also have the
impression as if I had already shown more than enough what I wanted to show. For
it was this: even if Rome may once have been the head of the churches, today it
is not worthy to be counted among their smallest toes.
IV,7,30 WAs for the cardinals they call themselves, I do
not know what actually happened that they rose so suddenly to such importance.
In Gregory’s time, this title belonged to the bishops alone. For every time he
mentions cardinals, he does not attribute them to the Church at Rome, but to any
others, so that, in short, a "cardinal priest" is nothing other than a bishop
(Letter I,15; I,77; I,79; II,12; II,37; III,13). I do not find the title in the
writers of the earlier period. I see, however, that the cardinals were then
subordinate to the bishops, whereas today they are essentially superior to them.
A word of Augustine is well known: "Although, according to the honorific name
which has become common in the Church, the episcopate stands higher than that of
the presbyter, yet (the bishop) Augustine is in many things inferior to (the
presbyter) Jerome" (Letter 82). Here he undoubtedly makes no distinction between
a presbyter of the Church at Rome and other presbyters, but ranks them all
equally below bishops. This was so largely observed that at the Council of
Carthage, when two emissaries of the Roman See were present, one a bishop, the
other a presbyter, the latter was relegated to the lowest place. But not to go
through things too old: there is a council held at Rome under Gregory; there now
the presbyters have their seat in the lowest place, and they also sign for
themselves, but the deacons have no place at all in the signing (Gregory, Letter
V,57a). And there is no doubt that at that time they (today’s cardinals) had no
other official duty than to assist and follow the bishop in the administration
of doctrine and sacraments. Nowadays, however, their lot has changed in such a
way that they have become relatives of kings and emperors. It is also beyond
doubt that they have gradually grown together with their head, until they have
risen to the present summit of dignity. But I have wished to touch upon this
also in a few words, as it were in passing, in order that the reader may better
see that the Roman See, as it is now constituted, differs very essentially from
that ancient one, which it always uses as a pretext to protect and defend
itself. But the cardinals may have been what they will in former times, yet they
hold no true and lawful office in the Church, and therefore merely a pretense
and a vain mask. Yes, because everything they have is completely contrary to the
ecclesiastical office, it has necessarily happened to them what Gregory so often
writes: "Weeping I say it and sighing I make it known: since the priesthood has
disintegrated inwardly, it will not be able to endure outwardly either" (Letter
V,58; V,62; VI,7; V,63). Yes, rather it had to be fulfilled in them what Malachi
says of such people: "You have gone astray and vexed many in the law and have
broken the covenant of Levi, says the Lord. Therefore I also have made you to be
despised and worthless before all the people …" (Mal 2:8f.). Now I leave it
to all pious people to think about the nature of the highest peak of the Roman
hierarchy, to which the papists in godless impudence unabashedly subject even
the word of God, which should have been worthy of worship and holy for heaven
and earth, for angels and men
Of the power of the church with respect to the doctrines of
faith, and with what unbridled arbitrariness this has been used in the papacy
for the falsification of all purity of doctrine.
IV,8,1 Now follows the third main part: of the authority of
the church. This appears partly in the individual bishops, partly in the
councils, both in the provincial councils and in the general ones. Here I am
speaking exclusively of the spiritual authority proper to the Church. This
consists now in teaching, in jurisdiction, or in legislation. The doctrinal
piece has two parts: it deals with the authority to establish doctrines and with
the interpretation of doctrines. Now, before we begin to discuss each part in
particular, we would urge the devout reader to remember to relate all that is
taught about the authority of the church to the end for which it is given
according to Paul’s testimony; but this end is edification and not pulling down
(2Cor 10:8; 13:10), and those who rightfully exercise this authority do not think
that they are anything more than ministers of Christ and at the same time
ministers of the people (i.e., the church) in Christ. Now the edification of the
church happens in only one way, namely, when the ministers themselves take care
to maintain for Christ the authority due to him; but this can remain unabridged
only when he is left what he has received from the Father, namely, that he is
the only teacher of his church. For it is not of anyone else, but of Him alone
that it is written, "Him shall you hear" (Mt 17:5). Thus the ecclesiastical
authority is to receive its adornment without pettiness, but nevertheless it is
to be enclosed within certain limits, so that it is not dragged hither and
thither according to the caprice of men. To this end it will be most helpful if
we direct our attention to the way in which it is described by the prophets and
apostles. For if we simply leave it to men to take to themselves the power that
pleases them, then everyone will immediately see how easy it is to fall into a
tyranny that must remain far removed from the church of Christ.
IV,8,2 Therefore we must here consider that all that the
Holy Spirit in Scripture confers on the priests, or even on the prophets, or on
the apostles, or on the successors of the apostles, in terms of authority and
dignity, is fully and properly attached not to the men themselves, but to the
office over which they preside, or, to speak more plainly, to the word whose
ministry is entrusted to them. For if we go through them all in order, we shall
not find that they were invested with any authority to teach or to do any saying
but in the name of the Lord alone, and on the ground of his word. For when they
are called to their office, every time at the same time the obligation is laid
upon them not to bring forward anything of themselves, but to speak out of the
mouth of the Lord. Nor does he let them appear in public to be heard by the
people until he has instructed them what to speak – so that they speak nothing
but his word. Moses was the chief of all prophets, and he had to be heard before
others; but he was also given certain orders beforehand, so that he could not
proclaim anything but what came from the Lord (Ex 3,4 ss.). Therefore, when the
people accepted his teaching, they were told that they believed in God and in
his servant Moses (Ex 14,31). The authority of the priests was also secured with
severe threats of punishment so that it would not fall into contempt (Deut 17,
9-13). At the same time, however, the Lord indicates the condition under which
they were to be heard, namely, by saying that He had made His covenant with Levi
so that "the law of truth … was in his mouth" (Mal 2,4.6). And shortly after
he adds: "The priest’s lips shall keep the teaching, that the law may be sought
out of his mouth; for he is a messenger of the Lord of hosts" (Mal 2,7; not
quite Luther text). If the priest wants to be heard, he must prove himself to be
a messenger of God, that is, he must faithfully pass on the instructions he has
received from his employer. And where it is spoken of that the priests are to be
heard, there it is expressly stated that they are to do their saying "according
to the law" of God (Deut ,7,10.11).
IV,8,3 WHow the authority of the prophets was in general,
is well described in Ezekiel: "Son of man, saith the Lord, I have set thee a
watchman over the house of Israel; thou shalt hear the word out of my mouth, and
shalt give them tidings from me" (Eze 3,17; not throughout Luther text). When he
receives the instruction to hear (the word) "out of the mouth of the Lord" – is
he not thereby forbidden to think up something on his own? And when it is then
said that he should "give message from the Lord" – what does this mean other
than to speak in such a way that he dares to boast confidently that it is not
his, but the Lord’s word which he brings forward? The same is written in other
words in Jeremiah: "A prophet who has dreams, let him tell dreams; but he who
has my word, let him preach my word, which is true" (Jer 23:28; end not Luther
text). With this he undoubtedly gives a law to all prophets. And this law is of
the kind that he does not tolerate that one teaches more than he is commanded.
And everything that did not come from him alone, he calls straw" (Jer 23,28b).
That is why none of the prophets opened their mouths unless the Lord spoke the
words. That is why we so often encounter in them such phrases as "the word of
the Lord", "the burden of the Lord", "Thus says the Lord" or "The mouth of the
Lord has spoken it". And rightly so: for Isaiah exclaimed that he had stained
lips (Isa 6:5), and Jeremiah confessed that he could not speak because he was
still a boy (Jer 1:6). If they had spoken their own word, what else could have
come out of one man’s defiled mouth and another man’s simple mouth but impurity
and foolishness? But they had holy and pure lips when they began to be the
instruments of the Holy Spirit. As soon as the prophets are bound by the sacred
obligation to give nothing of themselves but what they have received, then they
are distinguished with glorious authority and with shining titles. For when the
Lord testifies that he has set them "over nations and kingdoms" to "pluck up,
break in pieces, destroy … and build and plant" (Jer 1:10), He immediately
adds the cause: all this happens because He "put His words in their mouth" (Jer
1:9).
IV,8,4 And if one now turns his gaze to the apostles, they
are indeed praised with many and glorious designations: it is said of them that
they are "the light of the world" and "the salt of the earth" (Mt 5:13,14),
that they are to be heard in Christ’s stead (Lk 10:16), that all things which
they bound or loosed on earth are also to be bound and loosed in heaven
(John 20:23; Mt 18:18). But (already) by their name (apostles, emissaries) they
show how much is granted to them in their office: namely, if they are
"apostles", they are not to prate what they like, but rather to faithfully
present the orders of Him by whom they are "sent"! Christ’s words are clear
enough when he defined their mission: he told them to go and teach all nations
what he had commanded them (Mt 28,19f.). Yes, so that no one would be
permitted to evade this law, he took it upon himself and imposed it upon
himself. "My teaching", he says, "is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me" (John
7,16; end is addition). Yet he has always been the Father’s one true Counselor,
and the Father has appointed him Lord and Master over all – nevertheless,
because he exercises the office of teaching instruction, he gives instruction by
his own example to all the servants as to which rule they should follow in their
teaching. The authority of the Church, then, is not unlimited, but is subject to
the word of the Lord and, as it were, included in it.
IV,8,5 Now although the principle has been in force in the
church from the beginning, and must still be today, that the servants of God
should teach nothing that they have not learned from Himself, yet they have
practiced such learning in different ways according to the diversity of the
times. But the way it is done today is very different from that of former times.
First of all, the word of Christ is true that no one has seen the Father except
the Son and the one to whom the Son has revealed Him (Mt 11:27). But if this
is true, then all those who wanted to attain the knowledge of God must
undoubtedly always have been guided by that eternal wisdom. For how else could
they have grasped or spoken the secrets of God inwardly but under the
instruction of Him to whom alone the secrets of the Father are open? Thus, from
time immemorial, holy men have known God in no other way than by looking at him
in the Son as in a mirror. When I say this, I understand it as follows: God has
never revealed himself to men in any other way than through the Son, that is,
through his one wisdom, his one light and his one truth. From this fountain
source Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others drew everything they
possessed in terms of heavenly teaching. From the same source, all the prophets
have also drawn what heavenly words of revelation they have given. However, this
wisdom has not always been revealed in one and the same way. With the
archfathers it used secret revelations, at the same time however for their
confirmation signs of such kind applied that it could be subject for those men
absolutely no more doubt that it was God, who spoke there. What the archfathers
had received, they then handed down from hand to hand to their descendants; for
God had entrusted it to them with the determination that they should reproduce
it in this way. But the sons and grandsons knew by God’s inward inspiration (Deo
intus dictante) that what they heard was from heaven and not from earth.
IV,8,6 But when it pleased God to establish a more clearly
visible form of the church, he willed that his word should be written down and
sealed, so that the priests might take from it what they should present to the
people, and so that every teaching that should be presented might be tested
according to this guide. Thus, when the priests are instructed after the public
promulgation of the law that they should teach "out of the mouth" of the Lord
(Mal 2:7), the meaning is this: they were not to teach anything that was
outside the type of instruction that God had decreed in the law or that was
foreign to it. Fully, they were not allowed to add to or do anything from it
(Deut 4:2; 13:1). Then followed the prophets. Through them, God revealed new
words to be added to the Law, but they were not so new that they were not
derived from the Law and directed to it. As far as doctrine is concerned, the
prophets were merely interpreters of the law, and they added nothing to it
except prophecies about things to come. With the exception of these prophecies,
they brought nothing forward but the pure interpretation of the law. But it was
the Lord’s pleasure that the teaching should come to light more clearly and
widely, so that the weak consciences might be all the better satisfied, and
therefore he commanded that the prophecies also be put down in writing and be
considered part of his word. At the same time the history books came, which are
also works of prophets, but compiled under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I
count the Psalms to the prophets, because what we ascribe to them is also common
to them. This whole scriptural structure, formed by the Law, the Prophets, the
Psalms and the History, was for the people of the Old Covenant the word of God,
according to which the priests and teachers were to direct their instruction
until the coming of Christ, and they were not allowed to deviate from it,
"neither to the right nor to the left" (Deut 5:29); because their whole office
was enclosed by the limitation that they should speak out of God’s mouth to the
people. This is clear from the important passage in Malachi, where he instructs
them to remember the law and to be careful about it – until the preaching of the
gospel (Mal 3,22 = 4,4)! Because in this way he keeps them from all strange
teachings and does not allow them to deviate the slightest bit from the way that
Moses had faithfully shown them. And this is also the reason why David proclaims
the glory of the law so splendidly and lists so many praises of it: the Jews
should desire nothing outside of the law, because all perfection lay in it!
IV,8,7 ABut when at last God’s wisdom was revealed in the
flesh, it set forth to us with an open mouth all that can and should be
understood by the human mind concerning the heavenly Father. Therefore, since
Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, has risen brilliantly, we now have the full
radiance of divine truth, just as clarity tends to be at noon, even if the light
was somewhat dimmed before. For the apostle truly did not want to proclaim
anything ordinary when he wrote: "After God had spoken in time past sometimes
and variously to the fathers by the prophets, in these last days he has begun to
speak to us by his beloved Son …" (Hebr 1:1 s.; end inaccurate). Here he gives
to understand, yes, he declares openly, that from now on God will no longer, as
before, speak soon through one, soon again through the other, also no longer add
one prophecy to the other, one revelation to the other, but rather has completed
in the Son every instruction in such a way that this has to be considered the
last and eternal testimony of him. For this reason, the entire time of the New
Covenant, from the time Christ appeared to us with the preaching of His Gospel
until the day of judgment, is referred to with such expressions as "the last
hour" (1Jn 2:18), "the last times" (1Tim 4:1; 1Pe 1:20) or "the last days" (Ac
2:17; 2Tim 3:1; 2Pe 3:3). This is done so that we may be content with the
perfection of Christ’s teaching and learn not to invent a new one beyond it, nor
to accept a new one that others may have invented. Therefore, the Father has not
without cause ordained for us the Son with a unique privilege as teacher,
commanding that he, not any of men, should be heard. It is true that there are
only a few words with which he has put the teaching mastery of the Son on our
hearts, saying, "Him you shall hear" (Mt 17:5). But in these few words there
is more weight and power than is commonly believed; for it is as if he led us
away from all the teachings of men, placed us before this One alone, and
commanded us to desire from him alone all the teaching of salvation, to cling to
him alone, to abide in him alone, in short – as the words read – to listen to
his voice alone! And truly, what else should we expect and desire from a man,
when the word of life has made itself known to us in a familiar and present way?
Yes, the mouth of all men must be closed, after he has spoken, in whom,
according to the will of the heavenly Father, "are hidden all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge" (Col 2,3), and has spoken in such a way as befits the
wisdom of God, which does not err in any part, and the Messiah, from whom one
hoped for the revelation of all things (John 4,25), that is, in such a way that
he left nothing more to be said to others after himself.
IV,8,8 Therefore it should be considered as an unshakable
principle: for God’s word, which is to be given place in the church, nothing
else may be held than what is first written in law and prophets and then in the
apostolic writings, and there is also no other way to teach lawfully in the
church than according to the regulation and guideline of this word. From this we
also conclude that nothing else was granted to the apostles than what the
prophets had possessed before: namely, they were to interpret the traditional
Scriptures and prove that what was taught therein had found its fulfillment in
Christ; however, they were to do this from the Lord alone, that is, by Christ’s
Spirit giving them instruction and, as it were, putting the words into their
mouths. For this was the law by which Christ Himself determined their mission,
commanding them to go and teach – not what they had accidentally devised for
themselves, but what He had instructed them to do (Mt 28:19f.). Nor could
anything have been spoken more clearly than what He says in another place: "You
shall not be called Rabbi; for one is your Master, Christ" (Mt 23,8). So
that this would stick even deeper in their hearts, he repeated it twice more in
the same place (Mt 23,9f.). And because in their ignorance they were not
able to grasp what they had heard and learned from the mouth of the master, he
promised them the "spirit of truth" by which they should be led to the true
understanding of all things (John 14,26; 16,13). For one must pay thorough
attention to the limitation that lies in the fact that Christ assigned to the
Holy Spirit the task of instilling in the disciples what he had previously
taught them with his mouth.
IV,8,9 Therefore Peter, who was well instructed by his
Master as to the extent of his authority, leaves nothing for himself or others
but to teach the doctrine given to them by God. "If anyone speaks," he says, "he
speaks it as the word of God" (1 Pet. 4:11) – that is, not with doubts, as
people with a guilty conscience are wont to hesitate, but rather with high
confidence, as befits a servant of God who has been given firm orders. But what
does this mean other than to keep away all inventions of the human mind, from
whatever head they may have finally sprung, so that God’s pure Word may be
taught and learned in the church of the faithful? What else does it mean than to
remove the opinions or rather the inventions of all men, whatever their rank, so
that God’s counsels alone remain in force? These are those spiritual "weapons"
that are "mighty in the sight of God" to "destroy strongholds," those weapons
with which God’s faithful servants "destroy … the attempts and every high
thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God," and with which they
"bring all reason into captivity unto the obedience of Christ" (2Cor 10:4f.).
Behold, this is that mighty power with which the shepherds of the church,
whatever name they may bear, must be equipped, namely, that on the basis of the
word of God they may confidently dare all things, compel all power and glory,
all wisdom and majesty of this world to yield to his majesty, and render
obedience, that further, relying on his power, they may command all men, to
command all men, from the highest to the least, to build Christ’s house and
overthrow Satan’s, to feed the sheep and overpower the wolves, to instruct and
admonish the learned, but to punish, rebuke and subdue the unruly and
stiff-necked, and thus to bind and loose them, and finally also to send forth
weather-beams and thunderbolts when necessary, but all with the word of God!
However, as I said before, there is the difference between the apostles and
their successors, that those were sure and certified scribes (amanuenses) of the
Holy Spirit and their writings therefore have to be considered as revelatory
words of God, whereas these have no other task than to teach what has been
handed down and sealed in the Holy Scriptures. So we find that the faithful
servants (of the Church) are no longer at liberty to forge a new creed, but must
simply stick to the teaching to which God has subjected all without exception.
When I say this, I do not want to show only what is permitted to individual
people, but also what is permitted to the entire Church. As far as individual
men are concerned, Paul was certainly ordained by the Lord to be an apostle to
the Corinthians, and yet he declares that he is not lord over their faith (2Cor
1:24). Who would now dare to arrogate to himself a lordly right that was not
Paul’s according to his testimony? If Paul had acknowledged that arbitrary
freedom in teaching, according to which a shepherd (pastor) could demand by
right that firm faith be attributed to him in whatever he presented, he
certainly would not have given the same Corinthians the order that if two or
three prophets spoke, the others should judge (their words), and that if
something was revealed to one who sat there, the first one had to be silent (1Cor
14:29). For to no one has he granted such sparing, that he would not have
subjected his authority to the judgment of the word of God! Yes, someone might
say, but the whole church is different. I answer that Paul also counters this
doubt in another place by saying that faith comes from hearing, but hearing
comes from the word of God (Rom 10:17). For if faith hangs on the word of God
alone, if it looks to it alone and rests on it, what room is there for the word
of the whole world? Here no one can doubt who has rightly recognized what faith
is, for it must be based on such a firm foundation that it can withstand Satan
and all the wiles of hell and the whole world unconquerably and undauntedly. But
we will find this solid ground solely in God’s Word. In addition, there is a
general reason that must be considered here: when God takes away man’s ability
to present a new dogma, it is because He alone is our master in spiritual
instruction, just as He alone is the truthful one (Rom 3:4) who cannot lie or
deceive. This cause has its validity no less for the whole church than for each
individual among the believers.
IV,8,10 But if we compare the authority of the church now
described with that of which the spiritual tyrants, who called themselves
"bishops" and "rulers in religion," have boasted among the people of God for
some centuries, then these two will by no means agree better with each other
than Christ and Belial. I have no intention here of disputing how and in what
outrageous manner they exercised their tyranny; no, I only want to give their
doctrine, which they defend first in their writings, but then also nowadays with
fire and sword. They first take it for granted that a general council is the
true representation (i.e., representation) of the Church. Once they have
accepted this principle, they then at the same time state, as beyond all doubt,
that such councils are directly governed by the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot
err. But since they themselves govern the councils, and even put them in their
power, they actually lay claim to that which, according to their assertion,
belongs to the councils. So they want our faith to stand and fall according to
their discretion, so that therefore everything they have established in one
direction or another shall be firmly and finally decided for our hearts: so if
they have approved something, the same shall also be approved by us without any
hesitation, and if they have condemned something, it shall also be considered as
condemned for us. Meanwhile, they forge creeds according to their arbitrariness
and in contempt of the word of God, and then raise the demand that they should
be believed on the basis of the above cause. For, they claim, only he is a
Christian who accepts with certainty all their propositions of faith, the
affirming as well as the denying ones, and if not with "developed", then at
least with "undeveloped" faith – for it is up to the church to make new articles
of faith.
IV,8,11 Let us now first hear with what grounds of proof
they affirm that such authority is given to the Church; then let us see how much
they can be helped by what they adduce concerning the Church. The Church, they
say, possesses glorious promises that she will never be forsaken by Christ her
Bridegroom, but will be guided by His Spirit "into all truth" (cf. John 16:13).
But now, of the promises which they are wont to invoke, many are given as much
to each individual believer as to the whole Church. For when the Lord said,
"Behold, I am with you … until the end of the world" (Mt 28,20), or
likewise: "I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter …,
the Spirit of truth" (John 14,16f.), he addressed these words to the twelve
apostles, but he gave this promise not only to the twelve, but also to each one
of them in particular, yes, in the same way also to other disciples, whom he had
already accepted or who were to be added later. If, then, the Romans interpret
such promises, which are so full of glorious consolation, as if they were given
to no one among Christian men (by themselves), but to the whole church in
general, what do they do but deprive all Christians of the confidence which
should have come from these promises for their encouragement? Now I do not deny
here that the whole community of believers, which is after all endowed with a
manifold diversity of gifts, has received as a gift a much richer and more
complete treasure of heavenly wisdom than each individual alone; nor am I of
opinion that that promise is given to all believers together in the sense that
they are all equally endowed with that spirit of understanding and instruction;
no, I say this only because the adversaries of Christ must not be allowed to
pervert the Scriptures in defense of an evil cause in a sense foreign to it. But
I leave this aside, and simply confess, as indeed it is, that the Lord is ever
present to his own, and governs them with his Spirit. Now this, I further
confess, is not a spirit of error, ignorance, falsehood, or darkness, but a
spirit of certain revelation, a spirit of wisdom, truth, and light, from whom
believers learn without deceit the things that are given them (1Cor 2:12), that
is, "which is the hope of their calling, and which is the riches of his glorious
inheritance with his saints" (Eph 1:18). But since believers receive in this
flesh only the "firstfruits" and a certain taste of this Spirit – even those who
are endowed before others with more excellent gifts of grace – there is nothing
better left for them than to keep themselves, well aware of their weakness,
carefully within the limits of the Word of God, so that, if they stray too far
according to their own mind, they may not soon go astray from the right path,
provided they are still unaided by that Spirit by whose instruction alone truth
and falsehood are distinguished. For all confess with Paul that they have not
yet reached the final goal (Phil 3,12). And therefore they strive more for
daily progress than to boast of perfection!
IV,8,12 Our opponents, however, will raise the objection
that what is granted piecemeal to each individual among the saints belongs
entirely and completely to the church itself. Although this has some semblance
of truth, I maintain that it is not true. It is true that God has distributed
the gifts of his Spirit to each individual member "according to measure" (Eph
4:7) in such a way that, insofar as the gifts themselves are given for the
general benefit, the whole body is deprived of nothing necessary. But the riches
of the church are always of such a kind that much is still lacking for that
highest perfection which our adversaries praise. And yet the church is not
lacking in any way, so that it does not always have as much as is necessary, for
the Lord knows what its needs are. But in order to keep her in humility and
pious modesty, he does not give her more than is useful to her, as he knows. I
know what kind of objection they usually make here: they say that the church is
"cleansed by the bath of water in the word" of life, so that it "does not have a
spot or a wrinkle" (Eph 5:26f.), and that is why it is called "a pillar and a
foundation of the truth" in another place (1Tim 3:15). But in the former place
it is set forth more what Christ works day by day in His church than what He has
already accomplished. For if he sanctifies, purifies, smoothes, and cleanses all
his own from day to day of their stains, it is at any rate certain that they are
still covered with all kinds of spots and wrinkles, and that many things are
still lacking in their sanctification. But how foolish and implausible it is
then to consider the church already holy and undefiled through and through and
in every respect, when all its members are still stained and to some extent
unclean! It is true, then, that the Church is sanctified by Christ; but here
only the beginning of this sanctification appears, its end, on the contrary, and
its perfect fulfillment will be present when Christ, the Holy One of the saints,
will truly and perfectly fill her with His holiness. It is also true that their
stains and wrinkles are blotted out, but yet in such a way that they will still
be blotted out day by day until Christ, by His coming, completely takes away all
that is left. For if we do not accept this, we must necessarily maintain with
the Pelagians that the righteousness of believers is already perfect in this
life, or we must come to believe with the Cathars and Donatists that we cannot
endure any weakness in the church. The other passage (1Tim 3:15), as we have seen
elsewhere (cf. ch. 2, section 1), has a completely different meaning than they
want to give it. Paul had previously instructed Timothy and taught him the
proper office of a bishop, and now (1Tim 3:14f.) he says that he did this for the
purpose that Timothy now knew how he should "walk" in the church. And so that
Timothy will now work for it with all the greater reverence and zeal, Paul adds
that the church itself is "a pillar and foundation of the truth." Now what are
these words supposed to mean but that in the church the truth of God is
preserved, namely through the ministry of preaching? Thus he also teaches
elsewhere that Christ gave apostles, shepherds and teachers, so that we should
no longer be driven about by any "wind of doctrine" or be fooled by men, but
rather, enlightened by the true knowledge of the Son of God, should all hasten
together to the unity of the faith (Eph 4:1-11). That the truth is not
extinguished in the world, but is preserved intact, is due to the fact that it
has as its faithful guardian the church, through whose work and service it is
sustained. But if this guardianship is situated in the prophetic and apostolic
office, then it follows that it depends entirely upon the word of the Lord being
faithfully preserved and retaining its purity.
IV,8,13 Now, in order that the readers may better
understand the pivotal point around which this question primarily revolves, I
will set forth in a few words what our adversaries demand and in what we oppose
them. When they assert that the Church cannot err, this amounts to the
following, and they interpret it as follows: since the Church is guided by the
Spirit of God, she can certainly go her way without the Word; wherever she may
go, she can think or speak nothing but the truth; if, therefore, she establishes
anything outside the Word of God or beyond it, it is to be regarded as nothing
but an infallible revelatory saying of God. Now if we grant them that first
proposition, namely, that the church cannot err in such things as are necessary
to salvation, our opinion is that this is true because she bids farewell to all
her own wisdom and allows herself to be instructed by the Holy Spirit through
the word of God. The difference, then, is this: our opponents place the
authority of the Church outside the Word of God, whereas we want it to be bound
to the Word, and we do not tolerate its being separated from it. What should be
surprising about it, if the bride and disciple of Christ is subordinated to her
bridegroom and master, in order to constantly and diligently hang on his mouth?
For in a well-established house the wife obeys the commandment of her husband,
and in a well-ordered school the rule is that in it alone the instruction of the
master is heard. Therefore, the church is not to be wise out of itself, not to
think anything out of itself, but it is to set a limit to its wisdom where he
has put an end to his speaking. In this way she will also meet all the little
findings of her own reason with mistrust, but in the things in which she relies
on God’s word, she will not let any lack of trust or any hesitation make her
waver, but she will rely on it with great certainty and firm constancy. Thus she
will also trust in the greatness of the promises she possesses, and she will
find in them cause to keep her faith glorious, so that she will not doubt in the
least that the Holy Spirit, the best guide on the right path, will always be at
her side. But she will at the same time keep in mind what benefits God wants us
to receive from His Spirit. "The Spirit," says the Lord, "whom I will send from
the Father, he shall guide you into all truth" (John 16:7, 13; beginning
imprecise). But how will he do this? "For he will remind you," he says, "of all
that I have said to you" (John 14:26). He thus makes it known to us that we should
expect nothing more from his Spirit than that he should enlighten our minds so
that we may grasp the truth of his teaching. It is therefore very well said when
Chrysostom says: "Many boast of the Holy Spirit, but those who speak their own
things refer to him falsely. Just as Christ, according to his testimony, did not
speak out of himself, because he spoke precisely out of the law and the
prophets, so we are not to believe when someone wants to impose something on us
outside the gospel by invoking the Spirit. For as Christ is the fulfillment of
the law and the prophets, so the Spirit is the fulfillment of the gospel"
(Pseudo-Chrysostom, Homily on the Holy Spirit,10; cf. John 12:49 s.; 14:10; Rom
10:4). So far Chrysostom. Now we can easily see how wrongly our opponents act,
who boast of the Holy Spirit only for the purpose of praising such doctrines
under his name, which are foreign to the word of God and stand apart from it,
while the Holy Spirit himself wants to be an inseparable bond with the word of
God and Christ testifies to this about him when he promises him to his church.
Yes, this is how it is. The moderate sobriety that the Lord once prescribed for
his church, he also wants to be preserved from time to time. But he has
forbidden it to add to his word or to take anything away from it. This is God’s
and the Holy Spirit’s inviolable decree – and our opponents try to overturn it
by pretending that the church is governed by the Holy Spirit without the Word.
IV,8,14 Here they again raise a grumbling objection: the
church had to add some things to the writings of the apostles or the apostles
themselves were forced to complete orally what they had handed down (in written
form) less clearly; for Christ had said to them: "I have yet many things to say
unto you; but ye cannot bear them now" (Jn. 16,12). 16,12); but these are the
doctrines that have come to be accepted without the Holy Scriptures, only
through use and habituation. But what an impertinence this is! I admit that when
the disciples heard this word, they were still ignorant and almost unlearned.
But were they still so clumsy at the time when they wrote down their teachings
that they had to complete orally what they had left out of ignorance in their
writings? But if they were already guided by the spirit of truth when they
issued their writings, what was there in the way of their not having a perfect
knowledge of the doctrine of the gospel compiled in those writings and then left
sealed? But well, let us grant them what they desire – let them show only those
things which had to be revealed without being written down! If they now dare to
undertake this, then I will meet them with the words of Augustine, who says:
"Where the Lord has been silent – who of us will say: this or that is it? Or if
he dares to say that – from where will he prove it?" (Homilies on the Gospel of
John 96:2). But what am I arguing here about a superfluous thing? For surely
even a child knows that in the apostolic writings, which those people want to be
mutilated and halved, so to speak, we are confronted with the fruit of that
revelation which the Lord promised His disciples at that time (John 16:12).
IV,8,15 Why, they say – has not Christ withdrawn
everything that the church teaches and decides from any discussion by giving the
instruction that one who dared to contradict (her) should be considered a
"Gentile and publican" (Mt 18,17)? First of all: in this passage there is no
mention of doctrine, but only the (ecclesiastical) exercise of discipline
receives the safeguard of its authority for the purpose of punishing offenses,
and this is done so that those who have been admonished or rebuked may not
resist its judgment. But let us leave this aside – it is quite astonishing that
these chatterers have so little shame that they are not afraid to use even this
passage for their exaggeration. After all, what can they prove with it but that
one should not despise the unanimous conviction of the church, the church which,
after all, is united solely on the truth of the Word of God? One must hear the
church, they say. Who denies that? For the church makes no pronouncement but
from the Word of the Lord alone! If our adversaries ask for anything more, they
must know that these words of Christ do not help them. Nor must I seem
contentious, because I insist with such vehemence that the church is not
permitted to establish any new doctrine, that is, to teach and deliver as a word
of revelation more than what the Lord has revealed in his Word. For men of
understanding well see what a great danger arises when once so much right has
been conceded to men. They see also what a great window is opened to the
ridicule and gibes of the ungodly, when we assert that what men have thought to
be right among Christians is to be taken for a word of revelation. Moreover, it
must be noted that Christ, speaking according to the custom of His time, (in the
above passage, Mt 18:17) attaches this name ("church" or "congregation") to
the (then, local) synod, so that His disciples would learn to honor the sacred
meetings of the church thereafter. Thus (if the adversaries were correct in
their relation of this passage to doctrine) it would come to pass that every
city and village would have equal freedom to establish doctrinal statutes!
IV,8,16 The examples that our opponents use do not help
them. Thus they say that infant baptism did not arise so much from an open
instruction of Scripture as from a decision of the church. But it would be a
most miserable refuge if we were compelled to resort to the mere authority of
the Church in defense of infant baptism; but it will become sufficiently clear
elsewhere that it is far otherwise (cf. chap. 16). The same is true of their
objection that what was said in the Synod of Nicaea, namely, that the Son is of
the same nature as the Father, is nowhere found in Scripture. In this way, they
are making a serious insult against the Fathers, as if they had condemned Arius
without reason, because he did not want to swear by their words, while he had
confessed the whole doctrine decided in the prophetic and apostolic writings. I
admit that this expression ("of the same nature as the Father") is not found in
Scripture. But yet it is so often spoken in Scripture that there is one God, and
again Christ is so often called true and eternal God, one with the Father; now
when the Fathers of Nicaea declare Christ to be of one essence with the Father,
what do they do but simply interpret the original sense of Scripture? And to
this Theodoret reports that Constantine delivered the following preface in their
assembly: "In discussions of divine things one has the teaching of the Holy
Spirit as a binding precept; the evangelical and apostolic books together with
the words of revelation of the prophets show us perfectly clearly the sense of
the Godhead. Therefore, let us put away discord and take from the words of the
Spirit the clarification of our questions" (Theodoret Church History I,7). There
was no one then to oppose these holy exhortations. No one made the objection
that the church could inflict something out of its own, that the Holy Spirit had
not revealed everything to the apostles, or at least had not allowed everything
to come to their followers, or anything else like that. If what our opponents
want is true, then, first of all, Constantine acted wrongly in depriving the
Church of its power; secondly, since none of the bishops rose up at that time to
defend the power of the Church against it, this silence was a sign of
disloyalty, and so the bishops were traitors to ecclesiastical law! But since
Theodoret reports that they gladly accepted what the emperor said, it is certain
that this new dogma was completely unknown at that time.
About the Councils and their Authority
IV,9,1 Even if I now concede everything to the Romans
concerning the church, they would not have achieved much for their purpose even
with that. For everything that is said about the church, they immediately
transfer to the councils, which, according to their opinion, represent (repraesentare)
the churches. Yes, that they fight so persistently about the authority of the
church, they do this out of no other intention than to give everything and
anything they have gained in the process to the Roman pope and his swarm of
satellites for their own. But before I begin to discuss this question, I must
briefly state two things by way of introduction. (1) If I am going to be quite
harsh here, it is not because I hold the old councils in lower esteem than they
deserve. For I venerate them from the bottom of my heart, and I wish that they
receive from all men the honor due to them. But there is a measure here, namely
this, that nothing may be taken from Christ. Christ’s right, however, is that in
all councils he has the leadership and in such dignity he has no man for a
comrade. But he has, I maintain, the leadership only when he rules the whole
assembly with his word and his spirit. (2) And then, that I grant the councils
less rights than our adversaries demand, I do not do this for the reason that I
am afraid of the councils, as if they granted support to the cause of our
adversaries, but were opposed to ours. For just as we are more than sufficiently
equipped with the word of the Lord for the full proof of our doctrine and for
the overthrow of the whole papacy, so that it is not particularly important to
seek anything beyond it, so nevertheless, if the cause requires it, the old
councils largely give us material at hand which is sufficient for both.
IV,9,2 Now let us talk about the matter itself. If we want
to know from Scripture what authority the councils possess, there is no more
glorious promise than that which we find in the word of Christ: "Where two or
three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Mt
18:20). Admittedly, this refers as much to any particular (i.e., local) assembly
as to a general council. But the knot of the question does not lie in this, but
rather in the added condition, according to which Christ will be in the midst of
the council only when it is gathered in His name. Therefore, even if our
adversaries refer a thousand times to their episcopal councils, they will make
little headway, and they will only manage to make us believe what they claim,
namely that these councils are governed by the Holy Spirit, when they have
proved to us that they are also assembled in Christ’s name. For it can be just
as well that godless and wicked bishops gather together against Christ as that
good and righteous ones gather in his name. Many decisions that have come out of
such councils serve as clear proof of this. But we will see this later. Now I
give the answer in only one word, that Christ promises something only to those
who gather in his name. So let us determine what this means. I deny that those
who gather in Christ’s name reject God’s commandment in which he forbids adding
anything to his word or doing anything of it (Deut 4:2; Acts 22:18f.), who then
establish one thing or another according to their own discretion, who are not
satisfied with the revelatory words of Scripture, that is, with the one guide of
perfect wisdom, and invent something new out of their own head. Since Christ did
not promise to be present at all possible councils, but rather added a special
mark to distinguish the true and legitimate councils from the others, it
behooves us in any case not to neglect this distinction. The covenant that God
made with the Levitical priests in the past was that they should give their
instruction out of His mouth (Mal 2:7). This is what He always required of the
prophets, and we see that this law was also imposed on the apostles. Those who
violate this covenant, God does not dignify with the honor of the priesthood nor
with any authority. Let the adversaries untie this knot for me, if they want to
subjugate my faith to human opinions that stand outside the Word of God!
IV,9,3 If our opponents are of the opinion that the truth
could not remain in the church if it did not have its firm hold among the
shepherds, and the church itself could not exist if it did not come to light in
general councils, then this has by far not always been true, if otherwise the
prophets have left us truthful testimonies about their times. At the time of
Isaiah there was still a church in Jerusalem, which God had not yet abandoned.
Nevertheless, he speaks about the shepherds as follows: "All their watchmen are
blind, they all know nothing; dumb dogs they are that cannot bark, are lazy,
love to lie down and sleep … They, the shepherds, know nor understand
anything; each one looks to his own way …" (Isa 56:10 s.; not quite Luther
text). In the same way Hosea says: "The watchman of Israel with God, he is the
rope of a fowler and an abomination in the house of God" (Hos 9:8; not Luther
text). Here the prophet ironically compares the "watchmen" with God, thereby
teaching that their pretense of being priests is vain. Even into the time of
Jeremiah the church lasted. Let us hear what he says of the shepherds: "Both
prophets and priests all deal in lies" (Jer 6:13). Likewise, "The prophets
prophesy lies in my name; I did not send them or command them" (Jer 14:14; not
quite Luther text). And so that we do not lose ourselves too much in the
enumeration of his words, read nevertheless what he wrote in the whole
twenty-third and fortieth chapter. At the same time Ezekiel, from the other
side, by no means went off more mildly against the same people. "The prophets,"
he says, "that are in it, have roared, … as a roaring lion when it ravages
…. Their priests transgress my law sacrilegiously and desecrate my sanctuary;
they keep no distinction among the holy and the unholy …" (Eze 22:25f.). To
this is added the further, which he lets follow in the same sense. Similar
complaints we meet again and again with the prophets, so that there is nothing
more frequent.
IV,9,4 But – someone might say – this may have been true
among the Jews, but our time is free from such a great evil. Yes, God would that
it were so! But the Holy Spirit has announced that it shall be otherwise. For
the words of Peter are clear; "as there were false prophets among the ancient
people," he says, "so shall there be false teachers among you, bringing in
corrupt sects besides" (2Pet 2:1). Do you see how, according to his preaching,
the danger is not from ordinary people, but from those who will boast of the
title of teachers and shepherds? Furthermore, do you see how often Christ and
His apostles predicted that the highest dangers threatened the Church on the
part of her shepherds (Mt 24:11, 24)? Yes, Paul openly shows that the
Antichrist will have his seat nowhere else but in the temple of God (2Thess
2:4)! Thereby he shows that the horrible misery of which he speaks in this
passage will not come from anywhere else than from those who will have their
seat as shepherds in the church. And in another place he proves that the
beginning of this great evil is already near (in his time). For in his address
to the bishops of Ephesus he says: "This I know, that after my departure there
shall come among you abominable wolves, which shall not spare the flock. Even
from among yourselves will arise men who will speak perverse doctrines to draw
the disciples to themselves" (Acts 20:29f.). How much corruption could the long
series of years bring among the shepherds, if they could already degenerate in
such a small period of time! And not to fill many pages with enumerations – we
are reminded by examples from almost all centuries that the truth is not always
nourished in the bosom of the shepherds and that the intact existence of the
church does not depend on the state of the shepherds either. They should be the
defenders and guardians of the ecclesiastical peace and salvation, which they
are destined to preserve, but to do what one should do and to do what one should
not do are two different things!
IV,9,5 However, let no one understand these words of ours
as if I wanted to undermine the authority of the pastors without exception,
without consideration and without any distinction. I only want to point out that
a distinction must be made between them, so that we do not immediately consider
those who are called shepherds as such! When the pope and the whole flock of
bishops shake off God’s word and overturn and pervert everything at their will,
they act for no other reason than because they are called shepherds; meanwhile,
however, they still try to convince us that they cannot lose the light of truth,
that the Spirit of God dwells among them unceasingly, and that the Church
endures in them and dies with them! As if the Lord had no more courts to proceed
against the world today with the same kind of punishment with which He once
avenged the ingratitude of the ancient people, namely to strike the shepherds
with blindness and dumbness (Zech 11:17)! Nor do these people, in their
terrible folly, understand that they are singing the same little song that was
once sung by those who made war with the word of God. For when Jeremiah’s
enemies took arms against the truth, they did so with the words, "Come, let us
counsel against Jeremiah; for the law cannot fail the priest, nor counsel the
wise man, nor the word the prophet" (Jer 18:18; not Luther text).
IV,9,6 From here an answer can easily be given to the other
point concerning the general councils. That the Jews under the prophets had a
true church cannot be denied. But what kind of church would have appeared if a
general council had been assembled from the priests at that time? We hear what
God announces not to one or two of them, but to the whole state. Thus: "The
priests will be dismayed and the prophets terrified" (Jer 4:9). Or likewise,
"There shall be no more law with the priests, nor counsel with the ancients"
(Eze 7:26). Or finally: "Therefore your face shall become night and your
divination darkness. The sun shall go down upon the prophets, and the day shall
be dark upon them" (Micah 3:6). Now, what kind of spirit would have been in
charge of their assembly if they had all gathered in one place at that time? We
have an excellent example of this in that council that Ahab (1Ki 22) called
together. There were four hundred prophets present. But because they had come
together with no other purpose than to flatter the godless king, Satan was sent
by the Lord to put a spirit of falsehood in all their mouths (1Ki 22:22).
Then the truth was condemned with the voices of all, and Micah was condemned as
a heretic, beaten and thrown into prison. The same happened to Jeremiah, as well
as to other prophets..
IV,9,7 But one example more memorable than the others may
be enough instead of all the others. What should be left to be desired in the
council that the chief priests and Pharisees called together in Jerusalem
against Christ (John 11:47) – at least as far as the outward appearance is
concerned? For if there had been no church in Jerusalem at that time, Christ
would never, ever have taken part in the sacrifices and other ceremonies. There
was a solemn convocation, the high priest was in charge, the entire priesthood
was seated – and yet Christ was condemned there and his teaching was taken out
of the way! This fact is proof that the Church was by no means included in this
Council. But, someone might object, there is no danger that something like that
will happen to us! Who has proved this to us? After all, if one is too careless
in such an important matter, one is guilty of negligence. Yes, the Holy Spirit
prophesies through the mouth of Paul in explicit words that an apostasy will
come (2Thess 2:3), and such an apostasy cannot come unless the shepherds
forsake God first. If this is the case, why are we blind to our own destruction
with will? Under no circumstances, then, is it to be admitted that the church
rests on the assembly of shepherds; for the Lord has nowhere promised that these
will always be good, but has announced that they will at times be evil. But
where he calls our attention to a danger, he does it to make us more cautious.
IV,9,8 Why then, it will be said, do the councils have no
authority in their decisions? Of course they do! For I am not here concerned
that all councils should be condemned, all their negotiating results overturned
and, as they say, invalidated with the stroke of a pen. But, they will say, you
set very narrow limits to them all, so that now everyone is free to accept or
reject what the councils have decided. Not at all! But whenever the decision of
any council is brought up, I would like you first to consider thoroughly at what
time it was held, for what reason and with what intention it was held, and what
kind of people were present. Then, I would like the subject matter to be
examined according to the standard of Scripture, and this should be done in such
a way that the decision of the Council has its weight and is considered as a
provisional judgment (plaeiudicium), but does not prevent the examination of
which I spoke. If only everyone would follow the procedure that Augustine
outlines in the third book (of his writing) against Maximinus! He wants to
silence this heretic, who argues about the decisions of the synods, and
therefore he says: "Neither may I hold the synod of Nicaea against you, nor may
you hold the synod of Ariminum (359) against me, in order to make a prejudice. I
am not bound by the authority of the latter, you not by that of the former. No,
it should be a matter against a matter, a matter against a matter, a reason
against a reason, and this on the basis of the statements of Scripture, which
are endowed with authority, and which therefore do not belong to the individual
alone, but are common to both of us" (Against Maximinus, Book II,14,3). If it
were done in this way, it would come about that the councils would receive the
majesty due to them, but Scripture would in the meantime stand in a higher place
and have precedence, so that there would be nothing that would not be subjected
to its guidance. Thus we gladly accept the ancient synods, such as those at
Nicaea, at Constantinople, the first synod at Ephesus, the synod of Chalcedon,
and the like, which were held for the refutation of errors; we venerate them as
sacred so far as the doctrines of faith are concerned; for they contain nothing
but a pure and original interpretation of Scripture, which the holy fathers
applied in spiritual wisdom to overcome the enemies of religion who had then
risen up. In some later synods, too, we see true zeal of piety shining forth,
along with unmistakable signs of understanding, learning, and wisdom. But as
things generally tend to get worse and fall into decay, so it can be seen from
the later councils how much the Church has generally departed from the purity of
that golden age. I have no doubt that even in these more corrupt times the
councils had their better bishops. But with these councils has happened
precisely that of which in the Roman senate resolutions the senators themselves
complain that it is not done right. For since the votes were counted and not
weighed, the better part was necessarily more often outvoted by the greater. In
any case, these councils have put forward many ungodly opinions. It is not
necessary to collect examples here either, for that would lead much too far, and
others have also done it so thoroughly that not much more can be added.
IV,9,9 What more shall I enumerate how councils have been
at odds with councils? There is also no reason for anyone to grumble that one or
the other of these councils, which are in conflict with each other, is not
legitimate. For from where are we to gain an opinion about this? But from this,
if I am not mistaken, that we come to the judgment on the basis of Scripture
that the decisions of the council in question are not lawful. For that is the
only sure law for such a distinction. It is now about nine hundred years ago
that the Synod of Constantinople (754), convened under the Emperor Leo, decided
that the images set up in the church buildings should be overturned and broken.
Shortly after, the Council of Nicaea (787), convened by Irene in defiance of
that first Council, decided that the images should be restored. Now which of the
two shall we recognize as legitimate? In general, the latter has prevailed,
which gave a place to the images in the church buildings. Augustine, on the
other hand, declares that this cannot be done without the most immediate danger
of idolatry! And Epiphanius, who lived in still earlier times, speaks still more
sharply: for he teaches that it is sacrilegious and an abomination that images
should be looked at in the church by Christians. If these men who spoke in this
way were alive today, would they recognize the Council? If the historians report
the truth and if one believes the recorded results of the negotiations, then not
only the images themselves but also their veneration were recognized at this
synod. But it is obvious that such a decision comes from Satan! But what shall
we say to the fact that these men, by their perversion and tearing up of the
whole Scripture, openly reveal that they are making fun of it? But this very
thing I have made more than sufficiently clear above (cf. Book I, chap. 11). Be
that as it may, we will only be able to distinguish between the contradictory
and differently teaching synods, of which there have been many, if we check them
all with that scale of men and angels of which I have spoken, namely with the
word of the Lord. Thus we accept the Synod of Chalcedon and reject the second
Synod of Ephesus, because in that one the impiety of Eutyche was confirmed,
which that other one (the Synod of Chalcedon) condemned. The judgment on this
matter was made by the holy men exclusively on the basis of the Scriptures, and
we follow them in our judgment in such a way that God’s word, which shone before
them, now also shines before us. Now let the Romans go and claim, according to
their custom, that the Holy Spirit is attached and bound to their councils!
IV,9,10 However, even in the case of those old, purer
councils, many things remain to be rightly criticized, either because the
otherwise learned and understanding men who were present at that time did not
foresee many other things as a result of their many-sided occupation with
current affairs, or because they were occupied with more difficult matters,
because, in their preoccupation with graver and more serious matters, they left
aside some matters of subordinate importance, or simply because, as men, they
could be deceived by ignorance, or even because, out of all too great inner
movement, they now and then allowed themselves to be carried away into rash
action. The latter seems to be the most serious of all, and there is an
excellent example of it at the Synod of Nicaea (325), whose dignity, as it
deserved, was unanimously recognized with the highest reverence. There the most
important article of our faith was in danger, there Arius, the enemy, was
present, armed for battle, and one had to become hand in hand with him; but in
such a situation it depended in the highest degree on the unity of those who had
come in readiness to fight the error of Arius; but though it stood thus, yet
these carelessly forgot these great dangers, nay, they virtually abandoned all
seriousness, all modesty, and all humanity, they put out of their minds the
struggle which they had immediately to wage-just as if they had come here with
the firm intention of pleasing Arius! They put it out of their minds and began
to quarrel over internal disputes and to turn the pen they should have used
against Arius against themselves; Shameful accusations were heard, letters of
accusation flew, and the quarrels would probably have found no end before these
men had struck each other down by wounds, if the Emperor Constantine had not put
himself in the way, declaring that the investigation of their way of life was a
matter beyond his competence, and chastising such unruliness more with words of
praise than with censure. In how many respects, in all probability, did the
other councils that followed slip! This does not need a long proof, because if
someone reads through the records, he will notice many weaknesses – not to use a
worse word!
IV,9,11 Even the Roman bishop Leo (I) has no hesitation in
accusing the Synod of Chalcedon of honor and unadvised levity, although he
admits that it was orthodox in the tenets of the faith. While he does not deny
that it was lawful, he openly asserts that it could have erred. Perhaps I seem
foolish to someone for taking pains to point out such errors, when our
adversaries admit that councils can err in such matters that are not necessary
for salvation. But this effort is not superfluous. For our adversaries are
forced to make this concession in words; but since they nevertheless impose upon
us the decision of all councils in any matter and without any distinction as the
revelatory word of the Holy Spirit, they demand just more than they took upon
themselves in the beginning. But what do they claim with this way of acting
other than that the councils cannot err or that, even if they err, it is still
forbidden to see the truth or not to agree with the errors? I have nothing else
in mind than that one can conclude from such errors: the Holy Spirit has indeed
governed the otherwise pious and holy synods, but in such a way that he allowed
something human to happen to them from time to time, so that we do not put our
trust too much in men. This view is much better than that of Gregory of
Nazianzus, who said that he had never seen a council turn out well (Letter 130).
For if someone claims that they all without exception went out badly, he does
not leave them much authority. It is no longer necessary to mention the
provincial councils in particular, for from the general ones it is easy to judge
how much authority they may have to establish articles of faith and to adopt any
kind of doctrine that seems good to them.
IV,9,12 But when our Romans get the impression that in the
defense of their cause all supports that could consist in reasonable proofs are
slipping away, they retreat to an extreme, pitiful evasion: they declare even if
they were quite stupid in mind and counsel, quite useless in heart and will, yet
the word of the Lord remains, which commands us to obey the superiors (Hebr
13,17). But is it so? What is to happen, then, if I assert that people who are
of such a nature are not superiors at all? For they must not arrogate to
themselves more than Joshua possessed, who after all was a prophet of the Lord
and an excellent shepherd to boot. But let us hear with what words he is
introduced into his office by the Lord! "Let not the book of this law," saith
the Lord, "depart from thy mouth, but consider it day and night. Do not depart
from it to the right hand or to the left. Then you will rightly direct your way
and understand it" (Jos 1:8, 7; end not Luther text). "Spiritual superiors,"
then, are to be for us those who depart from the law of the Lord neither one way
nor the other. But if we are to accept the teaching of all arbitrary shepherds
without hesitation – what purpose has it served that we are so often and so
emphatically admonished by the Lord’s voice not to listen to the speech of false
prophets? "Hearken not," He says through Jeremiah, "to the words of the prophets
that prophesy unto you; for they teach you deceit, and not of the mouth of the
Lord" (Jer 23:16; not Luther text). Or likewise, "Beware of false prophets, who
come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Mt
7:15). Should we indiscriminately accept the teaching of all shepherds, it would
also be in vain that John admonishes us to test the spirits "whether they are of
God" (1Jn 4:1). Not even the angels are exempted from this test, let alone
Satan with his lies. But what does it mean when we are told: "If one blind man
leads another, they will both fall into the pit" (Mt 15,14)? Doesn’t this
word tell us sufficiently that much depends on the kind of shepherds we listen
to, and that we should not listen to all of them unthinkingly? Therefore they
have no cause to frighten us with their titles, to draw us into
fellow-fellowship in their blindness; for we see on the other hand that the Lord
takes special care to put fear into us that we may be led by a strange error,
under whatever assumed name it may be concealed! For if Christ’s answer (Mt
15,14) is true, then any blind leaders, whether they are called rulers or chiefs
or popes, can accomplish nothing but to plunge their fellow men into the same
abyss with them. Therefore, no names of councils, shepherds or bishops – which
can just as well be used falsely as in truth – should prevent us from letting
ourselves be warned by the evidence that words as well as facts offer us, and
from examining all the spirits of all men according to the guidance of the
divine word, in order to determine whether they are of God.
IV,9,13 Since we have now proved that the Church is not
given authority to establish a new doctrine, let us now speak of the authority
which the Romans ascribe to it in interpreting the Scriptures. We certainly
readily admit that if a controversy arises about any doctrine, there is no
better and more reliable remedy for it than for a synod of true bishops to meet,
that at it the disputed doctrine may be thoroughly discussed. For (1) such a
decision, to which the pastors of the churches, after invoking the Spirit of
Christ, all unanimously join together, will have much more weight than if
someone were to draw up a decision for himself alone at home and present it to
the people, or even if a few unofficial people were to put one together.
Furthermore, (2) if the bishops are gathered in one place, they can more easily
consider together what is to be taught and in what form, so that diversity does
not create a nuisance. And (3) thirdly, this is the procedure Paul prescribes
for judging doctrines. For by assigning the judgment to the individual churches
(1Cor 14:29), he makes clear which order of procedure is to occur in more serious
cases: namely, the churches are to take the judgment into their own hands
together. And the feeling of piety itself shows us the way: if someone confuses
the church by an unusual dogma, and if the circumstances come to the point that
there is a danger of a somewhat serious dispute, then the churches should first
meet together, then they should examine the question presented, and finally,
after holding a proper discussion, they should present the decision taken from
Scripture, so that this may cause uncertainty among the people (i.e. in the
congregation). Finally, after a proper discussion, they should present the
decision taken from the Scriptures, so that it will remove the uncertainty among
the people (i.e. in the congregation) and shut the mouths of useless, partisan
people, so that they will not dare to go further. Thus, after the appearance of
Arius, the Synod of Nicaea was convened, which, with its authority, destroyed
the sacrilegious plots of this godless man, restored peace in the churches which
he had thrown into turmoil, and asserted Christ’s eternal divinity against his
blasphemous dogma. Afterwards, when Eunomius and Macedonius stirred up new
turmoil, the same remedy was applied and their folly was countered by the Synod
of Constantinople. At the Council of Ephesus the impiety of Nestorius was beaten
to the ground. In short, this has been the customary way of maintaining unity in
the Church from the beginning, as often as Satan began to set something in
motion. But we must remember that not in all centuries and in all places are
found such men as Athanasius, Basil, Cyril, and other defenders of the true
doctrine which the Lord then awakened. Yes, let us remember what happened at the
second synod of Ephesus: there the heresy of Eutyches prevailed, Flavian, a man
of holy memory, was sent into exile with a number of pious men, and many more
outrages of this kind were decided upon! This was precisely because Dioscur, a
partisan and quite evil-minded man, was in charge there, and not the Spirit of
the Lord! But, one will object, there was not the church. I admit that. In fact,
I basically state that the truth does not perish in the church, even if it is
suppressed by a council, but it is miraculously preserved by the Lord, so that
it breaks forth again in its own time and retains the victory. On the other
hand, I deny that the interpretation of Scripture adopted by the vote of a
council is the true and certain one.
IV,9,14 If, on the other hand, the Romans teach that the
authority to interpret Scripture rests with the councils, and that without the
possibility of appeal, they have something else in mind (than what has just been
stated). For they misuse this assertion as a cover to call everything that has
been decided in the councils an interpretation of Scripture. Now one does not
find a single syllable in Scripture about purgatory, about the intercession of
the saints, about auricular confession, and the like. But since all this has
been established by the authority of the Church, i.e., to speak more correctly,
by opinion and practice, each of these doctrines is to be regarded as an
interpretation of Scripture! And not only this, nay, if a council has made a
decision against the contradiction of Scripture, let it bear the name of an
"interpretation"! Christ commands that all drink from the cup which he offers in
the Lord’s Supper (Mt 26,26) – the Council of Constance, on the other hand,
forbade to give it to the people, but wanted only the priest to drink from it!
What in this way stands in exact contrast to the institution of Christ, that is
to be taken for its interpretation according to the will of the Romans. St. Paul
calls the prohibition of the marriage state a "siding" of evil spirits (1Tim
4:1 s.), and elsewhere the Holy Spirit makes it known that the marriage state is
holy and honorable among all classes (Hebr 13:4). But that the Romans
subsequently forbade the priests to marry, they want to be taken for the true
and original interpretation of Scripture, although nothing can be conceived that
would be stranger to Scripture. If anyone dares to murmur against it, he will be
judged a heretic; for there is no appeal against the determination of the
church, and it is sinful to doubt (and wonder) whether the interpretation given
by it is true. What is the use of sharp words against such impudence? It is said
to have already won, if one has proved it! The Romans also speak in their
doctrine of an authority (of the church) to confirm the Scriptures; but I leave
that aside with full consideration. For if in this way the revelatory words of
God are subjected to the scrutiny of men, so that they would therefore have
their validity because they pleased men, this is a blasphemy not worth
mentioning; also I have already touched on this point above (cf. Book I, Chapter
7). I would like to ask the Romans only one question: if the authority of
Scripture is based on the approval of the Church – from which council do they
want to cite a decision in this regard? I think they have none! Why then did
Arius allow himself to be overcome at Nicaea by testimonies adduced from the
Gospel of John? Because according to the teaching of the Romans he was free to
contradict, because no recognition (of this gospel) by a general council had
preceded. They refer to an ancient list called the canon, and they say that this
arose from a decision of the Church. But I ask again: in which council was this
canon established? They have to fall silent on that. However, I would also like
to know what kind of canon they think it was. For I notice that this was very
little established among the ancients. If what Jerome says is to be valid, then
the Books of the Maccabees, the Book of Tobias, Jesus Sirach and the like must
be relegated to the Apocrypha – but the Romans do not dare to do this in any
way!
Of the legislative power of the church, in which the pope
together with his own has subjected the souls to a cruel tyranny and torment.
IV,10,1 Now follows the second part (of the ecclesiastical
power, cf. ch. 8, section 1 at the beginning), which, according to the will of
the papists, is to consist in legislation. Now this is a source from which
innumerable human traditions have sprung – loud ropes to strangle the poor souls
with! For the papists, just like the scribes and Pharisees, have not shied away
from putting burdens on other people’s shoulders that they themselves would not
have wanted to touch with their finger (Mt 23,4). I have already stated
elsewhere what a cruel torment their provisions on auricular confession are. In
other laws such violence does not appear; but even those which seem the most
tolerable of all exert a tyrannical pressure on consciences. I shall not mention
that they distort the worship of God and deprive God Himself, who is the only
lawgiver, of His right. We must now discuss this authority (and the question is)
whether the Church has the right to bind consciences with its laws. In this
discussion the civil (political) order is not touched, but it is exclusively a
question of God being rightly worshipped according to the guide prescribed by
Him, and of our spiritual freedom, which relates to God, being preserved
unabridged. It has now become customary to understand by the term "human
traditions" all those provisions which, in relation to the worship of God, have
emanated from men outside His Word. Against these we have to fight, but not
against the holy and useful ordinances of the Church, which serve to maintain
discipline, respectability, or peace. Our struggle, however, has the aim of
breaking that unmeasured and barbarous dominion over souls which people who want
to be taken for shepherds of the church, but who are in fact the most merciless
torturers, arrogate to themselves. For they claim of the laws they make that
they are "spiritual" and have reference to souls, also declaring that they are
necessary for eternal life. In this way, however, the kingdom of Christ is
violated, as I briefly said above, and the freedom that he himself has given to
the consciences of the faithful is completely suppressed and destroyed. I am
silent here about the ungodliness with which they advocate the observance of
their laws as an unbreakable requirement, namely, by teaching that one should
seek forgiveness of sins, righteousness and salvation in it, and by putting the
whole sum of religion and piety into it. I assert this one thing: one must not
impose any constraint on the consciences in such matters in which they are made
free by Christ – after all, as we have pointed out above, they can only rest
with God when they have been made partakers of such freedom! If they want to
keep the grace they once obtained in Christ, they must also acknowledge Him as
the one King who is their liberator, namely Christ, and be governed by the one
law of freedom; no bondage may hold them any longer, and no fetters may bind
them any longer!!
IV,10,2 Now these solons (lawgivers) act as if their
ordinances were "laws of liberty", as if they were a "gentle yoke", a "light
burden" – but who should not see that these are all lies? They themselves, of
course, do not feel the heaviness of their laws; for they have thrown God’s fear
from them and now carelessly and boldly despise both their own and the divine
laws. But men who are to some extent touched by the concern for salvation, by no
means come to the opinion that they are free as long as they are held by these
cords. We see, however, with how much caution Paul walked in this piece, so that
he did not even dare in a single matter to "throw a rope around the necks of
others" (1Cor 7:35). And not without cause; for he surely foresaw what a grievous
wound would be inflicted on consciences if such things were to be forcibly
imposed upon them in which the Lord had left them liberty. On the other hand,
one can hardly enumerate the ordinances which the Romans have affirmed with the
utmost seriousness by threatening eternal death, and which they demand with
extreme severity as necessary for salvation. And among them very many are
extremely difficult, but all together, if you put them in a heap, impossible to
keep – so great is the mass! How, then, is it to happen that people on whom so
great and heavy a burden rests are not entangled in the worst fear and terror
and wear themselves out by it? I intend here, then, to oppose statutes of this
kind, which have been made to bind souls inwardly before God and to cause them
holy dread, as if one were giving precepts about things that are necessary for
salvation.
IV,10,3 Now this question causes many people great
difficulty because they do not distinguish sharply enough between the "external"
sphere of law – as it is called – and that of conscience. Moreover, the
embarrassment is increased by the fact that, according to Paul’s commandment, we
should obey the authorities not only out of fear of punishment, but also "for
the sake of conscience" (Rom 13:1,5). From this it follows (so it is thought)
that our conscience is also bound to the civil laws. If it were so, all that we
have said in the previous chapter) and what we shall still carry out of the
spiritual regiment would collapse. In order to untie this knot, it is first
useful to determine what conscience actually is. We take the description of this
concept from the (linguistic) root of the word. After all, people attain a
knowledge of things through understanding and insight; thus one says: they know
this and that, and from this the word science is then also derived. But now they
also have a sense of divine judgment, which is always with them like a witness,
does not let them hide their sin, but draws them as guilty before God’s judgment
seat. This feeling is called conscience (conscientia = co-knowledge!). It is
therefore something that stands in the middle between God and man; for it does
not allow man to suppress within himself what he nevertheless knows, but it
oppresses him until he confesses himself guilty. – This is what Paul means by
his teaching that the conscience bears witness at the same time as man, namely
when thoughts accuse or excuse each other before God’s court (Rom 2:15f.). The
mere knowledge could remain closed (and therefore ineffective, hidden) in man.
Therefore, this feeling, which puts man before God’s judgment, is, as it were, a
guard given to him, so that nothing remains buried in darkness. Hence the old
saying: conscience is like a thousand witnesses. For the same reason, Peter
equates the testimony of a good conscience before God with the tranquility of
our hearts when we fearlessly stand before God in the assurance of Christ’s
grace (1Pet 3:21). Also, when the author of the Letter to the Hebrews says that
people "no longer have a conscience of sins" (Hebr 10:2), he means that we are
freed and absolved so that sin no longer oppresses us.
IV,10,4 So as our works relate to men, so conscience
relates to God. A good conscience, then, is nothing other than the inner purity
of the heart. In this sense Paul writes: "The main sum of the law is love … of
good conscience and of unfeigned faith" (1Tim 1:5). In the same chapter he shows
a little later how much conscience is different from mere knowledge: he speaks
(1Tim 1:19) of some "who have been shipwrecked in the faith" and declares that
they have "thrust conscience from them". With these words he makes it clear that
conscience is a living urge to serve God and a pure striving for a pious and
holy life. Sometimes the conscience is also referred to people; for example,
when Paul testifies in Luke that he took pains "to have an inviolate conscience
in all things, both toward God and toward men" (Acts 24:16). But this is said
because the fruits of the good conscience also flow and penetrate to the people.
In the proper sense, however, conscience looks to God alone, as I said before.
Thus, we also say that a law "binds" the conscience when it straightforwardly
obliges man, without looking at people and without considering them. For
example: God has not only commanded us to keep our hearts chaste and pure from
all lust, but He has also forbidden all shameful words and all outward opulence.
My conscience is bound to keep this commandment – even if not a single person
lived in the world. Therefore, he who is unchaste in his conduct sins not only
in that he sets a bad example to the brethren, but he also has a guilty
conscience before God. But it is different with what is in itself a "middle
thing". We have to abstain from it, if an offence arises from it – but with a
free conscience! In this sense Paul speaks of the flesh that was consecrated to
idols; he says: "But if anyone gives you cause for concern, do not touch the
flesh, and that for the sake of conscience. But I say of the conscience not of
thyself, but of another" (1Cor 10:28 s.; verse 28 summarily). The believer would
therefore sin if he ate such meat in spite of previous warning. But even if,
according to God’s command, he must practice such abstinence out of
consideration for his brother, he does not therefore cease to preserve the
freedom of his conscience. So we see how such a law binds the outward work, yet
leaves the conscience free.
IV,10,5 Now let us return to human laws. If they are given
for the purpose of instilling holy awe in us, as if their observance were
necessary in and of itself, then we maintain that something is imposed on the
consciences that is not proper. For our conscience is not concerned with men,
but with God alone. The common distinction between the earthly sphere of law and
that of conscience also belongs to this. When the whole world was shrouded in
the thickest darkness of ignorance, there remained the small ray of light that
one recognized that the conscience of men is higher than all human judgments. Of
course, what was conceded in one word, was in fact overturned afterwards, but
God willed that even then there should be some testimony of Christian freedom to
free consciences from the tyranny of men. But still that difficulty is not
solved, which arises from the words of Paul (Rom 13,1.5). For if we are to obey
the authorities not merely for fear of punishment, but "for conscience’ sake,"
it would seem to follow that the laws of the authorities also rule over the
conscience. But if this is true, the same must be said of ecclesiastical laws. I
answer that here we must first distinguish between the general and the
particular. For although the individual laws do not touch the conscience, we are
bound by God’s general commandment, which the authority of the authorities
commands us to do as something important. Paul’s discussion revolves around this
very pivotal point: since the authorities are ordered by God, we should show
them honor (Rom 13:1). However, he does not at all teach that the laws they
give refer to the inner government of the soul; for he everywhere exalts both
the worship of God and the spiritual rule to righteous living above any statutes
of men. There is also a second thing worth mentioning here, which, however,
depends on the above: although human laws, whether given by the authorities or
by the Church, are necessary to be kept-I am speaking of the good and righteous
laws-they do not bind the conscience in and of themselves, and this because all
and every necessity of keeping them is directed to a general end, but does not
lie in the things commanded. Far from this group, however, are such laws as
prescribe a new form of worship of God, and set up a compulsion with reference
to things which are free.
IV,10,6 But just of this kind are the laws which are
nowadays called church statutes in the papacy and which are imposed on the
people as true and necessary worship. And as innumerable as they are, so
innumerable fetters are they to catch and entrap the souls in them. Now, we have
admittedly touched upon some of this already in the interpretation of the Law
(Book II, chapters 7 and 8); but as that passage was the more appropriate place
for a proper treatment, I will now endeavor to summarize the whole essential
content in as good order as possible. And since we have already just spoken of
the tyranny which the false bishops arrogate to themselves to teach arbitrarily
what suits them, so far as it seemed sufficient, I shall leave that whole part
aside, and deal here only with the authority to legislate which they claim to
have. When, therefore, our false bishops trouble the consciences with new laws,
they do so under the pretext that they have just been appointed by the Lord as
spiritual legislators, and that because they are commanded to govern the church.
Therefore, they claim that everything they command or prescribe must be obeyed
by the Christian people, but whoever violates it is guilty of a double
disobedience, because he rebels against God and the church. Admittedly, if they
were true bishops, I would grant them some authority in this matter – not as
much as they demand for themselves, but as much as is necessary to regulate the
order of the church properly. Now, however, since they are nothing less than
what they want to be taken for, they cannot take the least without thereby going
beyond the measure. But since we have already seen this also elsewhere, let us
admit to them for the present that all the authority which true bishops possess
is rightfully theirs. Nevertheless, I deny that they would therefore be imposed
upon the faithful as legislators who could of themselves prescribe a rule for
life or forcibly bind the people entrusted to them to their statutes. When I say
this, my opinion is that it is in no way their right to impose on the Church as
a command something they have devised of themselves without God’s Word, and as
if it were something necessary (for salvation). Since this right was unknown to
the apostles and was so often denied to the servants of the church by the mouth
of the Lord, I wonder why they dared to usurp it without the example of the
apostles and against God’s obvious prohibition, and why they still dare to
defend it today.
IV,10,7 What belonged to the perfect rule for a right
life, the Lord summarized fully in his law, and that in such a way that he left
nothing for men to add to that main sum. And he did this, first, for the purpose
that he might be regarded by us as the sole master and governor of our lives,
because all righteousness of conduct consists in all our works being directed
according to his will as according to a guideline. Secondly, he did it to
testify to us that he requires nothing more urgently from us than obedience. In
this sense, James says: "He who judges his brother is not a doer of the law, but
a judge. There is one lawgiver, who can beatify and condemn" (Jam 4,11 s.; verse
11 not quite Luthertext). There we hear that God reserves it to himself alone as
something peculiar to him to govern us by the command and the laws of his word.
The same had been said before by Isaiah, although a bit darker: "The Lord is our
king, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our judge, who helps us" (Isa 33,22;
not quite Luthertext). Undoubtedly, it is shown in both passages that he who has
the right over the soul has the decision over life and death. Yes, James
expresses this clearly. But this right cannot be taken away by any human being.
So God must be recognized as the only King of souls, with whom alone lies the
power to make blessed or to cause to perish, or, as those words of Isaiah read,
as King, Judge, Lawgiver and Savior. Therefore, Peter, reminding the shepherds
of their duty, urges them to feed the flock in such a way that they do not
exercise dominion over the "clergy" – a term by which he designates the
inheritance of God, that is, the people of the faithful (1Pet 5:2f.). If we
consider this rightly, that it is inadmissible to transfer to a human being
something that God alone appropriates to Himself, then we will also understand
that this cuts off all authority that those people claim who want to set
themselves up to command something in the church without God’s Word.
IV,10,8 The whole matter, then, depends on the principle:
if God is the one lawgiver, it is not for man to usurp this honor. But if this
is so, then one must at the same time keep in mind the two causes established
above, why God alone appropriates this right. The first reason is that his will
should be for us the perfect guide to all righteousness and holiness, and thus
in its knowledge should lie the perfect knowledge of right living. And the
second cause: He alone, where one asks for the way to worship him duly and
righteously, shall have the command over our souls, so that we shall therefore
render obedience to him and hang on his will. Having these two causes in view,
we shall easily gain a judgment as to what orders of men are contrary to the
word of the Lord. Now of this kind are all those which are pretended to belong
to the true worship of God, and to the observance of which the consciences are
compelled, as if they must be necessarily observed. Let us remember, then, that
on this scale all human laws must be weighed, if we are to have a sure rule that
will never let us stray. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul uses the first
cause in his argument against the false apostles, who tried to oppress the
churches with new burdens (Col 2, S). The second he uses more in the Epistle to
the Galatians, and in a similar cause. So in Colossians he states the following:
an instruction about the true worship of God we are not to desire from men,
because the Lord has faithfully and fully instructed us about how He is to be
worshiped. To prove this, Paul declares in the first chapter (of the letter)
that in the gospel all wisdom is written, by virtue of which the man of God is
made perfect in Christ (Col 1:28). In the beginning of the second chapter he
says that in Christ "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col
2,3). From there he concludes that the believers should be careful not to be led
away from the flock of Christ by vain worldly wisdom "according to the statutes
of men" (Col 2,8). And at the end of this chapter he condemns with even greater
frankness all "self-chosen spirituality", that is, all imaginary worship that
men devise for themselves or adopt from others, as well as all regulations about
the worship of God that they dare to establish on their own (Col 2:16-23). Thus
it follows for us: ungodly are all statutes of which one pretends that the
service of God lies in their observation. The passages in Galatians where Paul
insists that no rope should be tied around the conscience, which should be
governed by God alone, are clear enough; they are mainly found in the fifth
chapter of the letter (Gal 5,1-12). It may therefore suffice to have mentioned
them.
IV,10,9 But because the whole matter will become better
clear by examples, it is well, before we go further, to apply this teaching to
our times. The so-called "ecclesiastical" statutes, with which the pope and his
followers weigh down the church, are, according to our assertion, corrupt and
ungodly; our opponents, on the other hand, declare that they are holy and
salvific. Now, these statutes generally fall into two groups: namely, one
concerns ceremonies and worship customs, the other relates more to
(ecclesiastical) discipline. Isa there, then, a just cause which must move us to
oppose both? Truly a more just cause than we might well wish! First of all, do
not the authors of these statutes themselves declare in no uncertain terms that
in them lies resolved, as it were, the very essence of the worship of God? What
purpose should their ceremonies serve other than that God should be worshipped
through them? And this is not done solely out of the "error of the inexperienced
multitude," but with the consent of those who hold the magisterium! I do not
deal here with the gross abominations with which they have undertaken to destroy
all piety – but they would not pretend that it was such a gruesome crime to have
transgressed against any little law, however slight, if they did not subordinate
the worship of God to their fancies! Paul taught that it is not acceptable to
subject the lawful way of worshipping God to the whims of men. But what sin is
there in this, if today we really cannot bear what he declared to be
unacceptable? Especially when these people command that one should worship God
according to the "elements" (Luther: "statutes") of this world, while Paul
testifies that this is contrary to Christ (Col 2,20)! On the other hand, it is
well known with what sharp constraint they bind the consciences to keep
everything they command. If we object here, we have common cause with Paul, who
does not tolerate in any way that believing consciences are brought under the
bondage of men (Gal 5,1).
IV,10,10 In addition to this, there is the very worst:
once one has begun to let religion be determined by such vain fantasies, then
the other terrible distortion, which Christ accused the Pharisees of,
immediately results from this falsity, namely that God’s commandment loses its
validity for the sake of the statutes of men (Mt 15,3). I will not argue
against our present lawgivers in my own words – they shall truly have won if in
any way they manage to clear themselves of this charge of Christ! But how should
they be able to excuse themselves? With them it is considered an infinitely
greater sin if one omits the auricular confession at the end of the year than if
he has led the most shameful way of life throughout the year! They consider it
incomparably more sacrilegious to have let the tongue come into contact with a
small taste of meat on Friday than to have defiled the whole body with
fornication all day long! They consider it much worse to have laid hands on an
honest piece of work on a day consecrated to who knows what insignificant saint,
than to have kept all the limbs busy all the time with the vilest knavery! If a
priest is bound by a lawful marriage, they consider it much, much more "sinful"
than if he entangles himself in a thousandfold adulteries! If one does not
perform a promised pilgrimage, they say, that is infinitely worse than if one
breaks the given word in all promises! If one has not wasted money on the
wasteful and equally superfluous as well as useless splendor of the church
buildings, this is considered an incomparably greater "sin" than if one has
abandoned the poor in their very worst need. It is said to be much, much more
sacrilegious to have passed by an idol without paying homage than to have
treated any kind of people shamefully! It is said to be infinitely worse, if one
has not muttered lengthy words without sense and reason at certain hours, than
if one has never uttered a right prayer in his heart! If this does not mean
invalidating God’s commandments for the sake of one’s own "essays" (Mt 15:3)
- what then? Whereas they merely order people to observe God’s commandments
coolly and only to fulfill their duty – but nevertheless insist on strict
obedience to their own statutes with zeal and anxious insistence, as if they
contained all the power of piety. Where they punish the transgression of the
divine law only with minor penalties, but avenge even the slightest violation of
one of their own decrees with no lighter punishment than imprisonment,
banishment, fire and sword! Whoever despises God, they are not so severe and
implacable against him; but whoever despises them, they pursue to the utmost
with irreconcilable hatred. And all whose simple-mindedness they hold captive,
they instruct in such a way that they would regard it with more equanimity if
God’s entire law were overturned, than if one jot of the commandments – as they
say: – of the "church" were violated. First of all, it is a serious offense to
despise, condemn, and reject one another for the sake of very small things and,
if we stop at God’s judgment, for the sake of things that have been left free.
As if this were not bad enough, one now attaches more weight to those "worthless
elements of this world", as Paul calls them in Galatians (Gal 4,9; Luther:
"statutes"), than to the heavenly revelatory words of God. And so it comes to
this: whoever is almost acquitted in adultery is condemned over food and drink,
whoever is condemned over whoredom is denied a wife! This is how far one gets
with that "obedience" which is oblivious to duty and which deviates from God the
more he turns to man..
IV,10,11 There are two other, not insignificant, defects
which we disapprove of in these statutes. First, that they prescribe to a great
extent useless, and at times foolish, modes of conduct; and secondly, that by
their immense quantity the pious consciences are oppressed, and now fallen back
into a certain kind of Judaism, are so attached to shadows that they cannot come
to Christ. (1.) That I call these statutes "foolish" and "useless" will, I know,
not be apparent to the prudence of the flesh, which rather finds such pleasure
in them that one is of the opinion that the church would be completely
disfigured if they were abolished. But this is what Paul writes: they "have an
appearance of wisdom through self-chosen spirituality and humility" and through
the fact that they seem to be able to tame the flesh through their hardness
(Col 2:23). Truly a very salutary admonition that must never leave our minds!
So Paul says that human statutes deceive under the appearance of wisdom. Where
then do they get this veneer? Yes, precisely because they are invented by men!
Human reason recognizes in them its own work, and what it has recognized in this
way, it accepts more readily than anything that would correspond less to its
vanity, even if it is the very best. And then these statutes also seem to be
suitable exercises for humility, because they keep the mind of the people
pressed to the ground under their yoke – and that is then the second thing that
gives them recommendation! Finally, it appears that their purpose is to keep the
lusts of the flesh in check and to subjugate the flesh by the harshness of
abstinence (which they demand), and therefore they seem to be intelligently
devised. But what does Paul say to all this? Does he tear off the masks of the
statutes, so that simple people are not deceived by such false pretenses? No, he
is convinced that his explanation that these statutes were invented by men (Col
2,22) is sufficient to reject them, and therefore he passes over all this as if
he did not consider it anything, without refutation. Yes, because he knew that
in the church all devised worship is condemned and is all the more suspect to
the faithful the more it pleases human reason, because he knew that that false
image of outward humility has so little to do with true humility that they are
easily distinguished from each other, And since he knew that this education
(brought about by the "statutes") is not to be esteemed higher than a bodily
exercise, he had the will that exactly that, for the sake of which the human
statutes are praised among simple-minded people, should serve as a refutation of
them for the faithful.
IV,10,12 So nowadays not only the unlearned people are
miraculously captivated by the show of ceremonies, but also everybody else,
however much he may be puffed up by worldly wisdom. But hypocrites and foolish
women are of the opinion that nothing more delicious and better can be devised.
Whoever, on the other hand, investigates more deeply and considers more
truthfully, according to the rules of piety, what value ceremonies in such
number and form actually have, will understand that they are, first, mere
buffoonery, because they have no use whatsoever, and second, jugglery, because
they deceive the eyes of the spectators with vain pomp. I am talking about such
ceremonies, under which, according to the opinion of the Roman teachers, great
secrets are hidden, but which, according to our experience, are nothing but
mockery and ridicule. It is no wonder that the authors of these ceremonies have
fallen into the trap of fooling themselves as well as others with worthless
silliness; for they have partly taken an example from the fantasies of the
pagans, partly they have imitated, like apes without reflection, the old customs
of the Mosaic law, which had as little to do with us as animal sacrifices and
other such things. Truly, even if there were no other evidence, no one in his
right mind would expect anything good from such a badly mixed mixture. Also, the
facts themselves make it clear to one that very many ceremonies have no other
use than to baffle the people instead of instructing them. Thus the hypocrites
also attach great weight to these newer legal statutes, which, after all,
pervert ecclesiastical discipline more than they preserve it; but if anyone
examines them more closely in the light, he will find that they are nothing but
a shadowy, fleeting mirage of discipline!
IV,10,13 (2.) And then, to go into the second, who does
not see that the statutes, by being heaped one upon another, have become so
rampant that they can no longer be borne in any way by the Christian church?
From here it has come about that in the ceremonies who knows what kind of
Judaism appears and some rules of conduct bring a terrible torment for pious
minds. Augustine lamented that (already) in his time, leaving aside the
commandments of God, everything was filled with so much stiff-neckedness that
one who had touched the earth with his bare foot in the course of his baptismal
week was punished more severely than one who had drowned his mind with
drunkenness. He complained that the Church, which according to the will of God’s
mercy should be free, was oppressed in such a way that the situation of the Jews
would have been more bearable (Letter 55, to Januarius). With what lamentations
would this holy man, if he lived in our times, weep for the bondage that exists
today? For the number of statutes is ten times greater today, and every single
point is demanded a hundred times more strictly than it was then. This is how it
tends to go: once these twisted lawmakers have won the reign, they do not stop
with their domains and prohibitions until they have brought it to the utmost
obstinacy. Paul announced this perfectly when he said: "If then you have died to
the world, why do you allow yourselves to be caught by statutes as if you were
still alive? ? You shall not … eat this, you shall not taste this, you shall
not touch this" (Col 2,20 s.; not quite Luther text). For the word haptesthai
means both "to eat" (as Calvin translates) and "to attack" (as Luther
translates), and so it is used here without doubt in the first meaning, so that
no superfluous repetition occurs (the last word is "to touch"!) Here, then, he
describes very finely the procedure of the false apostles. They make the
beginning with the superstition, by forbidding not only to "eat", but also to
try a little. If they have reached this, they forbid immediately also the
"cost". After this is also granted to them, they claim that it is not
permissible to "touch" the food even with the finger.
IV,10,14 With good reason we reproach today at the
statutes of men this tyranny, by which it has come to the fact that the poor
consciences are terribly tormented by innumerable commandments and by their
exaggerated enforcement. The legal statutes that relate to church discipline
have already been mentioned elsewhere. What shall I say of the ceremonies by
which it has been accomplished that Christ has been half-buried, and that we
have now reverted to the Jewish images? "Christ our Lord," says Augustine, "has
woven the communion of the New People by sacraments which are very few in
number, quite glorious in meaning, and very easy to observe" (Letter 54, to
Januarius). How far the multiplicity and variety of customs in which we see the
Church entangled today is from this simplicity cannot be sufficiently stated. I
am well aware of the artifice with which some shrewd people gloss over this
perversity. They claim that there are many people among us who are just as
ignorant as the people of Israel were at that time; that this child rearing was
established for the sake of such people, and that the stronger ones, who could
well do without it, should not neglect it, because they see that it is useful
for the weaker brothers! I reply: we know very well what is owed to the weakness
of the brethren, but we maintain, on the other hand, that the weak are not
served in the way that they are buried under great heaps of ceremonies. It is
not for nothing that God established the difference between us and the people of
the Old Covenant, that he wished to educate the latter in a childlike manner
under signs and images, but us more simply, without so great an outward
preparation. As a child, Paul says, is governed and kept by the disciplinarian
according to his age, so were the Jews kept under the law (Gal 4:1-3). We, on
the other hand, are similar to adults who, freed from guardianship and foreign
care, no longer need the infantile beginnings. The Lord certainly foresaw the
kind of people who would live in His Church and the way in which they would have
to be governed. Nevertheless, he made a distinction between us and the Jews in
the manner just explained. So it is a foolish thing to do if we want to take
care of the inexperienced by reestablishing Judaism, which, after all, Christ
has dismissed. This dissimilarity that exists between the old and the new people
(of God) was also pointed out by Christ in his own words, when he said to the
Samaritan woman that the time had come when the "true worshippers" would worship
God "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23). This had certainly happened at all
times; but the new "worshippers" differ from the old in this, that the spiritual
worship of God under Moses was shaded with many ceremonies and, as it were,
wrapped up in them, whereas these have now been done away with and God is
worshipped more simply. He, therefore, who blurs this dissimilarity, overthrows
the order which Christ instituted and affirmed. Shall we then, it will be asked,
give the more ignorant people no ceremonies whatever, to aid their inexperience?
I do not assert this; for I am of opinion that such a kind of assistance is of
general benefit to them. I am only struggling here to see that this is done in a
way that puts Christ in bright light, but does not obscure Him. We have been
given a few ceremonies by God, which are very easy to perform, and that is to
point us to the present Christ. The Jews, on the other hand, were given more:
they were supposed to be images of the not present (Christ)! That I say of
Christ that he was "not present" with the Jews, this does not refer to his
power, but to the way in which he presented himself. So that now moderation is
kept, it is necessary that in the number of the ceremonies that narrow
limitation, in their practice that easy executability and in their meaning that
dignity is preserved, which consists at the same time in the clarity. That this
has not actually happened – what is the use of saying it? It is obvious to
everyone!
IV,10,15 I pass over here with what pernicious opinions
the senses of men are filled, (when they are taught, for example) that the
ceremonies are sacrifices by which a right service is offered to God, by virtue
of which sins are expiated and man attains righteousness and salvation.
Certainly our opponents will deny that good things could be corrupted by such
errors added from without; one could, they will say, fall into sin no less even
with the works commanded by God in this piece. Nevertheless, it is even more
outrageous that one should give so much honor to works that one has devised at
random according to human discretion, that one believes one can earn eternal
life with them. For the works commanded by God receive a reward because the
Lawgiver Himself is pleased with them in view of the obedience (revealed in
them). So they do not receive their value from their own worthiness or merit,
but rather from the fact that God holds our obedience to Him in such high
esteem. I am speaking here of the perfection of works commanded by God, not of
those performed by man. Indeed, even the works of the law that we do have
something pleasing about them solely out of God’s undeserved kindness, and this
is because the obedience that lies in them is weak and piecemeal. But since we
are not here to discuss the meaning of works without Christ, let us leave this
question aside. On the other hand, I repeat what belongs to the discussion in
question here: all that the works possess in recommending effect, they have with
regard to obedience, which God alone takes into consideration. He testifies to
this through the prophet when he says: "I have given no instructions concerning
burnt offerings and other sacrifices, but I alone have commanded you to obey my
voice" (Jer 7:22f.(Jer 7:22 s.; summarily), but of the works of His own
devising He says elsewhere: "You offer money, but not for bread" (Isa 55:2;
inaccurately), or likewise: "In vain do they honor Me according to the
commandments of men" (Isa 29:13; Mt 15:9; inaccurately). So our adversaries
will not be able to gloss over in any way that they tolerate how the poor people
seek righteousness in such outward buffoonery in order to hold it up to God and
to stand with it before the heavenly judgment seat. Besides, is it not a mistake
worthy of ridicule and scorn that people should be presented with
incomprehensible ceremonies like a show-stage performance or a magic
incantation? For it is certain that all ceremonies are corrupt and harmful if
they do not lead people to Christ. But the ceremonies that are in use under the
papacy are separated from the doctrine, so that they keep people with signs that
are devoid of any meaning. And finally: the belly is an inventive master of art,
and it is obvious that many ceremonies have been invented by greedy priests,
they are supposed to be nets with which one wants to catch money! These
ceremonies may have their origin wherever they want, but in any case they are
all so given over to the vile acquisition of money that it is necessary to
abolish a good part of them, if we want to see to it that no unholy, sacred
desecration of the sanctuary is practiced in the church.
IV,10,16 It may seem that I am not presenting a
permanently valid doctrine of human statutes here, because these remarks are
completely tailored to our time. In fact, however, nothing has been said that
will not be of use for all times. For whenever the superstition arises that men
want to worship God with their own fancies, all the laws that are enacted for
this purpose immediately degenerate into such gross abuses. For when God
threatens to strike those who worship him according to the teachings of men with
blindness and dullness (Isa 29,13f.), he does not announce this curse to one or
another time, but to all centuries. This blindness has the consequence that
people, who have put aside so many warnings of God and get caught in these
pernicious ropes of their own free will, do not shy away from any contradiction
anymore. If we now want to know, leaving aside all (present) circumstances,
which are the human statutes at all times, which must be rejected by the church
and rejected by all pious people, then the above already established, safe and
clear definition should serve for this: Such human statutes are all the laws
which men have enacted without God’s Word for the purpose either of prescribing
a way of worshipping God or of binding consciences by holy timidity, as if the
regulations given related to things necessary for salvation. If then to either
of these, or to both, other errors are added, namely, that these statutes by
their multitude obscure the clearness of the gospel, that they build up nothing,
but are rather useless and playful occupations than true exercises of piety,
that they serve covetousness and filthy lucre, that they are far too difficult
to keep in mind, that they are tainted with evil superstitions – so if such
errors are added, they will help us to notice all the more easily how much
falsehood there is in these statutes.
IV,10,17 I can hear what our opponents say in their
defense: they say that their statutes do not originate from themselves, but from
God. They say that the church is governed by the Holy Spirit so that it cannot
err, and that its authority rests with it. Once they have asserted this, they
immediately draw the conclusion that their statutes are revelations of the Holy
Spirit, which can only be disregarded out of impiety and contempt for God. And
so that they do not give the impression as if they undertake something without
weighty guarantors, they want that one believes them that a substantial part of
their statutes went out from the apostles. They claim that it is already
sufficiently demonstrated by a single example how the apostles acted in other
cases, namely by that event at that time when they, assembled in a council, sent
the message to all Gentiles by decision of this council that they should
"abstain from sacrifice to idols and from blood and from things strangled…"
(Acts 15:20). (Acts 15:20: 29). We have already explained elsewhere how
unjustifiably they claim the title "church" in order to boast about it. But as
far as the matter now under discussion is concerned, if we tear away all masks
and false colors and truly pay attention to that which must be our first concern
and which also concerns us most of all, namely, if we pay attention to what kind
of church Christ wants us to have, so that we may act and behave according to
His rules, we will easily come to the firm conviction that this is not the
church which, disregarding all limits of the Word of God, sets up new laws in
wantonness and arbitrariness! The church was once given the law: "All things
whatsoever I command thee, that shalt thou keep, and do according unto it. Thou
shalt neither add to it nor subtract from it" (Deut 13:1; actually all in the
plural) – and does this law not remain forever? In another place it says: "Add
nothing to the word of the Lord and do nothing from it, lest He punish you and
you be found lying" (Prov 30:6; beginning imprecise). Since our opponents
cannot deny that this word of the church has been spoken, what else do they
claim but the unruliness of the church when they boast that after such
prohibitions it has not dared to add anything to God’s teaching out of its own.
But far be it from us to say yes to their lies, with which they do such dishonor
to the church; no, we should recognize that the name "church" is falsely put
forward as often as one (defending) strives for this arbitrariness of human
presumption, which cannot keep within the commandments of God, but boldly leaps
off and rushes to its own inventions. There is nothing veiled, nothing dark,
nothing ambiguous about the words (above) in which the entire Church is
forbidden to add to or do anything with God’s Word when it comes to the worship
of the Lord and His salutary directives. Yes, one will say, but this is only
said of the law, and yet this is followed by the words of the prophets and the
whole dispensation of the gospel! I freely admit that, and I will add in a
moment: The words of the prophets and the gospel are rather the fulfillment of
the law than an addition to it or a shortening of it. But if the Lord, although
the ministry of Moses lay, as it were, in darkness under very many covers,
nevertheless does not tolerate that anything be added to it or taken away from
it until he sends forth clearer instruction through his servants, the prophets,
and finally through his beloved Son – why then shall we not consider that we are
still much more strictly forbidden to add anything to the law, the prophets, the
psalms and the gospel? The Lord, who has long since declared that he is so
offended by nothing as when he is worshipped after the manner of men, has not
been unfaithful to himself. Hence also those glorious words in the prophets,
which should ring in our ears forever. Thus: "I did not tell your fathers the
day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, nor did I command them burnt
offerings and other sacrifices; but this I commanded them, saying, Obey my word,
and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk in all the ways that
I command you …" (Jer 7:22f.). Or likewise, "I have always testified to your
fathers, saying, ’Obey my voice’" (Jer 11:7; not quite Luther text). In
addition there are other words of the same kind; but glorious above others is
this: "Do you think that the Lord delights in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
and not rather in obeying his voice? Behold, obedience is better than sacrifice,
and heedfulness than the fat of rams. For disobedience is a sorcerous sin, and
to resist is idolatry…" (1Sam 15,22 s.; not quite Luther text). So, if one
defends any human fiefdoms in this piece with the authority of the "church", it
can be immediately proven that they are wrongly attributed to the church,
because they cannot be absolved from the sin of ungodliness.
IV,10,18 For this reason we approach this tyranny of
human statutes, which is haughtily imposed upon us under the name of the
"church," without bias. For it is not as our adversaries unreasonably lie in
order to make us hateful: we do not mock the church, but we pay her the praise
of obedience – and she knows no greater praise! Rather, our adversaries do
bitter injustice to the church; for they portray her as rebellious against her
Lord, acting as if she had gone further than she was permitted by the Lord’s
word. I will remain silent about what a conspicuous impudence, combined with an
equal baseness, it is when one continually makes a great cry about the "power of
the church", but in the meantime remains silent about what the church is
commanded to do by the Lord and what obedience it owes to the Lord’s
instruction. If, however, we have the will to live in harmony with the church,
as is right, then this rather belongs to it, that we look at and remember what
is prescribed to us and to the church by the Lord, so that we obey him in
harmony! For there is no doubt that we will live in harmony with the church in
the best possible way if we show obedience to the Lord in all things. But if our
opponents now trace back to the apostles the origin of the statutes by which the
church has hitherto been oppressed, this is vain deceit. For the whole teaching
of the apostles is based on the fact that the consciences should not be weighed
down with new articles, and that the worship of God should not be defiled by our
little sin. Moreover, if we must give some credence to the history books and
ancient documents, what our adversaries attribute to them was not only unknown
to the apostles, but unheard of. The papists should also not talk that many
teachings of the apostles were accepted through practice and habit, while they
were not handed down in writing; these were those that they were not yet able to
understand when Christ was still alive, but learned after his ascension through
the revelation of the Holy Spirit, of the interpretation of the passage used
here (John 16:12f.) we have already spoken elsewhere (chap. 8, sections 8 and
13). For the matter now under discussion, this is sufficient:Our adversaries
really make fools of themselves by making Jewish or pagan customs out of those
tremendous mysteries which are said to have been unknown to the apostles for
such a long time – although some of them were known to the Jews and others to
the Gentiles long before, partly also foolish gestures and senseless ceremonies,
which silly priests, who have no idea of tooting and blowing, are quite capable
of practicing according to all the rules of the art, yes, which even children
and fools imitate so skillfully that one could get the impression that there
were no more suitable masters at all for such sacred acts! Even if there were no
history books, sensible people would nevertheless come to the conclusion from
the facts themselves that such a great heap of ceremonies and customs did not
break into the church all at once, but crept in little by little. For after the
holier bishops, who were closest in time to the apostles, had already
established some institutions of order and discipline, they were followed, one
after the other, by people who were not prudent enough, and who were also too
forward and passionate, and the later they appeared, the more foolishly they
competed with their predecessors, so as not to be inferior to them in the
elaboration of innovations. And because there was a danger that their little
flotillas would be lost in a short time, while they were striving to gain fame
from their descendants – so they were much sharper in the demand to observe
their little flotillas. This perverse emulation has brought us a good part of
those customs which the papists want to sell us as apostolic. The history books
also testify to this.
IV,10,19 But if we were to compile a register of all the
ceremonies, we would be going too far. In order to avoid this, we will content
ourselves with a single example. In the service of Holy Communion there was
great simplicity among the apostles. Their next successors, at the price of the
dignity of the mystery (sacrament), added some things that would not be
disapproved. But after that, those foolish imitators were added, who gradually
patched together the various pieces and gave us the priest’s vestments that we
see at mass, as well as the present-day altar decorations, the nowadays common
gestures and the whole bunch of useless things. However, our opponents will
object that in ancient times there was a conviction that everything that
happened in full unanimity in the entire Church came from the apostles
themselves. For this they use Augustin as a witness. I will nowhere else bring
forward the refutation but from the very words of Augustine. "What is kept in
the whole world," he says, "can be recognized as having been established by the
apostles themselves or by the general councils, whose authority is very salutary
in the Church: so, for example, that the passion, resurrection, and ascension of
the Lord, as well as the coming of the Holy Spirit, are celebrated with annually
recurring feasts; to this is added what else has occurred in this way, when it
is kept by the whole Church, as far as it also spreads" (Letter 54, to Januarius).
Who should not notice, since Augustine enumerates so few examples, that he
desired to trace the customs then in use, and only those simple, few in number,
and plain, in which the order of the Church is usefully composed, to warrant men
who deserved faith and reverence? But how far is this from what the Roman
masters want to enforce, namely, that there should be no minor ceremony among
them that would not have to be considered apostolic!
IV,10,20 In order not to make it too long, I will bring
forward only one example. If someone asks the Romans where they got their "holy
water", they immediately answer: from the apostles. As if the history books did
not attribute this little bundle to I do not know what bishop of Rome, who, if
he had consulted the apostles, would certainly never and never have defiled
baptism with such a strange and inappropriate mark. However, it is also not
likely to me that this act of consecration (with the water) already originated
in so old time, as it is represented in the history books. For Augustine says
that in his time some churches avoided the solemn custom of washing the feet,
which took place according to Christ’s model, so that it would not appear to be
part of baptism (Letter 55, to Januarius); but with this he indirectly shows
that at that time there was no washing whatsoever that would have had any
resemblance to baptism. Be that as it may, I will in any case under no
circumstances admit that it came from apostolic spirit that one recalls baptism
by means of a daily recurring sign and thereby repeats it so to speak. I am not
concerned about the fact that the same Augustin himself ascribes some other
things to the apostles in another place. For he has nothing but conjectures, and
therefore no judgment may be passed on their basis in so important a matter.
Finally, even if we admit that the usages he mentions derive from the time of
the apostles, there is still a great difference between instituting some
exercise for piety, which the faithful may perform with a free conscience, but
also, if the exercise bears them no blessing, refrain from, and establishing a
law which is intended to ensnare consciences in bondage. But let the one from
whom these customs originated be who he will, we now see that they have fallen
into such grave abuse, and therefore there is nothing to prevent us from
abolishing them without disgracing their originator; for they have never and
never received such a recommendation that they should continue to exist
untouched!
IV,10,21 Nor does it help our adversaries much that they
cite the example of the apostles as a pretext to whitewash their tyranny. The
apostles and elders of the first church, they say, issued a decree outside of
Christ’s instruction with binding effect, by virtue of which they commanded all
the Gentiles to abstain from idolatrous sacrifice, asphyxiation and blood (Acts
15:20). If they were allowed to do this, why should not their followers have the
right to do the same, as often as circumstances require? Alas, if otherwise they
would always follow them in other things, and then likewise in this matter! For
I maintain that the apostles did not establish or decide anything new at all in
this case, and I can easily prove it with strong reasons. For Peter declares in
this council that one tempts God when one puts a yoke on the neck of the
disciples (Acts 15:10); so if he afterwards gives his consent to the fact that a
yoke is put on them after all, he himself throws his opinion overboard. But in
fact such a yoke would be put on them if the apostles decided on their own
authority that the Gentiles should be forbidden to touch things sacrificed to
idols, blood and strangled things! Now there still remains the concern that they
nevertheless seem to pronounce a prohibition. But this will be easily remedied
if one pays closer attention to the meaning of this decision; for the first and
most important part of this decision is that the Gentiles must be given their
freedom, must not be confused and must not be troubled because of the customs of
the law (Acts 15:19, 24, 28). Until then, the decision is brilliantly on our
side. The exception that immediately follows (Acts 15:20, 29) is not a new law
given by the apostles, but a divine and eternal commandment of God, namely that
we should not violate love, and it does not take away from that freedom, but
only points out to the Gentiles how they should adapt themselves to the
brethren, so that they do not misuse their freedom to cause offense to the
brethren. So this is the second main point of this decision: the Gentiles should
use their freedom without harming anyone and without causing offense to the
brethren. Yes, one will say, but they are giving a very definite rule!
Certainly, as far as it was useful for that time, they teach and make clear with
what things the Gentiles could cause such offense among their brethren, and this
is done in order that they may beware of these things; on the other hand, it is
not as if they added something new out of their own to the eternal law of God,
which forbids us to give offense to the brethren.
IV,10,22 It is as if faithful shepherds, who preside over
a church that is not yet properly ordered, give instructions to all their own
not to eat meat publicly on Fridays, not to work publicly on feast days, and the
like, until the weak ones with whom they live have grown up. For these things,
if superstition be set aside, are in and of themselves "mean things"; but as
soon as an offence is added to the brethren, they cannot be practiced without
sinning. The times are such, however, that the faithful may not bring this sight
before the eyes of their weak brethren without thereby wounding their
consciences most grievously. Who will now – unless he be a blasphemer – want to
claim that a new law is being made here, while such men (who pronounce such
prohibitions) undoubtedly only want to prevent offences which are expressly
enough forbidden by the Lord? Nothing more can be said of the apostles; for if
they removed the occasion for offence, they had nothing else in mind than to
emphasize the divine law which commands us to avoid offence. It is as if they
had said: "It is God’s commandment that you do not injure the weak brother; but
you cannot eat what is sacrificed to idols, the choked food and the blood,
without offending the weak brothers; we therefore command you in the word of the
Lord that you do not eat under such offence. Paul is the best witness to the
fact that this was the intention of the apostles, for he undoubtedly writes
solely on the basis of the decision of that council: "But of the sacrifice made
to idols we know … that an idol is nothing … But some still make a
conscience over the idol and eat it for sacrifices to idols; thus their
conscience, because it is so weak, is defiled … See … see to it that …
your liberty be not an offence to the weak". (1Cor 8:1, 4, 7, 9; almost
entirely Luther text). Whoever has rightly considered this will not be able to
be fooled further, as the people do who refer to the apostles in order to gloss
over their tyranny, as if they had started to break the freedom of the church
with their decision. But in order that our opponents may not avoid confirming
this solution with their own concession, let them answer me by what right they
dared to abolish that very resolution! They did so because there was no longer
any danger of the annoyances and divisions which the apostles had wanted to
counteract, and because they knew that a law must be judged according to its
intention. Since, therefore, this law was enacted with love in mind, only so
much is commanded in it as love requires. Now, if they admit that there is no
other transgression of this law than the violation of love, why do they not at
the same time acknowledge that it is precisely not a self-conceived addition to
God’s law, but rather a clean and simple application of it to the times and
customs for which it was intended?
IV,10,23 But the papists claim that we have to obey such
(ecclesiastical) laws, even if they are a hundred times inequitable and unjust
for us, nevertheless without exception. They say that it is not a question here
of our giving our consent to errors, but only that we, as subjects, should carry
out the harsh commands of our superiors, since it is not our business to evade
them. But here, too, the Lord comes to our aid in the best possible way with the
truth of His Word and rescues us from such bondage into freedom, which He
purchased for us with His holy blood (1Cor 7:23), the benefits of which He
seals for us more than once in His Word. For it is not – as our adversaries
pretend in their malice – merely a matter of our having to bear some heavy
oppression in our bodies; no, it is a matter of our consciences being deprived
of their freedom, that is, of the benefit of the blood of Christ, and being
tormented in a servile manner! But I will leave that aside, as if it were of
little consequence. But how much does it matter, according to our opinion, that
the Lord is deprived of his kingdom, which he claims for himself with such
severity? In fact, however, the kingdom is robbed from him as often as he is
worshipped according to the laws of human ministries; for he alone wants to be
regarded as the lawgiver for the worship that is paid to him. Now, lest anyone
should think that this is an insignificant matter, let us hear what high value
the Lord attaches to it. "Therefore," he says, "that this people fear me
according to the commandments of men and the doctrines of men, behold, I will
cause them to be dismayed with a mighty and astonishing wonder; for their wise
men shall be deprived of wisdom, and from their elders their understanding shall
depart" (Isa 29:13 s.; not Luther text). In another place it says: "In vain do
they serve me, teaching such doctrines as are nothing but the commandments of
men" (Mt 15,9). And indeed, the cause of all the calamity, that the children
of Israel defiled themselves with manifold idolatry, is attributed to this
unclean mixture, which arose from their transgressing God’s commandments and
forging together new services of God. Hence also the sacred history reports that
the newly arrived inhabitants, brought by the king of Babylon to populate
Samaria, were torn and eaten by wild beasts, and that because they had not known
the rights and statutes of "the God in the land." Even if they had not provided
anything in the ceremonies, the contentless pomp would not have been pleasing to
God; but in the meantime he did not refrain from punishing the desecration of
his worship, because the people brought up things of their own devising that had
nothing to do with his word. Therefore it is said afterwards that they,
frightened by this punishment, adopted the customs prescribed in the law; but
because they did not yet worship God purely, it is repeated twice that they
worshipped God and yet again did not (1Ki 17:24f.32f.41). From this we see
that the reverence shown to Him consists in part in our following His
commandments in worshiping Him, and not mixing in our own inventions. Therefore,
even the godly kings are more often praised because they acted according to all
the commandments and did not deviate to the right or to the left (2Ki
22:1 s.; 1Ki 15:11; 22:43; 2Ki 12:3; 14:3; 15:3; 15:34; 18:3). I go
further: even if in a worship of God devised by man no manifest ungodliness is
revealed, it is nevertheless severely condemned by the Holy Spirit because one
has departed from God’s command. The altar of Ahaz, the model of which was
brought from Samaria, could give the impression of increasing the ornamentation
of the temple; for Ahaz intended to offer sacrifices to God alone on it, and he
could do so more splendidly here than on the first altar of old; nevertheless,
we see that the Holy Spirit curses this presumption, and for no other reason
than because the little feet of men are impure corruptions in the worship of God
(2Ki 16:18). Kings 16:10-18). And the more clearly the will of God is
revealed to us, the less the impudence to try anything here can be excused.
Therefore, the guilt of Manasseh is deservedly made more severe by the fact that
he had erected a new altar in Jerusalem, while God had said of the city: "I will
set my name at Jerusalem" (2Ki 21:3f.). For now his act meant a deliberate
defamation of God’s authority.
IV,10,24 Many wonder why the Lord so sharply threatens to
do amazing things to the people who worship Him according to the commandments of
men (Isa 29,13f.), and why He proclaims that it is in vain to serve Him
according to the statutes of men (Mt 15,9). But if these people would direct
their attention to what it means to hang on God’s mouth alone in matters of
religion, that is, of heavenly wisdom, they would see at the same time that
there is no slight cause why the Lord so abhors such perverse "services"
rendered to Him according to the arbitrariness of human reason. For although men
who obey such laws for the worship of God have a certain semblance of humility
in this obedience of theirs, yet they are by no means humble before God, since
they are prescribing to him the same laws which they themselves keep. But this
is the reason why Paul wants us to be so diligent not to be deceived by the
traditions of men (Col 2:4) and by that "self-chosen spirituality", as he calls
it, that is, by the self-willed worship of God elaborated apart from God’s
instruction by men. So it is indeed: both our own and all men’s wisdom must
become foolishness to us, so that we let him alone be wise! But those who try to
make themselves agreeable to him by means of pious exercises devised according
to human convenience, and impose on him, as it were against his will, the
perverse obedience which is (in fact) rendered to men, do not in any way stop
this way. So it happened in former times for many centuries and also still in
our times, and so it happens also today in those places, where one respects the
command of the creature higher than that of the creator, in those places, where
the religion – if such still deserves to be called religion in spite of
everything – is polluted with more manifold and foolish superstitions than ever
any paganism. For what should the mind of man be able to produce but nothing but
carnal, foolish things, which are truly the image of their authors?
IV,10,25 The protectors of such superstitious customs
also refer to the fact that Samuel sacrificed at Ramah and that this, although
against the law, was pleasing to God (1Sam 7,17). The solution is easy: it is
not a question of a second altar, which he would have erected in contrast to the
only legitimate one, but, since no place for the ark of the covenant had yet
been decreed, he designated the city in which he lived as the most suitable one
for the sacrifices. In any case, the holy prophet did not have in mind to
introduce any innovation with regard to the sacred acts, when God so strictly
forbade adding or subtracting anything. Now, as for the example of Manoah, I
maintain that it was something extraordinary and unique (Judges 13:19). Manoah
offered a sacrifice to God as an inconsiderate man, and this did not happen
without God’s approval, because he did not undertake it out of a rash impulse of
his heart, but on a heavenly impulse. But how much God detests what mortals
devise out of themselves to worship Him, we have another conspicuous proof of,
who is not inferior to Manoah, namely Gideon, whose ephod became a ruin not only
for him and his family, but for the whole nation (Judges 8:27). In short, any
alien filth with which men desire to worship God is nothing but a defilement of
true holiness.
IV,10,26 Why, our adversaries ask, did Christ want those
unbearable burdens that the scribes and Pharisees put on the people to be
carried (Mt 23,3)? Yes (I answer), why then did the same Christ demand in
another place that one should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees (Mt
16,6)? And according to the explanation of the evangelist Matthew, he understood
by "leaven" everything that the Pharisees added to the purity of God’s word (Mt
16,12). What do we want more clearly than that he commands us to avoid all their
teaching and to beware of it? Therefore, it is absolutely certain that the Lord
did not want the consciences of His own to be tormented with the Pharisees’ own
doctrines in the other passage (Mt 23,3). Also the words themselves, if one
does not do violence to them, do not result in anything like that. For the Lord
had in mind to strike out against the customs of the Pharisees with bitter
severity; but in so doing he simply taught his hearers from the outset that,
although they saw nothing in the way of life of the Pharisees that they should
have followed, they should not refrain from doing what they taught with the word
when they sat "in Moses’ chair," that is, when they sat to interpret the law. So
he wanted nothing else than to prevent from the outset that the people would be
led to despise the teaching itself by the bad example of those who taught it.
But because some people cannot be moved in the least by reasons, but always ask
for authority, I will still follow words of Augustine, in which fully the same
thing is said. "The Lord’s flock," he says, "has for its overseers partly
children (of God), partly hirelings. The overseers who are children are the true
shepherds; but hear that the hirelings are also necessary, for many in the
church preach Christ while chasing after earthly advantages; now through them
the voice of Christ comes to be heard, and the sheep do not follow the hireling,
but the shepherd-through the hireling! Hear now how the hirelings are marked by
the Lord Himself. ’In Moses’ chair,’ he says, ’sit the scribes and Pharisees;
what they say, do; but what they do, do not.’ What did he say other than: listen
to the voice of the shepherd through the hirelings? For when they sit on the
’chair,’ they teach God’s law; so God teaches through them. But if they want to
teach their own things, do not listen to them or do them" (Homilies on the
Gospel of John 46:5f.). Thus Augustine.
IV,10,27 Now there are many inexperienced people who,
when they hear that by human statutes the consciences of men are ungodly bound
and God is worshipped in vain, cross out with the same process all the laws by
which the order of the church is regulated. It is therefore appropriate that we
also counter their error here. It is certainly very easy to slip and be mistaken
here, for it is not immediately apparent what a great difference there is
between those human statutes and the proper ecclesiastical orders. But I will
explain the whole matter so clearly in a few words that no one will be deceived
by the similarity. First of all we must know this: if we see that in every
community of men a certain public authority is necessary, which should be able
to promote the common peace and maintain harmony, and if we see that in all
actions a certain custom always prevails, which is not to be spurned for public
respectability and also downright conducive to humanity, then it must be held so
in a special way in the churches, which on the one hand are best preserved with
a well-regulated order of all things, but on the other hand cannot exist at all
without harmony. Therefore, if we want the well-being of the church to be well
taken care of, it must be emphasized with the greatest zeal that it is done
according to Paul’s instruction: "Let all things be done honorably and properly"
(1Cor 14:40). But since the manners of men are so various, their minds so
many-sided, and their judgments and conceits so contradictory, no public
authority is strong enough unless it is regulated by certain laws, nor can any
custom of any kind be maintained without a fixed form. The laws, therefore,
which serve this purpose, we so little wish to condemn, that we rather maintain
that with their abolition the churches are stripped of their muscles and wholly
disfigured and disrupted. For what St. Paul demands, namely that "all things be
done honorably and orderly," cannot be held fast if order and honorableness do
not endure by adding rules which then act like bands. Only with such rules one
must always make the condition: they must not be considered necessary for
salvation and accordingly bind the conscience with holy awe, likewise they must
not be related to the worship of God, and therefore piety must not be based on
them.
IV,10,28 We have, then, a very good and highly reliable
mark which shows the difference between those ungodly statutes by which, as
already stated, religion is obscured and consciences are brought down, and the
lawful rules of life of the church; (this we gain) when we consider that the
latter are always intended to serve one of the two following purposes, or both
at the same time; first, that in the holy assembly of the pious everything
should proceed honorably and with due dignity, and secondly, that the community
of men itself should be kept in order, as it were, by bonds of humanity and
moderation. For as soon as it is understood that a law is given for the sake of
public respectability, the superstition into which such people fall, who measure
the worship of God according to human finesse, is already removed. And again,
where it is recognized that the law is meant to serve the common good, that
false delusion of obligation and necessity has become obsolete, which frightened
the consciences immensely, because they thought that such statutes were
necessary for salvation. For nothing is sought here but that love among us may
be fostered by common service. However, it is appropriate that we describe more
clearly what is meant by the "respectability" that Paul commands us to have, and
also by the "order" (1Cor 14:40). Now "respectability" serves the following
purpose: on the one hand, in that pious customs are brought into use to give
reverence to holy things, we are to be cheered up to piety by such aids; on the
other hand, modesty and earnestness, which must be seen in all honorable
pursuits, are thereby also to come to the highest light. In "order," the first
is this, that those who are to govern may know the rule and law for good
government, but the people who are governed may become accustomed to obedience
to God and right discipline. The second is that peace and tranquility are
provided by a well-ordered state of the church.
IV,10,29 "Respectability," then, we shall not call that
which has nothing in it but vain gratification; an example of this we see, for
instance, in that show-like pomp which the papists display in their sacred
actions, in which nothing appears but the useless mask of daintiness and a pomp
which bears no fruit. Nay, "respectability" for us is to be that which serves
reverence for the sacred mysteries in such a way as to constitute a suitable
exercise for piety, or at least that which contributes to an adornment suitable
to the action in question, and not without fruit, but in order to remind the
faithful with how much modesty, holy diffidence, and reverence they ought to
treat sacred things. But now, to be exercises of piety, the ceremonies must lead
us straight to Christ. And likewise, by "order" we shall not mean that paltry
ostentation which has nothing but vain splendor, but rather such regulation as
removes all confusion, barbarity, and unruliness, all strife and contention. For
the first group (i.e., for institutions that serve "respectability") there are
examples in Paul; for example, that unholy banquets should not be mixed with the
Lord’s holy supper, and that women should appear in public only veiled (1Cor
11:21, 5). Very many other examples of this we have in daily use; these include
bending the knees and uncovering the head when praying, not administering the
Lord’s sacraments untidily but with a certain dignity, observing a certain
respectability when burying the deceased – and whatever else may be added. To
the second group (i.e. to the statutes that serve the "order") belongs that for
the public prayers, sermons and holy acts certain hours are fixed, that during
the sermons there is silence, that certain places are available, that songs are
sung, that for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper certain days are fixed
beforehand; here it also belongs that Paul forbids the teaching of women in the
church (1Cor 14:34), and similar things more. Above all, however, here is to
be mentioned that which maintains discipline, such as ecclesiastical
instruction, church discipline, banishment, fasting, and what else could be
enumerated in this way. Thus all the ecclesiastical statutes, which we accept as
holy and wholesome, can be summarized in two main parts: namely, the one refers
to customs and ceremonies, the other to discipline and peace.
IV,10,30 But there is a danger here that, on the one
hand, the false bishops will take from our remarks a pretext to excuse their
impious, tyrannical laws, and on the other hand, there will be some people who
are even too fearful, and who, warned by the former abuses, will now not give
room to a single law, even if it were holy. In view of this danger, it is
appropriate to testify here that I approve only those human statutes which are
founded on God’s authority, taken from Scripture, and therefore fully divine. As
an example, I will take genuflection, which does take place when solemn prayers
are held. The question now is whether this is a human tradition that everyone
may reject or refrain from. I maintain: it is human, but in such a way that it
is at the same time divine. From God it comes, insofar as it is a piece of that
"respectability" for which, as the apostle commands us, we are to care and which
we are to observe (1Cor 14:40). From men it comes, inasmuch as it points out
in particular what had been more hinted at (by the apostle) in general than set
forth. From this one example it may be judged how we are to judge of this whole
group: (1.) Since the Lord faithfully summed up in his holy words of revelation,
and also clearly interpreted, all the main sum of true righteousness, and all
the pieces of the worship of his divine being, besides in general all that was
necessary for salvation, he alone is to be heard as master in these things. (2.)
Since, however, he did not wish to prescribe in detail what we should observe in
the outward exercise of discipline and in the ceremonies – he foresaw that this
would depend on the circumstances of the time, and was not of the opinion that
one and the same form would be suitable for all times – we must have recourse
here to the general rules which he gave us, so that everything which the need of
the church will ever make necessary in the way of regulations for "order" and
"respectability" may be directed according to them. (3.) Finally, he did not
prescribe anything explicit, because these things are not necessary for
salvation, and because they must be applied in different ways for the
edification of the church, according to the customs of the individual people and
of the individual time; therefore it will be in place, according as the
usefulness of the church requires, both to modify or discard institutions in
use, and to create new ones. I admit, of course, that one must not rashly, nor
repeatedly, nor for trifling causes, resort to innovation. But what brings harm
or what edifies, love will judge best; if we let it be our master, all will be
well.
IV,10,31 Now it is the duty of the Christian people,
though with a free conscience and without all superstition, yet with a pious and
obedient inclination, to hold in contempt what has been established according to
this guideline, not to treat it with contempt and not to pass it over with
casual disregard. So little can it be said that it may openly injure them out of
pomposity or rebelliousness! But why, it will be asked, can there be any
question of freedom of conscience in the face of such reverence and respect?
Yes, indeed! It will exist splendidly if we consider that we are not dealing
here with unchangeable, eternal determinations to which we would be bound, but
with external exercises of human weakness, which we do not all need, but which
we all perform, because we owe it to one another to cultivate love among
ourselves. This can be seen in the examples given above, why, for example, does
religion consist in the woman’s headscarf, so that it would be a sin if she went
out with her head bare? Isa the commandment of the silence of the woman (in the
congregation) so sacred that it cannot be violated without committing the worst
iniquity? Isa there a secret in genuflecting (praying) or burying dead bodies, so
that one cannot refrain from it without sinning? Not at all! For if a woman, in
order to help her neighbor, has to hurry so much that she cannot cover her head,
she does not commit a sin if she hurries with her head unveiled. There are also
occasions when it is not less proper for her to speak than it is for her to
remain silent. Nothing forbids that one, who is prevented by illness from
bending the knees, prays standing. And finally, it is better to bury a deceased
person early than to wait until he decays unburied, if there is no burial
garment or if there are no people to escort him. Nevertheless, with these things
it stands in such a way that the custom of the country, the existing mechanisms
and finally the human feeling and the rule of the modesty already give us in the
sense what is to be done or to be avoided. If someone has done something wrong
through imprudence or forgetfulness, no crime has been committed, but if it has
been done out of contempt (of the order), the unruliness (which is evident in
it) is to be disapproved. Likewise, it does not matter what the days and hours
(for worship) are, how the places (in the church) are arranged, and what psalms
are to be sung on the individual days. On the other hand, that (in general)
there are certain days and fixed hours, that there is a space to accommodate
everyone, that is necessary if one somehow takes into consideration the
preservation of peace. For to what great disputes would the confusion in these
things form the germ, if everyone were allowed to change according to his taste
what should serve the common well-being! For if things are placed in the middle,
as it were, and left to the discretion of the individual, it will never, ever
happen that all will like the same thing. If anyone now objects and wants to be
wiser here than is proper, then let him see for himself in what way he makes his
obstinacy pleasing to the Lord! But let Paul’s word be enough for us, we do not
have the habit to argue, and neither do the churches of God (1Cor 11:16).
IV,10,32 But we must now strive with the utmost zeal to
see that no error creeps in to poison and darken this pure use (of the church
statutes). This will be achieved, however, if all existing statutes display an
obvious usefulness, if they are admitted only very sparingly, and above all, if
the instruction of a faithful shepherd is added to them and closes off access to
all erroneous opinions from the outset. But this insight will have the effect
that everyone will retain his freedom in all these matters, and that
nevertheless everyone will voluntarily impose a certain constraint on his
freedom, insofar as that "respectability" of which we spoke, or also the
consideration of love, requires it. Furthermore, this insight will have the
consequence that in observing these things we act without all superstition, and
that we do not demand them from others too stubbornly, that we do not consider a
service better for the sake of the fullness of the ceremonies, and that one
church does not disparage another because of the difference in the external
order. And finally, such knowledge will ensure that we do not establish an
eternal law for ourselves here, but refer the whole practice of such customs and
also their purpose to the edification of the church and, in the event that it
requires it, bear it without offense that not only one or the other is changed,
but also all customs that were previously in practice with us are discarded. For
the fact that the circumstances of the time can bring it about that some
customs, which otherwise were not ungodly or unseemly, must be abolished because
the circumstances demand it, – our time is an effective proof of this. For in
the great blindness and ignorance of the past, the churches used to cling to
ceremonies in such perverse delusion and obstinate zeal that they could hardly
be sufficiently cleansed of monstrous superstition without abolishing many
ceremonies which had perhaps not been instituted in ancient times without
reason, and which in and of themselves showed no impiety.
Of the jurisdiction of the church and its abuse, as seen in the
papacy.
IV,11,1 Now there remains the third piece of
ecclesiastical power, and that which is the most important in a well-ordered
state of the Church: it lies, as we have already said, in jurisdiction. Now the
entire ecclesiastical jurisdiction relates to moral discipline, of which we
shall soon have to speak. Just as no city or village can exist without
authorities and public government, so also the Church of God, as I have already
explained, but am now compelled to repeat again, needs, as it were, its
spiritual government, which, however, is completely distinct from the civil one
and in no way hinders or weakens it, but rather provides it with essential help
and encouragement. This ecclesiastical jurisdiction will therefore be, in its
essential content, nothing other than an order set up to preserve the spiritual
regiment. To this end, judicial authorities have been established in the Church
from the beginning to exercise moral discipline, to take punitive action against
vice, and to administer the office of the keys. This state (i.e. the elders) is
what Paul has in mind in the (first) letter to the Corinthians when he speaks of
"rulers" (1Cor 12:28). And he means the same in the Epistle to the Romans when he
says: "If someone governs, let him be careful" (Rom 12,8). For he is not
addressing the authorities there – Christian authorities did not exist at that
time – but those who were assigned to the "shepherds" for the purpose of the
spiritual regiment of the church. Also in the (first) letter to Timothy he
speaks of two kinds of elders, those "who labor in the word" and others who do
not practice the preaching of the word, but nevertheless "preside well" (1Tim
5:17). Now undoubtedly by this second group he means the men who were appointed
to oversee the customs and the entire use of the keys. For this authority of
which we speak here is fully attached to the "keys" which Christ delivered to
His Church, as recorded in Matthew in the eighteenth chapter. There the Lord
commands those who have despised personal admonitions to be seriously admonished
in the name of the whole church, and teaches that such people are to be expelled
from the fellowship of believers if they persist in their stubbornness (Mt
18:15-18). Now such admonitions and punishments cannot proceed without prior
investigation of the case, and therefore a judicial procedure and a certain
order are required. Therefore, if we do not wish to invalidate the promise of
the keys, and to eliminate banns, solemn admonitions, and the like, we must
concede to the Church a certain jurisdiction. The readers must note that in that
passage (Mt 18) it is not a question of the general teaching authority (of
the church), as is the case in Mt 16 (verse 19) and John 20 (verse 23), but
that here the right of the synedrium is transferred to the flock of Christ for
the future. Up to that day the Jews had their own way of government; this Christ
now sets up in his church, as far as the pure institution (as such) is
concerned. And this happens with a serious threat of punishment. For so it was
necessary, because otherwise the judgment of the unsightly, despised church
might have been thrown to the winds by imprudent and puffed-up people. Now, lest
it trouble the reader that Christ, in the same words, intimates two things which
are quite different from each other, it will be of use to untie this knot. There
are two passages that speak of binding and loosing. One is in the 16th chapter
of Matthew: Christ first gives the promise that He would give Peter "the keys of
the kingdom of heaven," and then He immediately adds that what Peter had bound
or loosed on earth should also be so in heaven (Mt 16,19). With these words
the Lord does not indicate anything different than with the others that are
found in John (John 20:23): He is about to send out the disciples to preach and
after he has "blown" on them he says to them: "Whose sins you remit, they shall
be remitted to them, and whose sins you retain, they shall be retained in
heaven" (John 20:23; not Luther text). Now I want to put forward an
interpretation that is not sophistical, not forced and not twisted, but rather
clear, unambiguous and easily accessible. This commission (to the disciples) to
remit and retain sins, as well as that promise to Peter concerning binding and
loosing (Mt 16,19) cannot be referred to anything else than the ministry of
the word: by entrusting this ministry to the apostles, the Lord equipped them at
the same time with this ministry to bind and loose. For what else is the main
sum of the gospel, but that all of us who are slaves of sin and death are
absolved and made free through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, but that
those who do not accept and recognize Christ as the Deliverer and Redeemer are
condemned and delivered to eternal bonds? When the Lord gave this message to his
apostles to carry to all nations, he honored it to affirm that it was his
message and had proceeded from him, with this glorious testimony, to the
extraordinary strengthening of the apostles themselves as well as of all to whom
it should reach. It was of importance that the apostles should have a sure and
constant assurance for their preaching; for they were not only to go forth to
infinite labors, sorrows, inconveniences and dangers, but also finally to seal
this preaching with their blood! So that they knew, I think, that this message
was not vain and without content, but full of force and power, it mattered that
in such great affliction, such great difficulties of circumstances, and such
great dangers, they had the conviction that they were doing God’s cause; it
mattered, It mattered that, in the midst of the opposition of the whole world,
they recognized that God was on their side; it mattered that they understood
that Christ, whom they had not seen present with them on earth, was in heaven to
confirm the truth of the doctrine which he had delivered to them! On the other
hand, it must also have been most certainly testified to their hearers that that
teaching of the gospel was not the word of the apostles, but God’s own word,
that it had not originated on earth, but had come down from heaven. For such
things as the forgiveness of sins, the promise of eternal life, and the message
of salvation cannot, after all, be in the power of man. So Christ testified that
in the preaching of the gospel nothing was proper to the apostles but the
ministry, but that it was he who spoke and promised all things through their
mouths as through an instrument. Therefore, he testified, the forgiveness of
sins they proclaimed was God’s true promise, the condemnation they threatened
was God’s certain judgment. This testimony, however, is given for all time, and
it remains firm, in order to give to all the certainty and security that the
word of the Gospel, by whichever man it may finally be proclaimed, is God’s own
supreme sentence, proclaimed before the highest judgment seat, recorded in the
book of life, and valid in heaven, firm and unchangeable. We see, then, that the
key power in those passages is simply the preaching of the gospel, and that,
when we turn our attention to men, it is not both a power and a ministry. For in
the proper sense Christ did not give this authority to men, but to his word,
which he made men the servants of.
IV,11,2 There is then, as I said, a second passage which
deals with the authority to bind and loose. This is found in Matthew 18 (Mt
18,17f.); there Christ says: "If a brother does not hear the church, keep him as
a Gentile and a tax collector. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose shall be
loosed" (Mt 18:17 s.; not always Luther text). This passage is not similar to
the former in every respect, but is to be understood in a somewhat different
sense. Of course, I do not consider the two passages so different that they do
not have much in common. They have this in common: they are both general
statements, the authority to bind and loose is of the same kind in both cases –
it happens through the word of God -, the commission is the same and the promise
is the same. On the other hand, the two passages differ in that the first deals
in a special way with the preaching that the ministers of the Word practice,
while the second refers to the banishment that is granted to the Church. The
church now "binds" the one whom she puts under ban – not that she plunges him
into eternal ruin and despair, but that she condemns his life and his conduct
and, if he does not convert, reminds him already now of his damnation. It
"redeems" him whom it receives back into its fellowship; for in so doing it
makes him, as it were, a fellow member of the unity it has in Christ Jesus. So
that no one may stiff-neckedly despise the judgment of the church, or think
lightly of it, that he is condemned by the sentence of the faithful, the Lord
testifies that such judgment of the faithful is nothing but the pronouncement of
his own sentence, and that what the faithful have accomplished from earth is
regarded as valid in heaven. For the faithful have the word of God to condemn
the perverse; they have the word to accept back into grace those who repent. But
they cannot err, nor can they contradict God’s judgment; for they judge solely
on the basis of God’s law, and this is not an uncertain or earthly opinion, but
God’s holy will and heavenly word of revelation! From these two passages, which
I think I have interpreted briefly and also comprehensibly and truthfully, those
swarm spirits (the papists) now try, without distinction, depending on how their
swindle drives them, to justify sometimes confession, sometimes excommunication,
sometimes jurisdiction, sometimes the right to legislate, sometimes indulgences.
They also cite the first place to prove the supremacy of the Roman See. Thus
they know how to make their "keys" fit all locks and doors, as they please, so
that one would like to say that they have practiced the locksmith’s trade all
their lives!
IV,11,3 Some people now imagine that all this was merely
temporary, because at that time the authorities were still strangers to the
confession of our religion. Whoever thinks this is mistaken, because he does not
consider what a great difference and what a considerable dissimilarity there is
between the ecclesiastical and the civil power. For the Church does not possess
the right of the sword to punish and chastise with it, it has no power of
command to exercise compulsion, it has no dungeon, nor any other punishments
such as are usually inflicted by the authorities. Moreover, the Church does not
mean that the transgressor should be punished against his will, but that he
should show his penitence by voluntarily accepting chastisement. These are,
therefore, two quite different things; for neither does the church presume to do
anything that is proper to the authorities, nor can the authorities do what the
church does. An example will make this easier to understand. Let us suppose that
someone has gotten drunk. In a city with proper order, in this case he would be
punished with imprisonment. Or let us assume that he has committed fornication.
Then he will be punished similarly or even more severely. Thus the laws, the
authorities and the external court are satisfied. Now it can happen that the
person concerned does not show any sign of repentance, but rather grumbles and
grumbles against it. Should the church leave it at that? But such people cannot
be admitted to the Lord’s Supper without disgracing Christ and His holy
foundation. Reason also requires that one who has caused offense to the church
by evil example should remedy the annoyance he has caused by solemnly affirming
his repentance. The reason given by those who are of the opposite opinion is too
insignificant. They say: Christ gave this task to the church because there was
no authority to carry it out. But it does happen frequently that the authorities
are somewhat negligent, and perhaps even sometimes that they themselves have to
be punished, as happened to the Emperor Theodosius. Moreover, the same could
almost be said of the entire ministry of the Word. Now, then, let the shepherds
for once, according to the opinion of those people, cease to punish the manifest
vices, that they cease to reprove, accuse, and rebuke! For there are Christian
authorities who are to punish such things with the laws and with the sword! In
any case, I still say that just as the authorities must cleanse the church of
offenses with punishment and coercion, so the minister of the Word must in turn
assist the authorities so that not so many people sin. Thus, the two ministries
must be connected so that one is helpful to the other and not a hindrance.
IV,11,4 And truly, if someone considers Christ’s words (Mt
18) more carefully, he will easily recognize that in them a permanent and
lasting order in the church is described, but not a merely temporal one. For it
is not appropriate that we report those who do not want to obey our (personal)
admonitions to the authorities – and yet it would have to happen this way if the
authorities had taken the place of the church in the meantime! Christ gives the
promise: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, what ye shall bind on earth …";
shall we now say that this refers only to a single year or to a few? Moreover,
Christ established nothing new in this place, but followed the custom which had
always been held in abeyance in the ancient church of His people, and thus
indicated that the church could not do without the spiritual jurisdiction which
had existed from the beginning. And this has also been confirmed by the
unanimous judgment of all times. For when the emperors and the authorities began
to profess Christ, spiritual jurisdiction was not immediately abolished, but
only arranged in such a way that it did not interfere with civil jurisdiction
and was not confused with it. And rightly so; for an authority, if it is pious,
will not want to evade the common obedience of the children of God, the most
important part of which is to submit to the church when it judges according to
God’s word – let alone that it should abolish such judgment! "For what is there
more honorable," says Ambrose, "than that the emperor should be called a son of
the Church? For a good emperor stands within the Church and not above the
Church" (Homily against Auxentius 36). Those people, then, who, in order to
honor the authorities, rob the church of such authority, not only falsify
Christ’s word through incorrect interpretation, but at the same time pronounce a
very severe condemnation sentence on all holy bishops, of whom there have been
so many since the time of the apostles, because they would (then) have usurped
the honor and office of the authorities under a false pretext.
IV,11,5 But on the other hand, it is also appropriate that
we observe in what way ecclesiastical jurisdiction was exercised in ancient
times and what great abuses then crept in. This is useful so that we can learn
what must be abolished and what must be reintroduced from the old times if,
after the kingdom of Antichrist has been overthrown, we want to reestablish the
true kingdom of Christ. First and foremost, ecclesiastical jurisdiction has as
its goal the prevention of offenses and the removal of any offenses that may
have arisen. In exercising it, two things in particular must be observed: first,
this spiritual power must be fully and completely divorced from the right of the
sword (which belongs to the authorities), and second, its exercise must not be
at the discretion of an individual, but only by a lawful assembly. Both have
been so handled in the purer church (1Cor 5:4f.). (1.) For the holy bishops did
not exercise their power by beating, or by imprisonment, or by other civil
punishments, but they applied, as was proper, the word of the Lord alone. For
the most severe punishment that the church can apply, as it were the very worst
ray of weather, is the ban, which is applied only in distress. This, however,
does not require force or the laying on of hands, but is content with the force
of the Word of God. In short, the jurisprudence of the ancient Church was
nothing else than, so to speak, a declaration (practica) made with the deed of
what Paul teaches about the spiritual power of shepherds. "To us," he says, "is
given a power to destroy with it fortifications, to abase all height that exalts
itself against the knowledge of God, to subdue all knowledge, and to bring it
into captivity under the obedience of Christ; but we are ready to avenge all
disobedience" (2Cor 10:4-6; not everywhere Luther text, partly inaccurate). But
as this is done by the preaching of the doctrine of Christ, so on the other hand
those who profess to be household members of the faith must also be judged
precisely on the basis of what is taught, lest the doctrine become a mockery.
But this cannot be done unless with the office is connected at the same time the
right to call up those who must be personally admonished or more severely
rebuked, and also the right to keep away from communion in the Holy Supper those
who could not be admitted without desecration of this great mystery (sacrament).
Thus, while Paul elsewhere declares that it is not our business to "judge those
outside" (1Cor 5:12), he subjects the children of the church to the exercise of
discipline by which their vices are to be punished, thus implying that at that
time (in the church) there was a jurisdiction from which none among the
believers were removed.
IV,11,6 (2.) Such authority, however, as we have already
noted, was not vested in any individual, so that he could have done as he
pleased, but in the assembly of elders, which was to the church what the council
is to the city. When Cyprian mentions by what men this power was exercised in
his time, he is wont to attach to the bishop the whole "clergy" (Epistle 16:2;
17:2). However, elsewhere he also shows how, although the "clergy" was in
charge, it was done in such a way that, in the meantime, the "people" were not
excluded from the investigation; for he writes: "Since the beginning of my
activity as bishop, I have resolved to do nothing without the advice of the
clergy and the consent of the people" (Letter 14:4). But the general and
customary way was that the jurisdiction of the Church was exercised by the
council of the "presbyters" (elders). Among these, as has been said, there were
two groups; namely, some were appointed to teach, while others were merely
overseers of morals. Gradually this institution departed from its original
nature, so that already in the time of Ambrose only the "clerics" participated
in the ecclesiastical courts. Ambrose himself deplores this with the words: "The
old synagogue and afterwards the church had elders, without whose advice nothing
was done; this has now fallen into disuse through I do not know what
carelessness today – perhaps the laxity or rather the arrogance of the teachers
should be to blame for this, in that they alone want to make the impression as
if they were something" (Pseudo-Ambrose, on the First Epistle to Timothy, 5,1).
There we see how much this holy man is angry about the fact that something of
the better state of the church has fallen into decay, while for the people of
his time an at least tolerable order still existed. What would he say, then, if
he looked at today’s shapeless ruins, which show almost no trace of the old
building? What kind of lamentation would he make? First of all, the bishop has
arrogated to himself, against right and justice alone, what was given to the
church. That is exactly as if a consul expelled the senate and seized the rule
alone! Although the bishop now has precedence over the others in terms of honor,
on the other hand, the entire official community has more authority than a
single person. It was therefore a shameful act that a single man transferred the
common authority (of the church) to himself and then opened the door to
tyrannical despotism, deprived the church of its right, and suppressed and
abolished the assembly ordained by Christ’s Spirit.
IV,11,7 But – as one evil always arises from another – the
bishops then again disdainfully pushed the matter away from themselves and
transferred it to others, as if it were not worthy of their care. As a result, "officiants"
have been appointed to carry out this office. I am not talking about what kind
of people they are, but I am only saying that they do not differ from the
secular judges in anything. And yet they still call this "spiritual"
jurisdiction, although there exclusively for the sake of earthly things is
litigated! Where do these people get the impudence, even if there were no other
irregularities, to dare to call such a court, where (as everywhere else) one
settles one’s legal disputes, the "court of the church"? But, they reply, there
are also exhortations, and there is also the ban! Yes, truly, this is how one
makes fun of God. So if some poor man owes money, he is summoned. If he appears,
they condemn him. If the condemned man does not pay, he is "admonished"! And
after one has "admonished" him twice, one goes still another step and puts him
into the "ban". But if he does not appear, then he is "admonished" to present
himself to the court; if he fails to do so, then he is "admonished" (again) and
then immediately put into the "ban"! I now ask: what has this to do at all with
the institution of Christ or with the original custom or with ecclesiastical
conduct? But, one replies again, in these "church courts" sin is also punished!
Yes, truly, fornication, unboundedness, drunkenness and such disgraceful deeds
are not only tolerated by these people, but, as it were, even encouraged and
strengthened by tacit approval, not only among the people, but also among the
"clergy" themselves! Among many (such malefactors) they summon a few, either in
order not to give the impression as if they were even too casual in overlooking,
or, however, in order to pull the money out of the people’s pockets. I am still
silent about the exploitation, the robbery, the theft and the desecration of
sanctuaries that result from it. I am silent about the kind of people who are
mostly chosen for this office. It is enough that when the Romans boast of their
"spiritual jurisdiction," it is easy to show that there is nothing more contrary
to the procedure established by Christ, and that their cause has no more
resemblance to the original custom than darkness has to light.
IV,11,8 Although we have not said all that could have been
adduced here, and although what we have set forth has been touched upon in but
few words, yet I am of good confidence that I have won the controversy so far
that now no one has any reason to be in any doubt that the "spiritual authority"
to which the pope, together with his whole kingdom, haughtily refers, is a
tyranny which is impiety against the word of God and injustice against the
people of God. By the name of "spiritual power" I now understand both the
presumption of the papists in forging together new doctrines, with which they
have diverted the poor people from the fair purity of the Word of God, and the
unjust statutes in which they have entangled them, and the jurisdiction, wrongly
called "ecclesiastical," which they exercise through their "suffragans" and "officiants."
For if we let Christ rule among us, it cannot be otherwise than that all such
rule is immediately thrown to the ground and collapses. But the right of the
sword, which they also ascribe to themselves, does not belong in the discussion
here, because it is not exercised on the consciences. But in this piece, too, it
is appropriate to take care that they remain the same at all times, namely, that
they are nothing less than what they want to be taken for: Pastors of the
Church. Nor do I raise my accusations against particular vices of (individual)
men, but against the common nefariousness of the whole estate, nay, against the
pestilence of that estate itself; for the latter thinks itself abridged in its
rights, if it has not gained prestige by wealth and hopeful titles. If we
inquire of Christ’s authority in this matter, there is no doubt that he wished
to keep the ministers of his word from civil rule and earthly command, saying,
"The kings of the nations rule over them … It shall not be so among you …"
(Mt 20:25 s.; Lk 22:25f.). For with this he not only gives to understand that the
office of a shepherd is different from the office of a prince, but that these
are things which are too much separated from each other to meet in one man. For
the fact that Moses held both offices at the same time came about, first, by a
rare miracle, and second, it was something temporary (and applied only until)
conditions were better ordered. But when the Lord prescribes a certain form, the
civil government is left to Moses, on the other hand he is commanded to cede the
priesthood to his brother (Aaron) (Ex 18,13-26). And rightly so; for it is
beyond nature that a single man should do justice to these two burdens. This is
how it has been diligently kept in the church at all times. Also, as long as
there remained a form of the church corresponding to the truth, not a single one
among the bishops appeared who would have sought to arrogate to himself the
right of the sword, so that in the time of Ambrose it was a common saying that
the emperors had more desire for the priesthood than the priests for the
imperial rule (Ambrose, letter 20,23). For it was deeply engraved in the hearts
of all people what he expresses afterwards, to the emperor belonged the palaces,
to the priest the churches (Letter 20,19).
IV,11,9 But once the procedure had been devised by virtue
of which the bishops retained the title, the dignity and the riches of their
office, but without the burden and toil connected with it, then, in order not to
let them go completely idle, the right of the sword was given to them, or
rather: they arrogated it to themselves. With what pretext will they now
actually defend this insolence? Was it then the business of the bishops to
occupy themselves with the investigation of legal cases and the administration
of cities and provinces, and to devote themselves to the widest extent to
business that has nothing to do with them? And this, when they have so much work
and occupation in their own office that, if they were to devote themselves to it
fully and without interruption and were not distracted by any diversions, they
would hardly be able to satisfy it! Nevertheless, with their characteristic
stubbornness, they have no hesitation in boastfully claiming that in this way
the honor of Christ’s kingdom will flourish, and that in the meantime they will
not be distracted too much from the tasks of their profession. Now, as to the
first assertion, if this is the due adornment of the sacred office, that they
have risen to such a height as to be fearsome even to the most exalted monarchs,
then they have indeed reason to be right with Christ, who (if it be so) has
seriously injured their honor in this respect. For he does say: "The kings of
the nations rule over them … Let it not be so among you …" (Mt 20:25 s.;
Lk 22,25 s.; not Luther text). But what could have been said more contemptible
than these words, at least according to their opinion? And yet he did not impose
a harsher law on his servants than he himself first made for himself and took
upon himself. "Who hath set me," saith he, "to be a judge or an arbitrator of
inheritance over you?" (Lk 12:14). We see that he simply rejects the office of
judgement from himself, and he would not have done so if it were something
consistent with his office. Are not servants now to be forced under the barrier
to which their master has submitted? And as for the second assertion, I would
have them prove it as much by deed as it is easy to say it over and over again.
But since it did not seem right to the apostles "to refrain from the word of God
and to serve at table" (Acts 6:2), these bishops are convicted by the very fact
that they do not want to be taught, that it is not the business of the same man
to make a good bishop and a good prince. For if the apostles, who, with the
abundance of gifts with which they were endowed, were able to satisfy far more
and far heavier cares than any men born after them, nevertheless confessed that
they could not at the same time attend to the ministry of the word and the
ministry of the table without collapsing under the burden, how then should those
men, who, after all, are quite insignificant little men in comparison with the
apostles, be able to perform a hundred times more than they? But to try to do so
would have been a sign of most impudent and even too presumptuous
self-confidence. And yet we see that it has happened – with what result is
obvious! For nothing else could come of it than that these bishops left their
own official task and went into a foreign field.
IV,11,10 There is also no doubt that from small
beginnings they gradually made such tremendous progress. For they could not
climb up to such a height at the first step. No, soon they raised themselves
secretly by craftiness and hidden arts, so that no one foresaw what was to
happen until the time came, – soon they extorted from the princes some increase
of their power by pressure and threats on favorable occasions – soon also, when
they saw that the princes were willingly inclined to give something away, they
abused their foolish and unadvised good-will. In ancient times, when a
difference of opinion arose, the pious, in order to avoid the necessity of court
proceedings, entrusted the decision to the bishop, because they had no doubt as
to his sincerity. The bishops of old were often involved in such decisions, and,
as Augustine testifies in one passage, they disliked it very much, but they went
through the trouble against their will, so that the parties would not go before
the court with its quarrels. The bishops of the Papists, however, made a proper
jurisdiction out of these decisions based on voluntariness, which were in
complete contrast to the noise of the court. When some time later cities and
countries were oppressed by manifold needs, they placed themselves under the
care of the bishops in order to be covered under their protection – but the
papist bishops, with admirable skill, turned protectors into masters! That they
gained an essential part of their power by violent sedition cannot be denied.
The princes, however, who of their own free will conferred jurisdiction on the
bishops, were driven to it by various motives. But though their indulgence may
have had a semblance of piety about it, they have not done the best service to
the welfare of the church by this misplaced liberality; for they have thereby
corrupted the ancient and truthful order of the church, nay, to speak the truth,
they have abolished it altogether. The bishops, however, who have abused such
kindness of princes for their own advantage, have by this one example testified
sufficiently that they are not bishops at all. For if they had had even a shred
of the apostolic spirit, they would have answered with the words of Paul: "The
weapons of our knighthood are not carnal, but spiritual" (2Cor 10:4;
conclusion very inaccurate). But by letting themselves be carried away by blind
greed, they have corrupted both themselves and their descendants, as well as the
Church.
IV,11,11 Finally, the bishop of Rome, not satisfied with
middle-sized dominions, laid hands first on kingdoms and finally even on the
empire. And in order to keep the possession gained by pure robbery with some
semblance (of right), he soon boasts to have held it according to "divine
right", soon he uses the "Constantinian donation", soon also other legal reasons
as a pretext. First I answer with Bernhard: "It may be that he justifies his
claims with some other right, but he does not do it with apostolic right. For
Peter could not give away what he did not possess, but he gave to his successors
what he had, namely the care of the churches" (Bernard of Clairvaux, Booklet of
Reflection to Pope Eugene the Third, II,6,10). "But since the Lord and Master
says that he was not set to judge between two people (Lk 12,14), the servant
and disciple must not think that it is unworthy of him if he does not judge all
people" (Ibid. I,6,7). Bernard, however, is speaking (here) of civil legal
matters; for he immediately continues, "Your authority relates to sins and not
to possessions; for it is for sins and not for possessions that you have
received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Now which dignity seems greater to
you, to forgive sins or to distribute goods? There is no comparison at all!
These subordinate and earthly things have their judges, namely the kings and
princes of the earth. For what purpose then do you break into foreign territory
…?" (Ibid). Likewise he says: "You – he addresses Pope Eugene – have now
become a superior. What for? Not for ruling, I mean. Let us all remember,
however highly we may think of ourselves, that a service is imposed upon us, but
not a dominion given. Learn it that you need a (vineyard) hoe, but not a
scepter, to do the work of a prophet" (Ibid. II,6,9). Or likewise, "It is clear
that dominion is denied to apostles. Now, then, go thou and dare to arrogate to
thyself, as a ruler, the apostleship, or as the bearer of an apostolic office,
dominion!" (Ibid., II,6,10 s.). And right after that: "The apostolic way is like
this: Dominion is forbidden, servanthood is commanded" (Ibid. II,6,11). The man
said this in such a way that it is obvious to everyone that he speaks the truth
himself, yes, the matter is clear even without any words – but nevertheless the
Roman pope at the Council of Arles (1234) did not hesitate to decide that the
supreme power of both swords (the "temporal" and the "spiritual") was due to him
according to "divine right"!
IV,11,12 Now, as for the Donation of Constantine, all who
are even moderately versed in the history of those times need no instruction as
to what an implausible, indeed downright ridiculous thing it is. But to leave
history aside, Gregory (I) alone is a suitable and highly credible witness to
this. For every time he speaks of the emperor, he calls him his "most gracious
lord" and himself his "unworthy servant" (Letter I,5; IV,20; III,61). Likewise,
in another place he says: "But let our Lord (the Emperor!) not be so quick to be
angry with the priests for the sake of his earthly power; nay, for the sake of
him whose servants they are (for Christ’s sake!), let him rule over them with
sublime deliberation in such a way as to show them at the same time due
reverence" (Letter V,36). We see how, with reference to general obedience (to be
rendered by all), he wants to be regarded as one of the people. For in this
place he is not pursuing the cause of anyone else, but his own. In another place
he says: "I have confidence in Almighty God that he will grant long life to
pious gentlemen, that he may guide us under your hand according to his mercy"
(Letter V,39). I have quoted these remarks not because I intend to discuss
thoroughly the question concerning the Donation of Constantine, but only so that
readers may realize in passing how childishly the Romans lie when they endeavor
to lay claim to earthly dominion for their pope. All the more shameless was the
shamelessness of Augustine Steuchus, who dared to sell his labor and his tongue
to the Roman pope in so hopeless a matter. Valla, which was also not difficult
for a learned and perceptive man, had thoroughly refuted that fable (namely, the
"Donation of Constantine"). However, as a man too little versed in
ecclesiastical matters, he had not said everything that could have served the
cause. So Steuchus got into the act and threw out disgusting antics to obscure
the clear light. And truly, he led his master’s cause no less insignificantly
than if some buffoon were pretending to do the same, and thus (in fact) acceded
to Valla. But the cause is worthy that the pope buys such protectors for wages,
and these hired tongue-thrashers are also worthy that they deceive the hope of
profit – as it happened to Eugubinus!
IV,11,13 If someone asks, by the way, about the time
since this self-imagined (secular) rule (of the popes) arose, it is to be said:
it was not yet five hundred years ago, when the popes still remained in
obedience to the princes and when no pope was elected without the consent of the
emperor. An opportunity to change this order was offered to Gregory the Seventh
by Emperor Henry, the fourth of his name, a reckless and imprudent man, without
prudence, of great audacity and of disorderly living. Since he offered the
bishoprics of all Germany for sale at his court and also exposed them to
robbery, Hildebrand, who had been annoyed by him, used an applauding pretext to
take revenge. But because he seemed to be pursuing a good and pious cause, he
found support in the favor of many people. Moreover, Henry was hated by most of
the princes because of his arrogant way of governing. Finally, Hildebrand, who
called himself (as pope) Gregory VII, as an impure and good-for-nothing man, let
the wickedness of his heart come out openly, and this was the cause of his being
abandoned by many who had made common cause with him. Nevertheless, he managed
to give his successors the opportunity, with impunity, not only to throw off the
yoke, but also to make the emperors dependent on him. In addition, since then
many emperors resembled Henry more than Julius Caesar. It was not difficult to
subdue these emperors, because they sat at home and carelessly and casually let
all things go, while it was highly necessary to hold down the greed of the popes
with vigor and by lawful means. We see, then, with what color that famous
"Donation of Constantine" is painted, of which the pope pretends that by it the
Western (Western Roman) Empire was handed over to him.
IV,11,14 In the meantime, the popes have not ceased to
break into foreign dominions, sometimes by fraud, sometimes by disloyalty,
sometimes by force of arms; They also brought the city of Rome itself, which was
still free at that time, under their control about one hundred and thirty years
ago, until they finally attained the power which they hold today, and for the
maintenance and enlargement of which, for two hundred years – for they began
this before they stole the rule over the city of Rome for themselves – they made
such a mess of the Christian world that they almost ruined it over it. When once
under Gregory (I.) the guardians of ecclesiastical property laid their hands on
goods which, in their opinion, belonged to the church, and, according to the
custom of official administration of property, stamped an inscription on them as
a sign of their claim to ownership, Gregory summoned a council of bishops, drove
off with a sharp rebuke against this secular procedure, and asked, They asked
whether they did not consider a cleric who had undertaken to seize a property by
stamping an inscription on his own initiative to be banished, and likewise a
bishop who had given the order for such an event or had not punished it if it
had gone against his order. On this question all bishops declared: such a man is
banished! (Gregory I, Letter V,57a). If, in the case of a cleric, it is an
outrage worthy of the curse of banishment to claim ownership of a piece of land
by stamping an inscription on it – how many curses of banishment can be
sufficient to punish such measures as those taken by the popes, who for all
these two hundred years have sought nothing but war and bloodshed, the
destruction of armies, the plundering and destruction of cities, the subjugation
of peoples and the devastation of kingdoms, and all this only in order to be
able to lay their hands on foreign sovereignty? In any case, it is as clear as
can be that they seek nothing less than the glory of Christ. For if they
voluntarily renounced everything they possessed in the way of temporal power,
the honor of God, sound doctrine and the salvation of the church would be in no
danger whatsoever. But they are blindly and abruptly carried away by the lust
for power alone, because they think that nothing can be well, if they do not
exercise the rule with harshness, as the prophet says (Eze 34,4), and with
violence.
IV,11,15 Connected with jurisdiction is also the
"immunity" that the Roman clerics arrogate to themselves (i.e., their freedom
from fiscal and other obligations and, by extension, their "right" to largely
escape civil and even criminal jurisdiction). Indeed, they believe that it is a
matter unworthy of them if they should answer to the civil magistrate in matters
concerning their persons, and believe that the freedom as well as the dignity of
the Church lies in their being exempt from the general courts and laws. The
bishops of old, however, who were otherwise very strict in upholding the law of
the Church, did not see in this submission (to civil jurisdiction) any violation
of their person or even of their rank. Also, the pious emperors, without anyone
objecting, have always demanded clerics before their bench as often as it was
necessary. For Constantine, in his epistle to the people of Nicomedia, says: "If
any of the bishops have rashly made sedition, by the executive power of the
servant of God, that is, by my executive power, his presumption will be put in
its place" (In Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History I,20). And Valentinianus says:
"Good bishops do not contradict the power of the emperor, but sincerely they
keep God’s, the great king’s, commandments and they obey our laws" (In Theodoret,
Church History IV,8). This conviction was held by all at that time, without
anyone objecting. It is true that ecclesiastical matters were brought before the
episcopal court. So, for example, if a cleric was not guilty of anything against
the laws and was only accused according to the ecclesiastical laws, he was not
summoned to the general court, but had the bishop as his judge in this matter.
Likewise, if a question of faith was under consideration, or otherwise a matter
that had to do with the Church in the proper sense, the investigation was
entrusted to the Church. It is in this sense that one must understand what
Ambrose writes to Valentinianus: "Your father of illustrious memory has not only
pronounced in words, but has also laid down in laws, that in matters of faith he
shall judge who by his office is authorized to do so, and by right is able to do
so" (Letter 21:2). Likewise, he writes, "If we turn our attention to Scripture
or to ancient examples, who will deny that in matters of faith, I say, in
matters of faith, bishops are to judge Christian emperors, and not emperors
bishops?" (Letter 21:4). Or again, "I would have come before your judgment seat,
my emperor, if the bishops and the people had let me go. But they said that a
matter of faith must be tried in the church before an assembled people" (Letter
21:17). It is true that he maintains that a spiritual matter, that is, a
religious matter, must not be brought before the civil court, where secular
disputes come to trial. In this matter his steadfastness deservedly finds
universal praise. And yet he goes so far in his good cause as to declare that he
will yield if it should come to force and coercion. "Voluntarily," he says, "I
will not leave the office entrusted to me; but if I am forced, I know not how to
resist; for our weapons are prayers and tears" (Sermon against Auxentius 1.2).
Let us note the unique moderation and wisdom of this man, combined with
loftiness and confidence! Justina, the emperor’s mother, because she had not
been able to draw him over to the side of the Arians, endeavored to expel him
from the leadership of the Church. And this would have happened if he had come
to the palace in response to the summons to answer. Thus, then, he denied that
the emperor was fit to judicially investigate so great a controversy. This was
required both by the necessity given at that time and by the permanent nature of
the matter. For he came to the conclusion that he should rather die than that
with his consent such an example should pass on to his descendants (and thus
perhaps be applied to them as well). And nevertheless he does not intend to
resist in case violence is used. For he denies that it belongs to the episcopal
manner to defend the faith and the right of the church by force of arms. For the
rest, in other cases he declares himself ready to do whatever the Emperor
commands. "If he demands taxes," he says, "we do not refuse them; the properties
of the church pay the tax. If he demands lands, he has the power to lay claim to
them, and none of us will object" (Ibid. 33). Gregory also speaks in the same
way; he says: "I know very well the disposition of our most gracious Lord: he is
not in the habit of interfering in priestly disputes, so as not to be troubled
in any respect with our sins" (Letter IV,20). He does not exclude the emperor
from judging priests in general, but only declares that there are certain cases
which he must leave to the ecclesiastical court.
IV,11,16 Yes, with this exception (cf. conclusion of the
previous section), holy men sought nothing else than to take precautions against
less godly princes obstructing the Church in the exercise of her office in
tyrannical violence and arbitrariness. For they did not disapprove of the
princes occasionally using their authority in ecclesiastical matters, if this
was done only to preserve the order of the church and not to disturb it, and to
strengthen discipline and not to dissolve it. For the church does not have the
power to exercise compulsion, nor may it desire it-I am speaking of civil
compulsion-and therefore it is the duty of pious kings and princes to preserve
religion by laws, ordinances, and judgments. For this reason, it happened that
when the emperor Mauritius ordered some bishops to take in neighboring bishops
who had been expelled by foreign nations, Gregory reaffirmed this order and
exhorted the bishops to obey him (Letter I,43). And when Gregory himself was
asked by the same emperor to be on friendly terms again with the bishop John of
Constantinople, he gave an account of why he should not be blamed, but he made
no claim to "freedom" from the secular court, but rather he promised to comply
as far as it was possible for his conscience, and at the same time he declared
that Mauritius, by ordering the priests to do so, had done what was proper for a
God-fearing prince (Letter V,37; V,39; V,45).
On the discipline of the church, as it is practiced primarily in
the penalties and in the ban.
IV,12,1 Church discipline, the treatment of which we have
postponed until this point, must be discussed in a few words, so that we may at
last pass on to the other pieces of teaching. It is now based for the most part
on the power of the keys and on spiritual jurisdiction. In order that this may
now be more easily understood, let us divide the Church essentially into two
estates: "clergy" and "people" (congregation). By "clergy" I understand,
according to the common designation, those who exercise a public office in the
church. We will now first deal with the general discipline to which all must be
subjected. Then we want to talk about the clergy, who have their own discipline
in addition to the general discipline. But there are people to whom even the
name is repugnant because of their hatred of discipline. They should now know
the following: If no community, indeed no house, in which even so few household
members live together, can be kept in the right state without discipline, then
such discipline is even more necessary in the church, whose condition must be as
orderly as possible. As the saving doctrine of Christ is the soul of the church,
so discipline in the church takes the place of sinews: it causes the members of
the body, each in its place, to live united to one another. Anyone, therefore,
who desires that discipline should be abolished, or who hinders its restoration,
is undoubtedly seeking the complete dissolution of the Church, whether he does
so intentionally or through lack of deliberation. For what is to happen if
everyone is allowed to do as he pleases? But this is exactly what must happen if
the preaching of the doctrine is not accompanied by personal individual
exhortations, rebukes and other aids of this kind, which support the instruction
and do not let it remain ineffective. Thus discipline is, as it were, a rein
with which to restrain and restrain all those who defiantly rise up against the
teaching of Christ, or also like a spur to urge on those who are not at all
willing, but sometimes also, as it were, a fatherly rod with which those who
have more seriously transgressed are to be chastised in mildness and in harmony
with the gentleness of the Spirit of Christ. Since we see a terrible devastation
already beginning to break out in the church, which is due to the fact that no
care and consideration is given to keeping the people in check, the need itself
already tells us loud and clear that a remedy is needed. But the only remedy is
that which Christ ordained and which has always been in use among the pious.
IV,12,2 The first basis of discipline is that personal
admonitions take place, that is, that he who of his own accord does not do his
duty, or who acts insolently, or whose way of life leaves something to be
desired in terms of respectability, or who has committed something
reprehensible, has himself admonished, and that each one turns his zeal to
giving his brother such admonition when the matter requires it. Above all, the
pastors and elders are to watch over this; for their task is not only to preach
to the people, but also to distribute exhortation and encouragement back and
forth in the individual homes, if one has not progressed far enough somewhere
through the general instruction that has taken place. This is what Paul teaches
when he reports that he taught individually and personally (privately) as well
as in the houses, and when he affirms that he is "pure from all blood" because
he "has not ceased … day and night, admonishing one and all with tears"
(Acts 20:20, 26, 31). For doctrine gains power and authority when the minister of the
church not only sets forth to all at once what they owe to Christ, but also has
the right and orderly means to demand it of those whom he has noticed to be
lacking in obedience to doctrine or to be quite slothful. If anyone stiff-neckedly
rejects such admonitions, or testifies by further progress in his vices that he
despises them, he must, according to Christ’s instruction, first be admonished a
second time with the aid of witnesses, and then be summoned before the court of
the church, that is, the assembly of the elders; there he must be given a more
serious admonition, pronounced as it were under public authority, that if he has
reverence for the church he should submit and obey. If he does not submit, but
persists in his wickedness, he will be expelled from the community of believers
according to Christ’s instruction (Mt 18,15-17)
IV,12,3 At this point (Mt 18) Christ speaks
exclusively of the hidden sins. It is therefore necessary to distinguish two
groups here: the sins are partly of a personal ("private") nature, partly they
have become public or notorious before all the world. As far as the former are
concerned, Christ says to every public person: "Punish him between you and him
alone" (Mt 18,15). But concerning the sins that have become publicly known,
Paul instructs Timothy: "Punish them before all, that others also may fear" (1Tim
5:20). For Christ had previously said, "If … your brother sins against you
…" (Mt 18,15). These two words: "in you" cannot be understood in any other
way, if one does not want to be argumentative, than in the sense: "that you know
it, but in such a way that no more people have knowledge of it". But the rule
that Paul gives to Timothy, namely that he should also publicly rebuke those who
sin publicly, he himself followed towards Peter. For since he had erred to such
an extent that a public offense had resulted, he did not admonish him
individually for himself, but brought him before the face of the church (Gal
2:14). The right order of procedure, then, we will keep in mind when we proceed
in the punishment of "hidden" sins according to those steps laid down by Christ,
but in the case of "manifest" ones we will proceed at once to the solemn rebuke
by the Church, provided the offence is public.
IV,12,4 Another distinction must now be made: some of the
sins are misdemeanors, while others are crimes or outrages. For the punishment
of the latter, not only admonition or sharp rebuke is to be applied, but also a
sharper remedy; Paul points this out to us, who not only chastises the
incestuous Corinthian with words, but also punishes him with banishment as soon
as he has learned of his crime (1Cor 5:3 ss.). So now we begin to see better why
the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, which acts punitively against sins on
the basis of the Word of God, is the best means of health, the best foundation
of order, and the best bond of unity. Therefore, when the Church removes from
its fellowship flagrant adulterers, fornicators, thieves, robbers, leaders,
perjurers, false witnesses, and other such people, and likewise the unruly who
have been admonished even for lesser sins, but who have mocked God and His
judgment, it does not presume anything improper, but exercises the jurisdiction
which the Lord has conferred upon it. Furthermore, so that no one despises such
a judgment of the church or thinks lightly of it, that he is condemned by a
sentence of the faithful, the Lord has testified that this very judgment is
nothing other than the proclamation of his own judgment, and that what the
faithful have executed on earth shall be valid in heaven. For they have the word
of the Lord to condemn with it the perverse, they have the word to accept again
the repentant to grace (Mt 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23). Whoever hopes that the
churches can long endure without this bond of discipline is mistaken in his
opinion-unless, perhaps, we could with impunity dispense with the aid which the
Lord has provided as necessary for us! And indeed, how necessary it is for us,
we will see even better when we consider its manifold benefits.
IV,12,5 Now there is a threefold purpose which the church
pursues with such punishments and with the ban. First, Christians are not to be
counted among God’s contemptible people who lead a shameful and vicious way of
life – as if God’s holy church were a conspiratorial mob of good-for-nothing and
nefarious people (Eph 5:25f.). For the church is the body of Christ (Col
1:24), and therefore it cannot be defiled with such stinking, rotten members
without the head also being defiled. So that there is nothing in the church by
which the brand of disgrace is put on his holy name, such people must be
excluded from his house fellowship, from whose nefariousness an evil reputation
for the Christian name would have to result. Here we must also take into account
the Lord’s Supper, so that it is not desecrated by indiscriminate distribution.
For it is very true that if one to whom the distribution of the Lord’s Supper is
entrusted has, with knowledge and will, admitted an unworthy person whom he
might justly have rejected, he is just as guilty of profaning the sacred as if
he had thrown the Lord’s body to the dogs. Chrysostom therefore proceeds with
sharp rebuke against the priests who, fearing the power of the great, dare not
exclude anyone from the Lord’s Supper. "The blood," he says, "will be required
at your hands (Eze 3:18; 33:8). If ye fear man, he will laugh at you. But if you
fear God, you will also be awe-inspiring to men. Let us not be afraid of
scepter, purple and diadem; for here our authority is greater! I, for one, would
rather give my body to death and have my blood shed than be made a partaker of
such defilement" (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 82:6). Therefore, in order
that no dishonor be done to this most holy mystery (sacrament), it is highly
necessary to exercise selection in its distribution; but this can only be done
by the jurisdiction of the Church. Secondly, the exercise of discipline by the
church has the purpose of ensuring that the good are not corrupted, as tends to
happen, by continued association with the bad. For with our tendency to turn
aside from the path, nothing happens more easily than that we are led away from
the right direction of life by bad examples. The apostle had this benefit of
church discipline in mind when he instructed the Corinthians to expel the
incestuous man from their fellowship. "A little leaven," it says, "leaveneth the
whole lump" (1Cor 5:6). And the danger he saw threatening here was so great that
he forbade them any intercourse with the sinner. "If anyone lets himself be
called a brother," he says, "and is a fornicator or a miser or an idolater or a
drunkard or a blasphemer, you shall not eat with him either" (1Cor 5:11; order
not quite exact). Third, the purpose of church discipline is that sinners
themselves may be put to shame and thus begin to feel remorse for their
nefariousness. Thus it also benefits those concerned that their wickedness is
chastised; (it happens, after all) so that they are awakened by feeling the rod,
whereas through indulgence they would only have become more recalcitrant. This
is what the apostle indicates when he expresses himself as follows: "But if
anyone … is not obedient to our word, denounce him … and have nothing to do
with him, that he may be ashamed" (2Th 3:14). He means the same thing in another
place, when he writes that he gave the Corinthians to Satan, so that the spirit
would be blessed in the day of the Lord…" (1Cor 5:5). That means, at least
according to my interpretation: he gave him over to a temporal damnation, so
that he would be eternally blessed. But when he says that he hands him over "to
Satan", it is because outside the church is the devil, as in the church is
Christ (Augustin). For the view of some people who wish to refer this phrase to
a certain chastisement of the flesh strikes me as highly uncertain.
IV,12,6 Having stated this threefold purpose of church
discipline, it remains for us to observe in what manner the church exercises
this part of discipline, which consists in the administration of justice. First,
let us note the distinction established above, according to which sins are
partly public and partly private or somewhat hidden. "Public" are those sins
which not only have one or another as witnesses, but to which fingers are
pointed before all the world and to the annoyance of the whole Church. I do not
call "hidden" those sins which would be unknown to people at all, as are the
sins of hypocrites – for these are withdrawn from the judgment of the Church –
but a middle group: they are those which are not entirely without witnesses, but
yet are not public either. The former kind of sins does not require the
(observance of the) steps that Christ lists (Mt 18:15-17), but the Church,
where such occurs, must fulfill its official duty by summoning the sinner and
punishing him according to the measure of his transgression. In the case of the
second type of sin, according to Christ’s rule, the matter is brought before the
church only when unruliness is added to the transgression. Once an investigation
has been made, the second distinction must be observed: that between crimes and
misdemeanors. For in the case of lesser offenses, one should not use such great
severity, but a chastisement with words is sufficient, and that a mild and
fatherly chastisement, which should not harden or upset the sinner, but lead him
back to himself, so that he rejoices rather than grieves over the chastisement
he has received. On the other hand, shameful deeds are to be punished with a
harsher remedy, for it is not enough if the one who has seriously offended the
church by an evil deed that serves as a bad example is merely rebuked with
words, no, he must be deprived of communion in Holy Communion for a while until
he has provided credible proof of his repentance. For Paul does not merely
rebuke the Corinthian with words, but excludes him from the church and rebukes
the Corinthians for tolerating him for so long (1Cor 5:1-7). This procedure was
kept by the old, better church when the lawful (type of) church government was
still in effect. For if someone had committed an evil deed from which an offense
had arisen, he was commanded, first, to abstain from partaking of Holy
Communion, and second, both to humble himself before God and to testify his
repentance before the church. There were solemn customs that were imposed on the
fallen as a sign of their repentance. As soon as the sinner had performed them
in such a way as to give satisfaction to the Church, he was readmitted to grace
by the laying on of hands. This readmission is often referred to by Cyprian as
"peace" (Letter 57). Cyprian also gives us a brief description of such a
ceremony. He reports, "They (sinners) do penance for a due time; then they come
to confession (of sin) and receive the right of communion (in the Lord’s Supper)
by the laying on of hands of the bishop and clergy" (Letter 16:2; 17:2).
However, as Cyprian reports elsewhere, the bishop with the clergy exercised
leadership in this act of reconciliation in such a way that the consent of the
people (i.e., the congregation) was required at the same time.
IV,12,7 No one was exempted from this discipline, so that
together with people from the people also princes joined in to take it upon
themselves. And rightly so; for it was certain that this was the discipline of
Christ, to whom all the scepters and crowns of kings must reasonably be
subordinated. Theodosius offers us an example. When Ambrose had deprived him of
the right of communion (in Holy Communion) on account of a bloodbath committed
in Thessalonica, he threw to the ground all the tokens of his royal dignity
which he had on him, wept publicly in the church for his sin into which he had
fallen through the faithlessness of others, and begged pardon with sighs and
tears (Ambrose, Epistle 51:13; speech at the funeral of Theodosius 28.34). (Thus
it was true:) For great kings must not count it to their shame when they humbly
prostrate themselves before Christ, the King of kings, and it must not displease
them to be judged by the Church. For since they hear almost nothing but flattery
at their court, they have more than need to be rebuked by the Lord through the
mouth of the priests. Yes, they should rather wish that the priests do not spare
them – so that the Lord may spare them! (Ibid. 11:6). At this point I pass over
the question by whom such jurisdiction is to be exercised; for this has already
been spoken of elsewhere (cf. ch. 11, sect. 6). I only add that when it is a
question of putting a man under ban, the proper procedure is that which Paul
shows us, namely, that the elders do not exercise the ban alone, but with the
foreknowledge and approval of the church, and in such a way that the multitude
of the people do not govern the action, but have it under their eyes as
witnesses and guards, so that a few do not do something arbitrarily. But the
whole course of the action, besides the invocation of God’s name, should have
that measured seriousness about it in which the presence of Christ is felt, so
that there may be no doubt that He Himself is in charge at His judgment..
IV,12,8 But we must not pass over the fact that such
severity befits the Church, which is combined with a spirit of mildness. For, as
St. Paul commands, we must always diligently guard against the one against whom
punishment is inflicted "sinking into too great sorrow" (2Cor 2:7). For if this
were to happen, the remedy would turn into destruction. But the rule for a
moderate use of discipline can be better deduced from its purpose. The purpose
of excommunication is to lead the sinner to repentance and to remove evil
examples, so that Christ’s name is not brought into disrepute and others are not
incited to imitate him. Keeping this in mind, we will easily be able to decide
how far the severity should go and where it should stop. As soon, then, as the
sinner gives the Church a sign of his penitence, and by this sign, so far as it
stands with him, removes the offence, he must under no circumstances be urged
further; for if he is urged, the severity already goes beyond measure. In this
play, in no way can the immoderate severity of the ancients be excused, which
was not at all in harmony with the Lord’s instruction and was extraordinarily
dangerous. For if they imposed on the sinner a public penance and abstinence
from Holy Communion soon for seven years, soon for four years, soon for three
years, soon for the whole life – what could follow from this but either a
terrible hypocrisy or the worst despair? Likewise: that no one who had fallen
into sin the second time was admitted to "second penance," but that he was
expelled from the Church to the end of his life, was neither useful nor
sensible. Therefore, anyone who considers the matter with sound judgment will
come to the conclusion that the ancients lacked wisdom here. But here I
deprecate the general custom more than I accuse all who have applied it. For it
is certain that some disliked it; but they tolerated it because they could not
improve it. In any case, Cyprian declares that he has not been so severe of his
own accord. "Our patience, goodwill, and humanity," he says, "are open to all
who come. I wish them all to come back to the church. I well wish that all our
disputants would be united within the camp of Christ and the dwelling place of
God the Father. I forgive everything, I overlook many things. Out of the zeal
and desire to unite the brotherhood, I also do not investigate the
transgressions committed against God with completely harsh judgment. By my more
than permissible forgiveness of misdeeds I almost fail myself; with ready and
complete love I meet all those who return in penitence and confess their sin by
humble and simple satisfaction" (Letter 59, to Cornelius). Chrysostom is already
a bit harsher, but he still says, "If God is so kind, why does his priest want
to appear so harsh?" Moreover, we know what kindness Augustine exercised toward
the Donatists, so that he did not shrink from readmitting to the episcopate such
as returned from schism, immediately after their conversion. But since the
opposite custom had prevailed, they were forced to refrain from their own
judgment in order to join it.
IV,12,9 But as such meekness is required in the whole body
of the church, that it punish the fallen with mildness and not to the utmost
severity, but rather, according to Paul’s instruction, affirms its love toward
them (2Cor 2,8), so also each individual must join in this meekness and kindness
for himself alone. It is not for us, then, to eliminate from the number of the
elect those who are excluded from the church, or to despair of them as if they
were already lost. We are well entitled to the judgment that they are now cut
off from the Church and consequently from Christ – but only for so long as they
persist in their secession! Even if they then appear to be more obstinate than
lenient, we still want to entrust them to the judgment of the Lord, hoping for
better things from them in the future than we see at present, and therefore not
refraining from praying to God for them. And to sum it up in one word, we do not
want to condemn to death the person who is alone in God’s hand and power, but
only judge from the law of the Lord what kind of works each one is doing. If we
follow this rule, we stop at the divine judgment instead of putting forward our
own. We should not presume more freedom in judging if we do not want to set
limits to God’s power and impose a law on His mercy. For as often as it pleases
him, there the worst are changed into the best, there strangers are inserted
into the church and outsiders are received into it. And this the Lord does in
order thus to mock the opinion of men and to curb their forwardness. For if the
latter is not put in its place, it dares to arrogate to itself the right to
judge beyond what is due.
IV,12,10 For when Christ promises that what His own have
bound on earth shall be bound in heaven (Mt )S,16), he thereby limits the
authority to "bind" to the punitive judgment of the church, and by virtue of
this punitive judgment, those who are bound are not cast into eternal ruin and
damnation, but they hear that their way of life and their morals are condemned,
and thus their own eternal damnation is brought to their attention in case they
do not repent. For this is the difference between cursing (anathema) and
banishment, that cursing excludes all forgiveness and curses and condemns man to
eternal ruin, while banishment is directed rather against his way of life in a
revenging and punishing manner. And although the ban also punishes man, it does
so in such a way that it calls him back to salvation by the warning reminder of
his future damnation. Where this is achieved, reconciliation and readmission to
the community are already ready. Cursing, however, is used very rarely or not at
all. Therefore, although the ecclesiastical discipline does not permit us to
have more familiar contact or closer intercourse with those who have been
cursed, we must nevertheless strive with all possible means to bring about their
conversion to a better way of life and their return to the fellowship and unity
of the church. So also the apostle teaches. "Do not regard such people as
enemies," he says, "but admonish them as brethren" (2Thess 3:15; inaccurate).
If we do not exercise this gentleness individually as well as collectively,
there is danger that we will soon slide from discipline into torment!
IV,12,11 In particular, what Augustin emphasizes in his
argument with the Donatists also belongs to the moderate handling of discipline:
if unofficial people see that the assembly of elders does not punish sins
particularly emphatically, they must not therefore immediately separate
themselves from the church, or if the shepherds themselves are not able,
according to the desire of their heart, to sweep out everything that needs
punitive correction, they must not therefore throw their office from them or
throw the whole church into turmoil by unusual severity. For it is very true
when he writes: "He who corrects by rebuke what he can, and excludes what he is
not able to correct, while preserving the bond of peace, and finally reproves in
equity what he cannot exclude while preserving the bond of peace, and endures
with steadfastness – he is free and free from the curse" (Against the Letter of
Parmenian II,1,3). The reason for this he gives elsewhere: every godly way and
form of church discipline should always direct its attention to the "unity in
the spirit through the bond of peace" (Eph 4,3), which the apostle has given us
to "keep" through mutual "understanding" (Eph 4,2f.); if this bond is not
"kept," the medicine of punishment begins to be not only superfluous but also
pernicious, and therefore ceases to be a medicine (Ibid. III:1, 1). He who
diligently considers this," he says, "does not neglect the severity of
discipline above the preservation of unity, but neither does he break the bond
of fellowship by excessive punishment" (Ibid. III:2, 15). He admits that not
only the shepherds must insist that no sin remain in the Church, but also that
each individual (that is, even the one who is not a shepherd) must strive for it
with all his strength. Nor does he conceal the fact that one who fails to
admonish, rebuke, and punish the wicked is guilty before the Lord, even if he is
not favorably disposed toward them and does not sin with them; for – he does not
conceal this – if such a man now holds an office by virtue of which he could
also keep them from communion in the sacrament, and does not do so, he sins not
from another’s fault but from his own. He only wishes that this be done with the
same caution that the Lord requires, so that the grain is not damaged at the
same time as the lych is plucked (Ibid. III,1,2; Mt 13,29). From there,
using a word of Cyprian, he concludes, "Man, then, should punish in mercy what
he is able, but what he is not able to punish he should bear patiently, sighing
and lamenting over it with love" (Ibid. III,2,15; Cyprian, Letter 59,16).
IV,12,12 Augustine now has in mind with his words the
stubbornness of the Donatists. These noticed sins in the churches which the
bishops rebuked with words but did not punish with excommunication, because they
did not believe they could do anything in this way; and therefore they went off
savagely against the bishops as traitors to discipline and separated themselves
from the flock of Christ in godless division. The Anabaptists do the same today:
they do not recognize any congregation as Christ’s unless an angelic perfection
is visible in it in every respect, and now, under the pretext of their zeal,
they destroy all edification. Such people, says Augustin, "are not led by hatred
of the injustices of others, but by zeal for their own quarrels, and now do
everything in their power either to draw weak people, whom they have beguiled
with the fame of their name, completely to themselves, or at any rate to split
them o ss. Swollen with arrogance, furious with obstinacy, insidious in their
blasphemies and restless in their turmoil, they do not want it to be proved that
they lack the light of truth, and therefore they hide in the shadow of a
ruthless severity; and what, according to the instruction of the Holy
Scriptures, should be done in a quite lenient manner, preserving the sincerity
of love and maintaining the unity of peace, in order to punish the fraternal
infirmities, they usurp in order to commit the sacrilege of the schism of the
Church and to have an opportunity to depart. Thus Satan "disguises himself as an
angel of light" (2Cor 11:14), namely, by taking a supposedly just severity as
an occasion to instigate a cruel rage, with no other intention than to destroy
and break the bond of peace and unity; for when this bond is firm among
Christians, all his powers lose their power to do harm, all the snares of his
insidious pursuits melt away, and all his plans of destruction fall away"
(Against the Letter of Parmenian III,1,1. 3).
IV,12,13 In this, Augustine recommends of all this one
thing: when the multitude is afflicted by a sin as by a contagious disease, the
stern mercy of a vigorous discipline is needed. "For counsels of separation," he
says, "are vain, pernicious, and sacrilegious; for they become impious and
hopeless, and have the effect of confusing the weak good, rather than of
improving the stout-hearted wicked" (Ibid. III,2,14). And what he prescribes to
others in this passage, he himself faithfully followed. For in a letter to
Bishop Aurelius of Carthage he deplores the fact that in Africa ostentation is
rampant with impunity, although it is so strongly condemned in Scripture, and
advises that a council of bishops be convened and a remedy created against it
(Letter 22,1,4). Then he continues: "Such things, in my opinion, are not
remedied with harshness, not with sharpness, not in an imperious way, but more
by instruction than by directive, more by exhortation than by threat. For this
is how one must deal with the great multitude of those who transgress.
Strictness, on the other hand, must be exercised against sin less" (Ibid. 1:5).
Nevertheless, as he himself explains later, he does not think that the bishops
should keep silent or look through their fingers because they are not able to
punish public outrages more severely (Against the Letter of Parmenian,
III,2,15). No, he wants such moderation in the manner of punishment that, as far
as possible, health is created for the body instead of corruption (Ibid.). And
therefore he finally comes to the following conclusion: "On the one hand,
therefore, we must not neglect the apostle’s instruction to separate the wicked
in any respect, if this can be done without the danger of violating the peace;
for only in this way did he want it to happen. But on the other hand, we must
also take care that by bearing with one another we strive to ’keep unity in the
Spirit through the bond of peace’" (Ibid. III:2,16; 1Cor 5:3-7; Eph 4.2.3).
IV,12,14 The remaining part of discipline, which does not
actually come under the key authority, is that the pastors are to exhort the
people (the church), according to the need of the time, to fasting, solemn
prayers, or other exercises of humility, repentance, and faith, the time,
manner, and form of which are not prescribed in the word of God, but are left to
the judgment of the church. The practice of even this piece of church discipline
is beneficial, and it has accordingly been in constant use in the early church
since the time of the apostles. However, not even the apostles made the first
beginning with it, but they took the model for it from the law and the prophets.
For as we read there, every time a more serious case occurred, the people were
called together, and then public prayers and fasts were appointed. The apostles,
therefore, joined in a custom which was not new to the people of God, and which
they foresaw would have a beneficial effect. Similar is the case with the other
exercises by which the people can be encouraged to do their duty or maintained
in duty and obedience. Examples of these occur to us again and again in the
sacred histories, and it is not necessary to enumerate them. To sum up, we must
state that every time a dispute arises over matters of religion which must be
decided by a synod or an ecclesiastical court, when it is a question of electing
a minister, in short, when a difficult or momentous matter is at hand, or,
conversely, when the wrathful judgments of the Lord, such as pestilence, war, or
famine, make their appearance, it is a holy and for all times salvific order
that the pastors exhort the people to public fasts and extraordinary prayers. If
someone does not accept the examples that can be brought forward from the Old
Testament, because in his opinion they were less suitable for the Christian
church, it is in any case certain that the apostles also acted in this way.
Admittedly, in my opinion, it would be difficult to find anyone who would raise
any objections because of the prayers. Let us say a few things about fasting,
then, because there are many people who do not understand its usefulness and
therefore think that it is not so necessary, and there are others who completely
reject it as something superfluous, and finally, if one does not understand the
practice of fasting correctly, one easily falls into superstition.
IV,12,15 Now a holy and lawful fast has a threefold
purpose. For we apply it (1.) to tame and subdue the flesh, so that it will not
let itself go unbound, or (2.) to be better prepared for prayers and holy
meditations, or finally (3.) to give a sign of our humiliation before God, when
we wish to confess our guilt before Him. The first purpose is not very common in
public fasting, because not all people are of the same physical condition and
strength; this purpose, therefore, is more appropriate to the personal fasting
of the individual. The second purpose is found in public as well as in private
fasting; for the whole Church needs such preparation for prayer as much as each
individual among the faithful alone. Of the third purpose the same is true. For
it will sometimes happen that God will strike a certain people with war,
pestilence, or some distress. Under such common chastisement, the whole people
should acknowledge themselves as guilty and also confess their guilt. But if the
hand of the Lord strikes a single person, he alone or with his household shall
do the same. Now such acknowledgment and confession of guilt is based primarily
on the inner stirring of the heart. But where the heart has the right feeling,
this can hardly happen without it also breaking out into an outward affirmation,
especially when it serves the general edification that all together pay God the
praise of righteousness through public confession of their sin and each
encourages the other by his example.
IV,12,16 Therefore fasting, because it is a sign of
humiliation, is more frequently used in public life than among
individuals-though, as has been said, it is in use in both cases. Therefore, as
far as discipline is concerned, which is what we are talking about here, as
often as it is necessary to pray to God about an important matter, it will
probably be advisable to schedule a fast along with the prayer. This is what
happened when the Antiochians laid their hands on Paul and Barnabas: in order to
make the ministry of these men, which was of such great importance, all the more
dear to God’s heart, they combined fasting with their prayer (Acts 13:3).
Likewise, afterward, when these two men appointed servants back and forth for
the churches, they were in the habit of praying while fasting (Acts 14:23). By
this kind of fasting they pursued no other purpose than to become more zealous
and free to pray. For we undoubtedly experience that when the belly is full, the
spirit is not so turned upward to God that it could be driven to prayer and
persevere in it by serious, hot feelings. This is also how it is to be
understood when Luke reports about Hannah that she "served the Lord with fasting
and praying" (Lk 2,37). For he does not make fasting a part of the divine
service, but only gives to understand that the holy woman had practiced herself
in this way to constant zeal in prayer. The fasting of Nehemiah was also of this
kind, when he asked God with tense zeal for the deliverance of his people
(Neh 1:4). For this reason, Paul says that believers would do well to abstain from
conjugal intercourse for a time in order to "have leisure for fasting and
prayer" (1Cor 7:5); here he connects fasting as an aid to prayer, thus pointing
out that it has meaning in and of itself only to the extent that it serves this
purpose. Moreover, in this passage (verse 3) he instructs the spouses to render
each other "the owing friendship" (i.e.: what is said in verse 5 is an
exception!), and from this it is clear that he is not speaking (verse 5) of
daily prayers, but of those which require especially serious attention.
IV,12,17 On the other hand, if pestilence or famine or
war begin to rage, or if any other destruction seems to threaten a country or a
people, even in such a case it is the official duty of the shepherds to exhort
the Church to fast, in order humbly to ask the Lord to avert his wrath. For when
he allows a danger to arise, he announces that he is preparing and, as it were,
arming himself for punishment. Just as in former times the accused used to
prostrate themselves humbly before their judge with long hanging beard, with
unshorn hair and in mourning garments, in order to obtain mercy from him, so it
is both for the honor of God and the general edification and also useful and
salutary for ourselves that we ask him in a pitiful attitude for averting his
severity when we appear before his judgment seat as defendants. And that this
had been customary among the people of Israel may easily be gathered from the
words of Joel; for when he commands that trumpets should be blown, that the
congregation should be called together, that a fast should be proclaimed, and so
forth (Joel 2:15f.), he speaks as of things which had come into reception by
common practice. Shortly before, he had said that the people’s shameful deeds
should now be investigated; he had also announced that the day of judgment was
already at hand, and he had called the guilty to account (Joel 2:1). And then he
calls aloud that the people should hasten to sackcloth and ashes, to weeping and
fasting, that is: they should also prostrate themselves before the Lord with
outward signs (Joel 2:12). Now, ashes and sackcloth might have been more
appropriate for those times; but the calling together of the people, weeping and
fasting, and what else is of this kind, undoubtedly belongs in the same way to
our time, and indeed every time the situation of our circumstances requires it.
For it is a holy exercise for the humiliation of men as well as for the
confession of such humility – and why should we use it less than the ancients in
the same need? We read, after all, that not only the Israelite church, which was
fashioned and established according to God’s Word, fasted as a sign of mourning
(1Sam 7:6; 31:13; 2Sam 1:12), but also that the inhabitants of Nineveh did
the same, who, after all, possessed no other instruction than the preaching of
Jonah alone (Jonah 3:5). What reason is there, then, that we should not do the
same? But, it might be objected, surely this is an outward ceremony which, with
the others, has found its end in Christ! No, fasting, as it has always been, is
still today for the faithful a very good aid and a blessed reminder to cheer
themselves up, so that they do not irritate God more and more in their too great
carelessness and laxity when they are chastised by his scourges. For this
reason, when Christ excuses His apostles for their omission of fasting, He does
not say that fasting is abolished, but that He ordains it for times of distress
and associates it with mourning; "the time will come," He says, "that the
bridegroom will be taken away from them" (Mt 9:15; Lk 5:34f.).
IV,12,18 But that there may be no error in the name, let
us determine what fasting means. For by fasting we do not simply mean abstinence
from food and drink, but something else. Certainly, the life of the pious should
be governed by simplicity and plainness in such a way that, as far as possible,
it displays a certain kind of fasting in its entire course. But there is also
another kind of fasting, a temporary one, in which we take something away from
our usual way of life, either for a day or for a certain period of time, and in
which we impose on ourselves an abstinence from food and drink that is more
severe and rigorous than the usual one. Now this fasting consists in three
pieces: in the time, in the kind of food and in the restriction (regarding the
quantity). By "time" I mean that we perform the actions for the sake of which
the fast is prescribed, soberly. For example, if someone fasts for the sake of
public prayer, he should do so without having eaten. The "manner" consists in
leaving aside all delicacies and, content with ordinary, simple food, not
irritating our palate with delicious food. The (frugal) consideration of the
"measure" means that we eat more sparingly and lighter than we are accustomed
to, and let our food serve only the necessities, but not at the same time the
pleasure..
IV,12,19 But we must always be on guard first of all
against any superstition creeping in, as happened before our time to the great
detriment of the church. For it would be much better if no fasting at all were
practiced, than if it were diligently practiced, but in the meantime corrupted
with false and harmful ideas, into which the world easily slips, if the
shepherds do not act against it with the greatest fidelity and caution. First,
they have the duty to always insist on what Joel teaches: "Rend your hearts and
not your garments" (Joel 2:13). That is, they must point out to the people that
God does not attach much value to fasting in and of itself unless there is an
inward, stirring of the heart, a true displeasure with sin and with oneself true
humiliation and true sorrow as it comes from the fear of God. Yes, they must
point out that fasting is of no use for any other reason than because it is
added as a subordinate aid to those inward feelings. For God detests nothing
more than when men hold up to him signs and an outward appearance instead of the
innocence of the heart, and thereby try to deceive him. That is why Isaiah
starts with extreme sharpness against the hypocrisy that the Jews thought that
God had already been satisfied as soon as they had merely fasted, as much as
they nourished ungodliness and impure thoughts in their hearts. "Should this be
a fast," he says, "which the Lord has chosen …?" (Isa 58:5; inaccurate). Such
hypocritical fasting, then, is not only a useless and superfluous effort, but
the most terrible abomination. There is a second evil, which is related to the
first one, and we must be very careful that fasting is not considered a
meritorious work or a manifestation of worship. For it is, after all, in and of
itself an intermediate thing, and has no meaning but for the sake of the ends to
which it is to be applied, and therefore it is the most pernicious superstition
when it is mixed up with the works which God has commanded and which are
necessary in and of themselves, not only in view of something else. Of this kind
was once the superstition of the Manichaeans, and in refuting it Augustin sets
forth clearly enough that fasting must be judged solely from the above-mentioned
purposes, and that it is approved by God only when it relates to these (Of the
Uses of the Manichaeans II,13; Against the Manichaean Faustus XXX,5). The third
error, though not so impious, is nevertheless dangerous. It consists in
considering fasting as one of the most important duties, and then demanding it
even too insistently and strictly, and exalting it with immoderate praises in
such a way that people think they have done something quite outstanding if they
have fasted. In this piece, I dare not completely excuse (and claim) the
ancients for not having scattered certain seeds of superstition and given an
opportunity to the tyranny that has subsequently arisen. Of course, we sometimes
come across healthy and reasonable statements about fasting, but later on we
find from time to time immoderate praises about it, elevating it among the
noblest virtues.
IV,12,20 And then the superstitious keeping of the
forty-day fast (i.e. a fast during the Passion period, forty days before Easter)
has prevailed everywhere, because, on the one hand, the people were of the
opinion that they were thereby rendering God a particularly outstanding
obedience, and because, on the other hand, it was recommended by the shepherds
as a holy following of Christ. And it is obvious that Christ did not fast with
the intention of setting an example to others, but in order to prove by deed
that this gospel was not a human doctrine, but had come from heaven (Mt
4:2), by beginning the preaching of the gospel with it (i.e. with a forty-day
fast). It is also a wonder that such gross fancifulness could creep in among
people of keen judgment, although it is refuted with so many and such clear
reasons. For Christ does not fast more frequently – and yet this should have
been done if he had wished to make a law for such an annually recurring fast –
but only once, when he prepares to preach the Gospel. Nor does he fast in a
human way, which he would have had to do if he had wanted to call on people to
imitate him, but rather he makes visible a work with which he draws all people
away to admiration, instead of inciting them to strive for imitation. And
finally, this fasting is not different from the one Moses practiced when he
received the law from the hand of the Lord (Ex 24:18; 34:28). For since that
miracle in the person of Moses was given to confirm the authority of the law, it
could not be omitted in the case of Christ, lest the impression be created that
the gospel was behind the law. From that time on, however, it never occurred to
anyone to introduce such a form of fasting (as he practiced) among the people of
Israel under the pretext of imitating Moses. Also, among the holy prophets and
fathers, not a single one joined this fasting of Moses, although they had enough
inclination and zeal for all pious exercises. For what is reported about Elijah,
namely that he spent forty days without food and drink (1Ki 19:8), served no
other purpose than that the people should recognize that he was raised to be the
protector of the law, from which all of Israel had generally deviated. So it was
just a perverse, superstitious imitation that this fast was adorned with the
title and the covering color of the following of Christ. However, at that time
there was an extraordinary difference in the way of the ("forty days") fasting,
as Cassiodorus reports in the ninth book of his (church) history (Historia
tripartita IX,38) on the basis of Socrates. For the Romans, he says, had only
three (fast) weeks, but in these they fasted continuously with the exception of
Sunday and Saturday. The Illyrians and Greeks had six weeks, others again seven,
but then the fast was interrupted by intervening periods. Not less great was the
diversity in the distinction of food: some fed (during the fasting period)
exclusively on bread and water, others added vegetables, still others did not
disdain even fish and poultry, still others made no distinction at all in the
food. This diversity is also mentioned by Augustine in his second (actually in
the first) letter to Januarius (Letter 54).
IV,12,21 Then worse times came, and the misplaced zeal of
the people was joined, on the one hand, by the ignorance and lack of education
of the bishops, and, on the other, by their imperiousness and tyrannical
harshness. They enacted ungodly laws that bound the consciences with pernicious
fetters. Thus, the eating of meat was forbidden, as if it stained man. One
sacrilegious opinion has been strung together with another until one has fallen
into an abyss of all errors. And now, in order not to leave any wickedness
undone, one has begun to make fun of God under the completely silly pretext of
abstinence. For one seeks the glory of fasting in the choicest delicacies, no
delicacies are then enough, never is the abundance, the variety and the taste of
the food greater (than in Lent of all times). With such precious expenditure one
means then to serve God rightly! I will not mention that people who want to be
considered as the holy of holies never overload themselves more shamefully (than
during "fasting"). In short, these people consider it the highest service of God
to abstain from meat (during Lent) – and then, with its exception, to have an
abundance of delicacies of all kinds! And vice versa it is considered to them as
the worst godlessness, which can hardly be expiated with death, if someone
enjoys even a small piece of bacon or old meat with his black bread. Jerome
tells us that already in his time there were some people who made fun of God by
such foolishness: These were people who did not want to use oil for their food,
but for this very reason had the most precious food brought to them from all
sides, yes, who abstained from drinking water in order to do violence to nature,
but made sure that they got tasty, delicious drinks, which they then drank not
from a cup, but from a shell (Letter 52,12; to Nepotian). This abuse prevailed
at that time only with a few people, nowadays it is common with all rich people:
they fast for the sole purpose of feasting all the more deliciously and
brilliantly! But I do not want to waste many words on this subject, which is not
exactly loaded with uncertainty. I only assert this: neither in fasting nor in
the other parts of discipline do the papists possess anything righteous,
sincere, or rightly formed and ordered, so that they have any cause for arrogant
self-glory, as if there were anything left in them that deserved praise.
IV,12,22 Now follows the second part of the discipline,
which refers in a special way to the "clergy". This part is contained in the "canones"
(rules) that the ancient bishops imposed on themselves and their state (i.e. the
clergy). For example: a cleric may not devote himself to hunting, nor to the
game of dice, he may not participate in carousals, no cleric may engage in money
transactions and merchandising, no one may be present at boisterous dances, and
the like. To these rules were added penalties by which the authority of the
"Canons" was secured, so that no one violated them with impunity. To this end,
each individual bishop was now entrusted with the governance of his clergy: he
was to govern the clergy under his authority according to these "Canones" and to
keep them in their official duty. For this purpose, annual supervisory visits (inspectiones,
visitations) and synods were also instituted: if anyone was negligent in his
duty, he was to be admonished, and if anyone had transgressed, he was to be
punished according to the measure of his offense. The bishops themselves also
had their provincial synods year after year, in ancient times even two annually,
and at these synods they were judged if they had done anything against their
duty. For if a bishop was too harsh or too violent against his clergy, he had
the right to appeal to that synod, even if only one complained. The most severe
punishment was that the one who had transgressed was deprived of his office and
excluded from the Lord’s Supper for a time. These synods were a permanent order,
and therefore it was never customary to let one go without fixing the time and
place of the next. To convene a general council was in fact a matter for the
emperor alone, as all the old notices testify. As long as this strictness
remained in force, the clergy demanded no more from the people by word than they
did by their own example and work. Yes, they were much harsher against
themselves than against the common man. And indeed it is fitting that the people
should be governed with milder and, so to speak, looser discipline, while the
clergy, on the other hand, exercise harsher punishments among themselves and see
through their own fingers much less than they see through the fingers of others.
How all this has come about, I need not tell you; for nowadays one can think of
nothing more licentious and naughty than the clergy, and it has fallen into such
a state of unrestraint that the whole earth is crying out about it. But in order
that one does not get the impression that the whole old nature is buried with
them, they deceive, I admit, the eyes of simple-minded people with silhouettes,
which, however, have as little to do with the old customs as the imitation that
the apes do with what people do with understanding and prudence. There is a
memorable passage in Xenophon where he teaches that the Persians, though they
had shamefully departed from the institutions of their ancestors, and had fallen
from the hard way of life into softness and pleasures, yet zealously preserved
the former customs to cover that disgrace. Whereas in the time of Cyrus,
abstinence and moderation were so widespread that it was not necessary, and was
considered a disgrace, to blow one’s nose, among the later ones the sacred
shyness which forbade blowing one’s nose was preserved, but meanwhile it was
considered permissible to swallow the stinking saliva which they had received
from their gluttony and to keep it inside them until it rotted. They also
considered it unseemly to bring jugs to the table, but they considered it
tolerable to overload themselves with wine to such an extent that they had to be
carried away drunk. The rule was that one was allowed to eat once (a day), and
these good followers had not abolished that either – only in such a way that
they now let their carousals go on from noon until midnight! To make a day’s
march sober, that was considered with them as a permanent custom – but, in order
to avoid fatigue, so they took the liberty and the custom from usual practice,
not to extend the march over two hours! (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, VIII, 8). Now, if
the Papists take their degenerate rules as a pretext to prove that they were
related to the holy Fathers, this example will every time bring their ridiculous
imitation sufficiently to light, so that no painter would be able to express it
more vividly.
IV,12,23 In one thing the papists are more than harsh and
implacable, namely, in not permitting priests to marry. What an unpunished
freedom for fornication spreads among them I need not say. Trusting in their
stinking "celibacy," they have also become numb to all infamies. This
prohibition, however, clearly shows how pernicious all human statutes are; for
it has not only deprived the Church of righteous and useful shepherds, but has
brought about a ghastly filthy flood of outrages and plunged many souls into the
maw of despair. In any case, the prohibition of priestly marriage was done out
of ungodly tyranny, not only contrary to the word of God, but also against all
equity. First, men were in no way permitted to forbid what the Lord had left
free. And then: it is so clear that there is no need of a long proof that God
has made provision in his word against any breach of this liberty. I pass over
the fact that Paul in several places expresses the will that a bishop be "a
wife’s husband" (1Tim 3:2; Tit 1:6). But what could have been said more
emphatically than when he announces, on the prompting of the Holy Spirit, that
"in the last times" ungodly men would appear "commanding not to be married," and
when he calls these men not only "seducers" but "devils" (1Tim 4:1, 3)? So it
is a prophecy, it is a holy word of revelation of the Holy Spirit, with which he
wanted to arm the church from the beginning against such dangers, that the
prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils! The papists, however, think
they have escaped neatly by twisting this saying and referring it to Montanus,
the successors of Tatian, the Encratites and other heretics of the early Church.
Only these, they say, condemned the married state; we, on the other hand, do not
condemn it at all, but only keep the "ecclesiastical state" away from it,
because we think that it does not properly belong to it. As if this prophecy,
even if it were fulfilled in those heretics, would not also apply to these
people! And as if this childish sophistry, that they declare that they do not
make any prohibition at all, because they do not make it for all, were even
worth listening to! For that is exactly as if a tyrant wanted to claim of one of
his laws that it was not at all unreasonable, because in its unreasonableness it
oppressed only a part of the citizenry!
IV,12,24 They now object that there must be some
characteristic that distinguishes the priest from the people. As if the Lord had
not also foreseen with what kind of adornment the priests should distinguish
themselves! In this way they accuse the apostle of confusing the ecclesiastical
state and violating the ecclesiastical honor by daring to mention, in the
outline in which he has drawn for us the perfect image of a bishop, among the
other gifts which he requires in a bishop, the marital state. I know how the
papists interpret these passages (1Tim 3:2; Tit 1:6), namely, that a man who
has had a second wife should not be elected bishop. I also admit that this
interpretation is not new. But that it is wrong is already clear from the
context. For Paul immediately gives a regulation of what kind the wives of
bishops and deacons should be (1Tim 3:11). Among the virtues of a bishop, Paul
also mentions marriage – the papists declare it an intolerable vice in the
ecclesiastical state! And moreover, speaking with God’s favor, they are not
satisfied with such general disparagement of marriage, but also call it an
"impurity" and "defilement" in their legal statutes (Thus Siricius, Letter 1, to
Himerius; Decretum Gratiani I, 82,3f.)! Now everyone may consider with himself,
from what kind of workshop this comes! Christ dignifies the married state with
such honor that it is, according to His will, an image of His holy union with
the Church. What could have been said more gloriously to praise the dignity of
the married state? With what impudence, then, will one call "impure" and
"defiled" a state in which a likeness of the spiritual grace of Christ shines
forth?
IV,12,25 Now, although their (marriage) prohibition is so
clearly contrary to God’s Word, yet they find something in Scripture to defend
it. The Levitical priests, they say, had to abstain from their wives as often as
the turn of service came to them, in order to perform the holy acts pure and
undefiled. Now, since our sacred acts are much nobler and, moreover, take place
every day, it would be very improper if they were performed by married women. As
if the gospel ministry had the same position as the Levitical priesthood once
had! For the Levitical priests were, as it were, an image and were to signify
Christ, who as the mediator between God and men (1Tim 2:5) was once to
reconcile the Father with us through His perfect purity. But since, as sinful
men, they could not in every respect bring the image of His holiness to
representation, they were commanded, in order to imitate it at least with some
outline, to purify themselves beyond the morals of men when they entered the
sanctuary; for then they represented in the proper sense an image of Christ,
because they appeared, as it were as bringers of peace, for the reconciliation
of the people with God in the "tabernacle," which was a likeness of the heavenly
judgment seat. Church shepherds do not have this position today, and therefore
it is in vain to compare them with those priests. That is why the apostle,
without making an exception, declares that marriage is something "honest" with
all, but the fornicator and adulterer awaits God’s judgment (Hebr 13:4). And the
apostles themselves proved by their example that the sanctity of no office, no
matter how excellent, is harmed by marriage. For, as Paul testifies, they not
only kept their wives, but also carried them about with them (1Cor 9:5).
IV,12,26 Furthermore, it was also an astonishing
shamelessness that they passed off that (outward) propriety of a chaste life as
something necessary – to the highest revilement of the early church, which
abounded in glorious knowledge of God, yet excelled even more in holiness. For
if they do not care about the apostles – they sometimes despise them – I would
like to know what they want to do with all the fathers of the early church, who
undoubtedly not only tolerated but even approved of marriage in the status of
bishops. They must have promoted a "vulgar desecration" of the sacred acts,
because the mysteries of the Lord did not receive the "right" veneration from
them! It is true that at the Synod of Nicaea it was discussed to prescribe
celibacy – as there is never a lack of superstitious people who always invent
something new in order to gain admiration. But what was decided at Nicaea? Well,
they followed the opinion of Paphnutius, who declared that chastity is to have
intercourse with one’s wife (Historia tripartita II,14). So the holy matrimony
remained with them, and this did not bring them any disgrace, nor was it
believed that by this their office would be tainted with any stain.
IV,12,27 Afterwards times have come when a too
superstitious admiration of celibacy has increased more and more. This is also
the reason for the ever new and unmeasured praise of virginity, which went so
far that one was generally convinced that there was no other virtue that could
be compared to it. And although the married state was not condemned as impurity,
its dignity was so degraded and its sanctity so obscured that one who did not
abstain from marriage did not seem to strive for perfection with a sufficiently
valiant will. Hence came those ecclesiastical statutes in which it was first
forbidden that those who had attained the rank of priest should enter into
marriage, and then also decreed that only those who were celibate or who,
together with their wives, renounced conjugal intercourse should be admitted to
the priesthood. This, I confess, was also received with great applause in
ancient times, because it seemed to give reverence to the priestly state. But if
our adversaries reproach me with the ancient times, I reply, first, that both
under the apostles and for some centuries after them there was freedom for
bishops to be married; of this freedom, I further reply, the apostles
themselves, and also other pastors of first-rate authority who later took their
place, made use without difficulty. But the example of the older church, I
further say, must deservedly be more valid with us than that we should regard as
unauthorized or indecent for us what was then accepted with praise and in use.
Secondly, I reply to our adversaries: that time which, out of an inordinate
esteem for virginity, began to treat the married state quite unreasonably, did
not impose the law of celibacy on priests as if it were something necessary in
and of itself, but did so because it placed the celibate above the married.
Finally, I say that celibacy was not imposed in such a way as to compel by force
or violence those who were unable to practice continence. For although
fornication was punished with the strictest laws, the only provision made for
those who entered into marriage was that they should resign their office.
IV,12,28 Therefore, as often as the defenders of this new
tyranny seek to use the old time as a pretext to protect their celibacy, they
must be countered with the demand that they should restore the old chastity
among their priests and remove the adulterers and fornicators, nor should they
allow the people with whom they do not want to admit an honorable and chaste use
of conjugal intercourse to plunge with impunity into all kinds of immorality.
They must be told to restore that lost discipline by which all debauchery is
controlled, and they must free the church from that so shameful disgracefulness
by which it has now long been disfigured. When they have conceded this, they
must again be admonished not to pass off as necessary a thing which in and of
itself is free and depends on the benefit of the church. Now I do not say this
because I am of the opinion that one should give room under any condition at all
to those church statutes which put the yoke of celibacy on the neck of the
ecclesiastical state, but I say it so that more reasonable people may realize
with what insolence our enemies discredit the holy marriage state among the
priests, and that by using the name of the early church as a pretext! Now, as
for the Fathers of the Church, even they, speaking on the basis of their own
judgment, have not disparaged the respectability of the married state with such
malice, with the exception of Jerome. We will content ourselves with a single
word of Chrysostom; for he was, after all, the most distinguished admirer of
virginity, and it is not to be supposed, therefore, that he was more extravagant
than others in praising the marriage state. He now says: "The first stage of
chastity is pure virginity, the second a faithful marriage. Chaste conjugal
love, then, is a second form of virginity" (Homily on the Discovery of the
Cross).
Of the vows, by the rash utterance of which every man has
miserably laid himself in snares.
IV,13,1 It is indeed a lamentable thing that the church,
to which freedom has been purchased at the inestimable price of the blood of
Christ, is so oppressed by cruel tyranny and lies almost buried under an
enormous heap of human statutes. In the meantime, however, the personal folly of
each individual shows that God has not let Satan and his servants loose so far
without the most just cause. For it was not enough that one (in general),
disregarding the Lordship of Christ, endured all and any burdens imposed on one
by false teachers, no, each individual has also procured his own burdens on top
of that and thus, by digging a pit for himself, has only allowed himself to sink
even deeper. This has happened by making up vows around the bet, so that from
these a greater and harder obligation is added to the fetters embracing all
together. Since we have now shown that, through the presumption of those who
have exercised rule in the Church under the name of "shepherds," the worship of
God has been corrupted, by putting poor souls in fetters with their unreasonable
laws, it will not be out of place to add here a similar kind of abuse, so that
it may become evident that the world, in the wickedness of its nature, has
always pushed away from itself, with all the resistance at its disposal, the
means by which it should have been led to God. In order that it may now become
more evident that a very serious harm has resulted from the vows, the reader
must hold fast to the principles already laid down above. First of all, we have
explained that everything that may be required (in instructions) for a pious and
holy organization of life is summarized in the law. Secondly, we have taught
that the Lord, in order to keep us the better from devising new "works" for
ourselves, has concluded all praise of righteousness in simple obedience to his
will. But if this is true, then the judgment is immediately given that all
imaginary worship, which we make up for ourselves in order to gain merit with
God, is not at all pleasing to Him, however much we may enjoy it. And indeed,
the Lord not only clearly rejects this "worship" in many places, but it is
seriously an abomination to Him. Now from this arises, with reference to vows
made outside the express word of God, the question as to the status to be
attached to them, whether a Christian man can lawfully make them, and how far he
is bound to them. For what is called a "promise" among men is called a vow in
the sight of God. We promise people what we think will be pleasant for them or
what we are obliged to do for them. It is therefore proper that we pay much
greater attention to vows, because they are addressed to God Himself, with whom
we have to deal in the utmost seriousness. Here, superstition has spread in a
strange way at all times, so that people, without judgment and without
distinction, immediately vowed to God everything that came into their mind or
even into their mouth. Hence those silly vows, yes, those monstrous absurdities
among the pagans, with which they mocked their gods in a very impudent way. And
would to God that the Christians had not also imitated this presumption of the
pagans! This was not at all proper, but we see that for several centuries
nothing was more widespread than this mischievousness, that the people, in
general contempt of the law, were fully inflamed with mad zeal to pledge
everything that pleased them in dreams. I do not want to exaggerate ugly, nor do
I want to enumerate in detail how gravely and in how many ways one has sinned
here, but I have only thought it right to say this in passing, so that it may
come out more clearly that we are by no means making an inquiry into a
superfluous matter when we now take up the vows.
IV,13,2 Now, if we do not wish to go astray in our
judgment as to which vows are lawful and which are perverse, we must consider
three questions. (1.) Who is the one to whom we make such vows? (2.) Who are we
who make a vow? (3.) In what spirit do we make a vow? The first question wants
to point out to us that we are dealing with God, who is so pleased with our
obedience that He declares all "self-chosen spirituality," however delicious and
glamorous it may be in the eyes of men, to be accursed (Col 2:23). If all
self-willed worship that we devise for ourselves without God’s command is an
abomination in his sight, it follows that no other worship can be pleasing to
him than that which his word approves. Therefore, let us not take so much
arbitrary liberty as to dare to vow to God something that has no testimony as to
how it will be judged by him. For if Paul’s word, "What … does not come from
faith, it is sin" (Rom 14:23), applies to all and any works, then it has a
special meaning when we direct our thoughts straight to God Himself. Yes, if we
fall and go astray even in the smallest things – Paul speaks in that passage of
the discernment of food – where the certainty of faith does not shine before us,
how much modesty must we exercise when we approach a matter of the utmost
importance? For it is fitting that nothing should be more serious to us than the
duties of religion. In our vows, therefore, we must first of all be careful that
we never set ourselves to vow anything without our conscience being first
assured that it will not take an imprudent step. But it will be safe from the
danger of imprudence if it lets God be the one who goes before it and tells it,
as it were from His word, what is good or what is useless to do.
IV,13,3 The second point that we have to consider here,
after what we have said above, is that we should (1.) measure our powers, (2.)
keep our profession in view, and (3.) not leave aside the grace-gift of freedom
that God has granted us. For he who vows something that is not within his
ability or that is contrary to his profession is forward, and he who despises
God’s kindness that sets him up as Lord over all things is ungrateful. When I
speak in this way, I do not mean that there was anything so placed in our hands
that, relying on our own strength, we were able to vow it to God. For it was
most truthful when, at the Council of Orange (529), it was decided that we could
not lawfully vow anything to God except what we had received from His hand,
because everything we offered to Him was His pure gift (chap. 11). But since the
one is given to us out of God’s kindness and the other is denied to us out of
His fairness, each one should consider the measure of the grace granted to him
according to Paul’s instruction (Rom 12:3; 1Cor 12:11). (1.) So I have
nothing else in mind here than that one should adjust his vows to the measure
that God has marked out for him through his gift, so that he does not dare to do
more than he has granted and thereby run into ruin by presuming too much. I will
illustrate this with an example. Luke mentions assassins who made a vow not to
eat any food until they had killed Paul (Acts 23:12). Even if this had not been
a sacrilegious advice, the presumption of these men would not have been bearable
in any way, because they put life and death of a human being under their own
control. Likewise, Jephthah was punished for his folly when he made a rash vow
(Judges 11:30 s.). Among this group of vows, celibacy stands supreme in mad
presumption. For the priests, monks and nuns forget their weakness and dare to
believe that they are able to keep celibacy. But what word of revelation has
taught them to spend their whole life in constant chastity, as they vow such
chastity until the end of their lives? They hear God’s voice over the general
condition of mankind, which says: "It is not good that man should be alone"
(Gen 2:18)! They realize, and would to God they did not also realize, that the
sin that remains in us is not without very sharp thorns. Where do they get the
confidence to throw away that general vocation (which points us to marriage) for
their whole life? And this, when the gift of continence is mostly granted only
for a certain time, according to the occasion! They should not expect that God
will stand by them as a helper in such stubbornness, no, they should rather
remember the word: "You shall not tempt the Lord your God" (Deut 6:16; Luther
text correct: singular). But that is tempting God, when one opposes the nature
he has given us and when one despises his present gifts as if they had nothing
to do with us. The papists, however, not only do this, but they dare to call
marriage a defilement, although God has not found it contrary to his majesty to
institute it, although he has declared it honorable among all (Hebr 13:4),
although Christ our Lord has sanctified it with his presence and condescended to
honor it with his first miracle (John 2:2, 6-11). And that dishonorable name for
marriage the papists need only to elevate with whimsical eulogies any celibacy.
As if they themselves did not provide clear proof with their way of life that
celibacy and virginity are two different things! Nevertheless, they call their
life "angelic" with the highest impudence. With this they certainly do terrible
injustice to the angels by comparing fornicators, adulterers and something much
worse and meaner with them. Now here, in fact, there is absolutely no need for
proof, since they are clearly convicted by the matter itself. For we see it
openly before us, with what kind of terrible punishments the Lord punishes
everywhere such presumption and such contempt of his gifts stemming from too
great self-confidence. Out of a sense of shame, I will pass over the more hidden
things with care, for even what is known about them goes too far. (2.)
Undoubtedly, we must not vow anything that could prevent us from serving our
profession. This would be the case, for example, if a householder were to vow to
leave his wife and child and take upon himself other burdens, or if one who is
qualified to hold a magisterial office, and is also chosen to do so, were to vow
to remain unofficial.(3.) We then also spoke of not despising our freedom. What
this means is somewhat difficult if it is not developed in more detail. Let the
following brief remarks be heard on this subject. Since God has made us masters
over all things and has made them subject to us in such a way that we should use
them all for our benefit, we have no reason to expect that it will be a service
pleasing to God if we make ourselves servants of external things that are
supposed to serve us as aids. I say this because some people seek to gain the
praise of humility by entangling themselves in the strict observance of many
statutes, from which we are supposed to be free and exempt according to God’s
will, which is not without reason. Therefore, if we want to avoid this danger,
we must always keep in mind that we must not deviate in any way from the order
that the Lord has established in the Christian church.
IV,13,4 Now I come to what I mentioned above in the third
place: it depends very much in which spirit one makes a vow, if otherwise one
wishes it to be pleasing to God. For the Lord looks at the heart and not at the
outward appearance, and therefore it happens that the same thing, with a changed
intention of our heart, is sometimes pleasing and pleasant, and sometimes also
violently displeasing to Him. If one makes a vow not to drink wine, pretending
that there is some holiness in it, he is a superstitious man; but if in such a
vow he has another purpose in view which is not wrong, no one can disapprove of
it. Now, as far as I am able to judge, there are four purposes to which our vows
may legitimately be directed; two of them I refer to the past for better
instruction, the other two to the future. First, the vows with which we testify
our gratitude to God for the benefits we have received refer to the past, and
secondly, those with which we punish ourselves for the misdeeds we have
committed, in order to absolve God’s wrath. The vows of the first kind we shall
call, if we will, exercises of gratitude (vows of thanksgiving), those of the
second kind exercises of repentance (vows of penance). We have an example of the
first group in the tithe that Jacob vowed if the Lord would bring him back
safely from exile to his homeland (Gen 28:20, 22). Another example is offered
to us by the peace offerings of the Old Covenant, as pious kings and generals
about to wage a just war vowed to offer them if they obtained victory, or at any
rate, as they vowed to offer them under the pressure of a greater adversity if
the Lord would set them free. It is in this sense that we must understand all
the passages in the Psalms that deal with vows (Ps 22:26; 56:13; 116:14, 18).
Such vows can also be in practice with us today, as often as the Lord has saved
us from a defeat or from a serious illness or from some other danger. For then
it is not inconsistent with the duty of a pious man to consecrate a vow offering
to God as a solemn sign of his gratitude, so as not to appear ungrateful to his
kindness. To show of what kind the vows of the second group are, a single
well-known example will suffice. If a person has fallen into infamy through his
gluttony, there is no obstacle to his denying himself all delicacies for a time
as a punishment for his intemperance, and then doing so by the application of a
vow, in order thereby to bind himself with a firmer bond. In this way, however,
I do not establish a permanent law for those who have transgressed in such a
way, but I only show what those may do who have come to the conviction that such
a vow is of benefit to them. So I regard such a vow as permissible, but in such
a way that I let it remain free in the meantime.
IV,13,5 The vows referring to the future have partly (1.),
as I have said, the purpose of making us more cautious, partly (2.) they are
also intended to serve us, as it were, as an incentive to cheer us up to our
duty. (1.) If a man sees that he is so inclined to a certain vice that he is not
able to keep himself in check in an otherwise not bad thing, but immediately
falls into something evil, he does nothing absurd if by a vow he deprives
himself of the use of that thing for a time. If, for instance, a man recognizes
that this or that bodily ornament is dangerous to him, and if he then, tempted
by greed, desires it, what better can he do than to put on a bridle, that is, to
impose upon himself the obligation to renounce it, and thereby free himself from
all misgivings? (2.) Or likewise: if any one is forgetful or indolent to the
performance of the necessary duties of piety, why should he not make a vow, and
thereby refresh his memory and cast out his sloth? In these two kinds of vows, I
admit, a kind of child education appears; but precisely because they are
supports for weakness, they are not applied without benefit by the inexperienced
and imperfect. We shall say, then, that vows which serve one among these
purposes, especially in outward things, are lawful, if only they are based on
God’s approval, are suited to our profession, and are limited according to the
ability which God’s grace bestowed upon us.
IV,13,6 Now it is also not difficult to gather from the
above what we are to think of vows in general. One vow is common to all
believers: that is spoken at baptism, and it is affirmed and, as it were,
unbreakably vouched for by us when we learn the catechism (thereupon confessing
our faith) and receive the Lord’s Supper. For the sacraments are, as it were,
prescriptions in which the Lord gives us his mercy and from it eternal life, and
we in turn promise him obedience. The formula, or at any rate the main content,
of this vow is as follows: we renounce Satan and make ourselves servants to God,
to obey His holy commandments, but not to follow the evil desires of our flesh.
Since this vow has a testimony from Scripture, indeed, is required of all God’s
children, there can be no doubt that it is holy and salvific. Nor is it opposed
to the fact that no one in this life performs the perfect obedience to the law
that God requires of us. For this vow is included in the covenant of grace,
which also includes the forgiveness of sins and the sanctification of the
spirit, and therefore the promise we make in it is connected with the plea for
forgiveness and the desire for help. In judging the particular vows, it is
necessary to keep in mind the three rules mentioned above; from this it will be
possible to decide with certainty of what kind each vow is. Nevertheless, let it
not be thought that I wish to recommend the vows, which I claim to be sacred, in
such a way that I wish them to be done every day. For although I dare not give a
prescription as to the number or time of vows, yet, if one follows my advice,
such vows will be made only with moderate restraint and temporal limitation. For
if one goes over and over again to make numerous vows, then by such continued
repetition the whole religion will become common, and one will very easily fall
into superstition. If one binds oneself by a continuous vow, then one will
either (merely) perform it with much trouble and annoyance or also, tired by the
long duration, dare to break it from time to time.
IV,13,7 Now it is not hidden what a great superstition the
world has been struggling with in this piece for some hundred years. One made a
vow to drink no more wine, as if abstaining from wine constituted a worship that
would be pleasing to God in and of itself. Another vowed to fast for certain
days or to abstain from meat, vainly deluding himself that in these things, more
than in others, lay a unique service of God. Some vows were also made, which
were even more childish – even if it was not children who made them! For it was
considered great wisdom to undertake pilgrimages to holy places upon a vow, and
sometimes to make the journey on foot or with a half-naked body, in order to
acquire all the more merit with fatigue. If we examine such and similar vows,
about which the world for a time was inflamed with incredible zeal, according to
the rules laid down above, they will not only be found senseless and ludicrous,
but also filled with manifest impiety. For however the flesh may judge, nothing
is more an abomination in the sight of God than self-conceived worship. To this
must be added those pernicious and accursed delusions that the hypocrites, once
they have accomplished such buffoonery, now believe that they have acquired an
unusual righteousness, see the essential existence of godliness in the
observance of such outward things, and despise all other men who seem to take
less pains about such things.
IV,13,8 To enumerate the individual forms (of such false
vows) would be irrelevant. But since the monastic vows enjoy a higher esteem,
because it seems that they are approved by the public judgment of the church, I
must still briefly discuss them. First of all, so that no one defends
monasticism as it is today under the pretext of ancient origins, I must point
out that in former times a substantially different way of life prevailed in the
monasteries. Such people went to the monasteries who wanted to practice the
highest austerity and patience. For just such discipline as, according to our
reports, existed among the Lacedaemonians under the laws of Lycurgus, also
prevailed among the monks, indeed, a much stricter one. They slept on the
ground, drank only water, ate bread, herbs and roots, their chief delicacies
consisted of oil and peas. They renounced all more delicious foods and all finer
maintenance of the body. This description might seem exaggerated if it were not
reported by witnesses who saw and experienced it, namely Gregory of Nazianzus,
Basil and Chrysostom. What I have just reported, however, were only the
beginners’ exercises with which the monks prepared themselves for more important
tasks. For the monastic communities were at that time, as it were, planting
places of the ecclesiastical state (i.e. the "clergy"). A sufficiently clear
proof of this are, on the one hand, the men mentioned above (Gregory, Basil,
Chrysostom) – for they were all educated in monasteries and then from there
called to the episcopate – and, on the other hand, numerous other important and
outstanding men of their time. And Augustine testifies that it was also
customary in his time for the monasteries to supply the Church with their
clerics; for he addresses the monks of the island of Capraria as follows: "But
to you, brethren, we exhort in the Lord, that you remain faithful to your
purpose and persevere in it to the end; and if one day your Mother, the Church,
shall desire your service, do not assume it in domineering arrogance, nor spurn
it in flattering convenience, but render obedience to God with a meek heart.
Neither put your leisure above the needs of the Church; for if there had been no
good people to minister to her in her birth pangs, neither would you have had
the opportunity to come into the world" (Letter 48; to Eudoxius). Indeed, he is
speaking here of the ministry through which believers are spiritually reborn.
Likewise, he writes to Aurelius: "When people leave the monastery and are then
chosen for the military service of the clerical office, they themselves are
given the opportunity to fall, and the most outrageous injustice is done to the
state of the clergy. For we are accustomed to accept into the clergy only the
best-tried and most capable from among those who remain in the monastery.
Otherwise, it would have to be as the saying goes: ’A bad piper is a good
musician in the chapel’, and we would have to mockingly say: ’A bad monk is a
good cleric’. It would be too deplorable if we were to let the monks rise to
such a pernicious arrogance and consider the clergy worthy of such harsh
vituperation. For sometimes even a good monk hardly makes a good cleric, namely,
if he possesses sufficient continence but lacks the necessary learning" (Letter
60; to Aurelius). From these passages it is clear that pious men used to prepare
themselves for the leadership of the Church under monastic discipline, in order
to then take on such an important office with better aptitude and better
education. It is not that all of them reached this goal or even wanted to reach
it – for the monks were for the most part scientifically uneducated people – but
those were chosen who were suitable for it.
IV,13,9 There are, however, two passages in particular in
which Augustin describes the form of the old monastic life. This happens once in
his book "On the Morals of the Catholic Church", in which he counters the
invective of the Manichaeans with the sanctity of the monastic profession, and
then in another book, to which he has given the title "On the Work of the
Monks", and in which he takes sharp action against some degenerate monks who
began to corrupt this institution. I will therefore reproduce here the essential
content of the reports he offers us, and I will do so in such a way that I also
use his own words, as far as it is concerned. He says: "Disregarding the
temptations of this world, the monks join together in a common life of the
highest chastity and holiness, they now lead their existence together, live in
prayers, readings and doctrinal discussions, are not puffed up by any arrogance,
are not rebellious by any stubbornness and are not vicious by any envy. No one
has any possessions of his own, no one is a burden to anyone. With their hands
they work out what serves to maintain their bodies, and yet what cannot keep
their spirits away from God. They place their work under the direction of those
whom they call ’deans’. These ’deans’ order everything with great care and give
account to a man whom they call ’father’. Now these ’fathers’ are not only of
the highest holiness in their customs, but also of excellent knowledge of the
divine doctrine and excellent in all things; they care for the others whom they
call ’sons’ without any haughtiness, by their great authority in the field and
by their great willingness in obeying. Towards the end of the day – and this is
a time when they have not yet taken anything to eat! – They come together, each
one from his dwelling, to listen to the words of those ’fathers’, and three
thousand or at least a thousand people gather at each ’father’ – Augustin speaks
mainly of Egypt and the East. Afterwards they strengthen the body, as far as it
is necessary for well-being and health, and thereby each individual keeps his
covetousness in check, in order not to let himself go even with the sparse and
extremely simple food, which is available. Thus, not only do they abstain from
meat and wine in order to be sufficiently able to restrain their desires, but
they also abstain from such things which serve all the more to excite the
stomach and the palate to violent covetousness, the more they appear to some to
be pure. For under this name ("pure") one is accustomed to ridiculously and
shamefully defend the most shameful craving for exquisite food, because it has
nothing to do with the consumption of meat. What is available over and above the
necessary subsistence – and there is a great deal left over in the work of their
hands and in their restriction in eating – is distributed to the needy with a
care even greater than that with which it was acquired by those who undertake
this distribution. For it does not matter to them decisively that they have an
abundance of such things, but they take every pains to see that what they have
an abundance of does not remain with them" (Of the Customs of the Catholic
Church 31:67). Then, mentioning the austerity of the monks, of which he himself
had seen examples in Milan and other places, he says: "Meanwhile, no one is
urged to hard exercises which he is not able to endure, no one has anything
imposed on him of which he refuses, nor is anyone condemned by others because he
professes not to be able to do likewise; for they consider how much charity is
commended to us, keeping in mind that to the pure all things are pure… (Titus
1:15). They use all their diligence vigilantly not to reject certain kinds of
food as if they were tainted, but to restrain greed and maintain brotherly love.
They remember the word: ’The food to the belly and the belly to the food…’
(1Cor 6:13). However, many strong ones practice abstinence for the sake of the
weak. Many have no cause to do such things; (but they do it) because it pleases
them to sustain themselves with quite simple and quite cheap food. Thus it
happens that the same people who practice abstinence in full health accept the
food in question without hesitation in case of illness, if their state of health
requires it. Many do not drink wine; but they do not mean to defile themselves
with it; for they see to it with the greatest kindness that wine is given to the
weak and to those who cannot maintain the health of their bodies without it;
also they fraternally admonish some people who foolishly refuse wine, that they
should not become weaker rather than holier through vain superstition. Thus they
put all their efforts into practicing piety, knowing that the exercise of the
body is only for a short time. Above all, however, love is preserved; the
livelihood is made subservient to love, the speech to love, the clothing to
love, and the facial expression to love. To one love one comes together, and to
one love one conspires; to violate it, that is considered a sacrilege, as if one
desecrated God Himself; whoever opposes it, he is expelled and shunned; whoever
breaks it, he is not allowed to stay with them a single day more" (Ibid.
33:70-73). With these words, that holy man seems to me to have portrayed, as in
a picture, the former state of monastic life, and therefore it has not chagrined
me to insert them here, in spite of their considerable verbosity; for I have
noticed that, in spite of my striving for brief summary, I would be even more
prolix if I were to compile these communications from various writers..
IV,13,10 Now I intend here not to go through this whole
circle of questions, but only to show in passing what kind of monks the ancient
church possessed, and also what the monastic profession looked like at that
time, so that understanding readers can, on the basis of the comparison, form a
judgment about how impudently people act who refer to the ancient times in
support of the present monasticism. In the description that Augustine gives us
of holy and legitimate monasticism, he has the will that all sharp demands of
such things remain away, which are freely left to us by the word of the Lord.
Now there is nothing that would be demanded with greater severity nowadays. For
it is considered an inexcusable sacrilege if anyone deviates in the least from
the rule in the color or appearance of the garment, in the manner of the food,
or in other worthless and insignificant ceremonies. Augustine emphasizes
emphatically that the monks do not have the right to live an idle life from
other people’s goods. He declares that such a case did not occur in his time in
any well-ordered monastery (On the Work of Monks 23:27). Our monks of today, on
the other hand, see the most important piece of their holiness in idleness! For
if idleness is taken away from them, where will remain that "contemplative life"
(contemplativa vita) by means of which, as they boast, they surpass all other
men and come closer to the angels? Finally, Augustine calls for monasticism to
be nothing other than an exercise and a support for the (fulfillment of the)
obligations of piety that are placed on the hearts of all Christian people. He
declares charity to be the supreme, indeed the only rule of the monastic life,
and how can we suppose that he would praise a rotteria in which a few people
unite with each other and thus separate themselves from the whole body of the
Church? No, on the contrary, he wants the monks to be the example for the rest
of the Christians in order to preserve the unity of the Church! In both respects
our present monasticism is of such a different nature that one can hardly find
anything more different, not to say more contradictory. For our monks are not
satisfied with that piety which Christ’s disciples are commanded to strive for
in constant striving alone, and they devise I know not what new one in order to
be more perfect in striving for it than all the others.
IV,13,11 If they deny this, I would like to know from
them why they consider their state alone worthy to be called "perfect" and why
they deny this title of honor to all other callings of God. I am not unfamiliar
with the sophistical answer that monasticism is not called so because it
resolves perfection in itself, but because it is the best state of all to attain
perfection. When the monks want to boast to the people, when they want to entrap
ignorant young people, defend their privileges and raise their dignity to the
dishonor of other people, then they boast that they are in the state of
perfection! Then, when they are so close to it that they can no longer maintain
this vain presumption, they take refuge in the trench of protection (i.e. in the
auxiliary assertion) that they have not yet attained perfection, but live in the
state in which they aspire to it more than other people. In the meantime,
however, the people continue to admire the monastic life as if it were the only
one that was angel-like, perfect and purified of all infirmities! Under this
pretext they do the most profit-seeking trade – and that restriction (of their
claims) remains meanwhile buried in a few books! Who does not notice that this
is an intolerable mockery? But let us deal with them as if they did not ascribe
more to their profession than they do when they call it the state for the
attainment of perfection. For if they give it this name, they distinguish it
thereby undoubtedly as with a special mark from every other way of life. And who
will tolerate that this great honor should be attached to an institution which
is nowhere approved of in a single syllable, and that all the callings of God
should be deemed unworthy of the same honor, which, after all, are not only
commanded by his holy mouth, but are also distinguished with the most glorious
praises? And then, I would like to ask, what terrible injustice is done to God,
if one prefers I do not know what kind of fictitious way of life to all those
which are commanded by Him and praised by His testimony?
IV,13,12 Now, they may say what I have just put forward,
namely, that they are not satisfied with the rule prescribed by God, that is
blasphemy. But even if I remain silent, they accuse themselves more than enough.
For they openly teach that they take upon themselves a greater burden than
Christ imposed upon His own, because they vowed to keep the "evangelical
counsels," namely that we should love our enemies, not seek retribution, not
swear, and so on (Mt 5:33 ss.) – and Christians are not all bound by these
"evangelical counsels"! What kind of "old times" do they want to show us as a
pretext? For such a thing never occurred to any of the ancients; they all
declare, as if from one mouth, that Christ did not speak a single word that we
do not have to obey! And that those words in particular, which according to the
chatter of these valiant interpreters are supposed to be mere counsels of
Christ, are in fact instructions, is taught by the ancients everywhere without
any hesitation. But since I have already shown above that this is a most
pernicious error, it may be enough here to have briefly indicated that
monasticism, as it is today, is founded on an opinion which must deservedly be
an abomination to all pious people, namely, that they imagine that there is any
more perfect rule of life than that general one which God has prescribed for the
whole Church. Anything built upon this foundation cannot but be abominable..
IV,13,13 But they bring up another proof of their
perfection, thinking that it is now quite strong. For the Lord answered the
young man who asked him about perfect righteousness: "If you want to be perfect,
go and sell everything you have and give it to the poor" (Mt 19,21). Whether
they do this themselves, I do not want to discuss yet – let us admit it to them
for the moment! So they claim to have become perfect by leaving all their
possessions. If this is the main sum of perfection, what does it mean that Paul
teaches that if someone "gives all his possessions to the poor" "and does not
have love," he is nothing (1Cor 13:3)? What kind of perfection is this, which, if
love is not present, becomes nothing together with the person? Here they must
now necessarily answer that this is indeed the highest, but not the only work of
perfection. But even here the apostle objects, declaring without hesitation love
to be the "bond of perfection" – even without such renunciation of earthly goods
(Col 3:14)! Now, if it is certain that there is no opposition between the
Master and his disciple, and if the latter openly denies that man’s perfection
consists in renouncing all his goods, and on the other hand asserts that it
endures without such renunciation, we must see in what sense Christ’s word is to
be understood: "If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast…." (Mt
19,21). The meaning will become quite clear if we consider – which must always
be taken into account in all speeches of Christ – to whom these words are
addressed. The young man asks with which works he could enter eternal life
(Lk 10:25; actually Matth 19,16). Because Christ is asked about the works, he refers
him to the law. And rightly so; for the law, when considered in and of itself,
is the way to eternal life, and it is only incapable of procuring salvation for
us because we are wicked. With this answer, Christ made it clear that he taught
no other way of living than that once given in the law of the Lord. Thus he gave
testimony to the divine law that it represented the teaching of perfect
righteousness, and at the same time countered the blasphemies: it should not
appear that he was inciting the people to apostasy from the law by any new rule
of life. Now the young man, who was not of evil mind, but puffed up with vain
self-confidence, answered that he had kept all the commandments of the law from
his youth (Mt 19,20). It is more than certain that he was still separated by
an immeasurable distance from the goal he already boasted of having achieved. If
his boast had been true, he would have lacked nothing to reach the highest
perfection. For it has been proved above that the law concludes perfect
righteousness in itself, and the same is clear from the fact that its observance
is called the way to eternal blessedness. In order to teach him how little he
had come far in righteousness, the fulfillment of which he all too boldly
claimed in his answer, it was necessary to elaborate on the affliction that was
attached to him personally. Now he was a very rich man, and therefore he had set
his heart on riches. Therefore, because he did not feel this hidden wound,
Christ pricked him. "Go," he said to him, "and sell all that you have." Now if
he had kept the law as well as he thought, when he heard this word, he would not
have gone away sorrowful (Mt 19:22)! For he who loves God with all his heart
not only regards everything that is contrary to love of God as filth, but
detests it as something corruptible. Therefore, when Christ commands this rich
miser to forsake all that he has, it is exactly the same as if he instructed an
honor-seeking man to renounce all honors, a pleasure-seeking man to renounce all
pleasures, and an unchaste man to renounce all the instruments of his lust. Thus
consciences, which cannot be touched by any sense of general admonition, must be
brought to the particular sense of their own sin. It is in vain, therefore, for
the papists to make a general interpretation of this special case, as if Christ
had seen the perfection of a man in the renunciation of possessions, whereas he
intended nothing else by this saying than to lead the youth, who had pleasure in
himself beyond measure, to the sensation of his wound, that he might perceive
that he was still distant by a great distance from that perfect obedience to the
law which he otherwise unjustly ascribed to himself. I admit that this passage
has been misunderstood by some among the (church) fathers and that from it has
grown that preference for voluntary poverty in which only those people were
considered blessed who had renounced all earthly goods and vowed themselves
naked to Christ. But I am confident that all good-willed and non-contentious
readers will be satisfied with this explanation of mine, so that they will be in
no doubt about the intention of Christ..
IV,13,14 However, the Fathers thought of nothing less
than to affirm such a "perfection" as they subsequently forged together clothed
clods to establish a twofold Christianity in this way. For at that time that
doctrine of profanation of the sanctuary had not yet arisen, which compares the
monastic vow with baptism, and even openly asserts that it is a kind of second
baptism. Who would doubt that the (Church) Fathers wholeheartedly abhorred such
blasphemy? But as for the last peculiarity of the ancient monks reported by
Augustine, namely, that they were fully oriented toward love, why is it
necessary to show in words that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the new
form of the monastic profession? The facts themselves show that all those who go
to monasteries separate themselves from the Church. Why, then, do they not
separate themselves from the legitimate community of the faithful, by assuming a
special (ecclesiastical) office and a separate distribution of the sacraments?
If this does not mean tearing apart the communion of the Church – what does? And
further – to continue and once conclude the comparison begun above – what
similarity do they have in this piece with the ancient monks? These lived
separately from the others, but still they did not have a special church, they
shared the sacraments with the others, they attended the public meetings and
were part of the people (i.e. the congregation). But the monks of today have
erected for themselves their own separate altar – and what have they done but
break the bond of unity? For they have excluded themselves from the whole body
of the Church and have despised the orderly ministry by which, according to the
will of the Lord, peace and love are to be maintained among His own. I maintain,
then, that as many monasteries there are today, so many are the routs of
apostates (schismatics) who have disturbed the ecclesiastical order and cut
themselves off from the lawful communion of the faithful. And in order not to
hide their secession, they have adopted many party names. Nor have they been
ashamed to boast of what Paul, so much abhorred that he could not express it
sharply enough (1Cor 1:12 s.; 3:4). Otherwise we would have to be of the opinion
that Christ was "divided" by the Corinthians, because one teacher arrogantly
placed himself above the other, but now it could happen without any insult to
Christ that we get to hear how some are called Benedictines, others Franciscans,
still others Dominicans instead of Christians, and that in such a way that they
themselves, while they seek to be distinguished from the great multitude of
Christians, arrogantly usurp such titles as a confession of religion!
IV,13,15 These differences between the ancient monks and
those of our time, as I have listed them up to this point, do not lie in
customs, but in the profession itself. The reader may therefore bear in mind
that I have spoken of monasticism rather than of monks, and have thereby
referred to such vices as do not adhere to the way of life of a few, but cannot
be separated from the prevailing order of life itself. But what is the use of
stating in detail what a great contrast there is in morals? That is certain,
that there is no group of people worse sullied by all the shamefulness of vice.
Nowhere do factions, hatreds, redness and ambition weigh more heavily than among
the monks. Certainly, in a few monasteries one still lives chastely – if one
wants to understand something by chastity, whereby one pushes back the greed so
far that it does not become publicly notorious. But you will hardly find a
monastery among ten which would not rather be a whorehouse than a sanctuary of
chastity! And what about simplicity in living? In any case, the pigs in the pen
are not fattened differently! But so that they don’t complain that they are too
roughly handled by me, I don’t want to go on. However, everyone, who knows the
conditions himself, will admit to me that from the few, which I have touched,
nothing is spoken in the (exaggerated) accusatory tone. Although, according to
Augustine’s testimony, the monks (of his time) were distinguished by such great
chastity, he nevertheless complains that among them there were numerous vagrants
who, with wicked tricks and frauds, took the money out of the pockets of the
more simple-minded people, They sold the bones of the deceased as relics of
martyrs, and by many other outrages they disgraced their profession (On the Work
of the Monks 28:36). And as on the one hand he declares that he has seen no
better men than those who have made progress in the monasteries, so on the other
hand he laments having seen no worse than those who have gone astray in the
monasteries (Letter 78). What would he say if he saw today almost all
monasteries overflowing with so many and such hopeless vices, yes, almost
bursting? I say nothing but what is well known to all people! Nevertheless, this
rebuke does not apply to all monks without any exception. For just as the rule
and discipline for a holy way of life was never so well established in the
monasteries that there were not also some drones in it who were quite unlike the
others, so I maintain that the monks today have not departed so much from the
holy way of the old time that they do not also have some good ones in their
flock. But these good ones are few in number, they are scattered and remain
hidden among that vast multitude of wicked and good-for-nothings, and they are
not only despised but also insolently reviled, sometimes even cruelly treated by
the others, who – as a proverb of the people of Miletus says – are of the
opinion that no good one should have a place among them!
IV,13,16 With this comparison between the ancient and the
modern monasticism I hope to have achieved what I wanted, namely, that it
becomes evident that our present-day cowl-bearers wrongly take the example of
the original church as a pretext for the defense of their profession; for they
are no less different from those ancient monks than monkeys are from men.
However, I do not want to conceal the fact that even in that original form of
monasticism which Augustine praises so highly, there are some things which I do
not like very much. I admit that they were not superstitious in the external
exercises of their quite strict discipline, but I still maintain that they were
not without immoderate artificiality and false imitation. It was nice to
renounce all wealth and then to be free of all earthly cares, but before God the
care for a pious household regiment is more important, where a holy householder,
free from all avarice, all ambition and all desires of the flesh, has taken it
upon himself to serve God in a certain profession! It is beautiful to
philosophize in solitude, far from the intercourse with men, but it is not a
sign of Christian meekness to withdraw, as it were, out of general hatred of
men, into the desert and solitude, and thus at the same time to abandon those
duties which the Lord has charged us with in the first place. Even if we were to
admit that otherwise there would have been no grievance in the monastic
profession, it was in any case no small evil that he introduced a useless and
dangerous example into the Church.
IV,13,17 Now, then, let us see what these vows are by
which monks are initiated into this "glorious" state nowadays. First, since they
have in mind to establish a new and self-conceived worship in order to earn
merit with God, I conclude from the above that everything they vow is an
abomination before God. And then, because they do not look at all to God’s
calling and approval, but rather devise a way of life according to their own
liking, I maintain that this is a rash and therefore unacceptable venture, since
their conscience has no basis on which it can support itself before God, and
since everything that does not come from faith is sin (Rom 14:23). And since,
moreover, they commit themselves at the same time to numerous perverse and
ungodly "services of worship," such as the monasticism of today conceives in
itself, I maintain that they are consecrated not to God but to the devil. The
prophets were allowed to say that the children of Israel had sacrificed their
sons to the devils and not to God (Deut 32:17; Ps 106:37), for the sole reason
that they had corrupted the true worship of God with their unholy ceremonies –
why should we now not be allowed to say the same of the monks who, at the same
time as they put on the habit, entangle themselves in a thousand godless,
superstitious customs? And what do the vows look like? They promise God
perpetual virginity – as if they had previously contracted with Him to release
them from the necessity of marriage! Nor do they have any reason to object that
they make this vow solely in reliance on God’s grace. For he himself declares
that this grace is not given to all (Mt 19,11 s.), and therefore it is not
for us to trust in this special gift of grace. Those who possess it should make
use of it, and if they once feel that they are troubled by their flesh, they
should take refuge in the help of Him in whose strength alone they can resist.
If they do not advance, they should not despise the medicine that is offered to
them. In any case, those who are not granted the ability to abstain are called
to marriage by an undoubted word of God (1Cor 7:9). I do not call abstinence
that by which alone the body is kept pure from fornication, but that in which
the mind preserves untainted chastity. For according to Paul’s instruction, we
are to beware not only of outward chastity, but also of the burning of our
hearts. Yes, they say, but from time immemorial it has been held that those who
wished to consecrate themselves completely to the Lord bound themselves to a vow
of abstinence. I admit, however, that this custom has been in force from time
immemorial, but I cannot admit that that time was so free from all infirmities
that everything that was done at that time could be considered a rule. Also,
(only) gradually that inexorable rigor crept in, that once the vow was made
there was no possibility of withdrawal. This is evident from the words of
Cyprian: "When virgins have consecrated themselves to Christ out of faith, let
them remain chaste and chastened, without all talk. In this way, they should
bravely and steadfastly await the reward of their virginity. But if they will
not or cannot persevere in this, it is better that they should be free than that
they should fall into the fire with their iniquities" (Letter 4:2). With what
kind of reproaches would they torment a man today who wanted to mitigate the vow
of abstinence with such equity? Today, then, they have departed far from that
ancient custom, not only not wanting to show any mitigation or leniency if
someone is found unfit to keep his vow, but even declaring, without any shame,
that it is a worse sin for him to take a wife to cure the unbridledness of his
flesh than for him to defile body and soul with fornication!
IV,13,18 But they still do not let up and try to prove
that such a vow was also common among the apostles, because Paul claims that
widows who entered marriage again after they were accepted into the public
ministry (of the church) had "broken the first faith" (1. Tim.5,12). I do not
deny that the widows, who put themselves and their service at the disposal of
the church, once took upon themselves the law of permanent celibacy, not because
they saw in it any service to God, as they later began to do, but because they
were only able to fulfill their official task when they were their own masters
and free from the marital yoke. But if they now looked for a new marriage after
their vow of fidelity, – what was that but that they threw God’s calling from
them? It is therefore no wonder that Paul says that with such desire they
"became lustful against Christ" (1Tim 5:11). Later, however, he adds for greater
emphasis that they did not keep the promise they had made to the church in such
a way that they also violated and invalidated their first promise of
faithfulness, which they had made at baptism, that promise of faithfulness to
which it also belongs that everyone behaves according to his calling. Otherwise,
one would rather want to understand it in such a way that they, as it were,
after losing all sense of shame, would have thrown off all striving for an
honorable way of life, would have given themselves over to all and every
unboundedness and frivolity, and would have shown by their unrestrained and
disorderly way of life nothing less than the kind of Christian women. I like
this interpretation very much. So we give the following answer (to that
objection): The widows who were then received into the public ministry (of the
church) made it their determination to remain permanently celibate; now, if they
afterwards freed themselves, it came to pass, as we easily understand, what Paul
says, namely, that they threw off all shame and became more wanton than befits
Christian women; so then they not only sinned by breaking the word which they
had given to the church, but indeed they departed from the common law which
applies to all pious women. But I deny, first, that they would have vowed
celibacy for any other reason than simply because marriage was quite
incompatible with the task they were undertaking, nor do I deny that they would
have committed themselves to celibacy in any other way than simply insofar as
the necessity of their profession entailed it. Secondly, I do not admit that
they were so bound that even then it would not have been better for them to
enter into marriage than to be martyred by the thorns of the flesh or to fall
into any immorality. Thirdly, I contend that Paul in his precept fixes an age
which is generally beyond danger (namely, sixty years 1Tim 5:9), especially
where he commands that only those be chosen who have been satisfied with a
single marriage and have previously given proof of their abstinence. But we
reject the vow of celibacy only because it is mistakenly thought to be a service
of God, and because it is rashly taken by those who have not been endowed with
the faculty of continence.
IV,13,19 But where did one get the right to refer the
Pauline passage to the nuns? For the ministering widows (diaconissae) were not
chosen so that they might flatter God with songs and misunderstood babbling and
live the rest of the time of leisure, but so that they might perform the public
service of the Church to the poor and devote themselves to the duties of charity
with all zeal, care and diligence. They did not vow celibacy in order to do God
any service by renouncing marriage, but only in order to be freer to exercise
their ministry. And finally, they did not vow celibacy in the early days of
their virginity, nor in the midst of the flowering of their years, only to learn
too late from experience what an abyss they had entered; no, when they seemed to
have overcome all danger, then they took their vow, which was as free from
danger as it was holy. But – not to press the first two points sharply – I
maintain that it is sacrilege to admit women to the vow of continence before
they are sixty years old, since Paul alone admits those who are sixty years old,
but commands those who are younger to be free and bear children (1Tim 5:9,
14). Therefore, the lowering of the age of admission, first by twelve, then by
twenty, and finally by thirty years, cannot be excused in any way, and it is
even less tolerable that poor maidens, before they can know themselves by their
age or have any experience of themselves, are not only seduced by fraud, but
forced by force and threats to enter into these accursed ropes. I will not get
into the rejection of the other two vows (poverty, obedience). I will only say
this: apart from the fact that, as things stand today, they are involved in no
small amount of superstition, they seem to be made for those who make them to
make a mockery of God and man. But lest it appear that we are trying to flush
out each bit too maliciously, let us content ourselves with the general
refutation given above..
IV,13,20 What kind of vows are lawful and pleasing to God
has, in my opinion, now been sufficiently explained. Now there are sometimes
ignorant and fearful consciences which, even where a vow displeases them or they
reject it, nevertheless have misgivings about its obligatory nature and torment
themselves terribly, because on the one hand they shrink from breaking the word
given to God, and on the other hand they fear that by keeping the vow they will
sin even more. These must therefore be helped here, so that they can tear
themselves out of this difficulty. But in order to remove all doubts at once, I
say this: before God all illicit and illegitimate vows are null and void, and so
they must also be null and void for us. For if, in human contracts, we are bound
only by such promises as our contracting party wishes us to be bound by, it is
absurd that we should be compelled to perform what God by no means requires of
us, especially when our works are only right if they please God and have the
testimony of our conscience that they do. For it firmly remains: "What … is
not of faith, it is sin" (Rom 14:23). By this Paul means: a work which we attack
with misgivings is therefore sinful, because faith is the root of all good
works, the faith in which we have the assurance that these works are pleasing to
God. If, then, a Christian man may not undertake anything without this
certainty, why should he not, if he has imprudently undertaken something out of
ignorance, afterwards refrain from it when he has become free from his error?
But since vows made imprudently are of this kind, not only are they not binding
at all, but they must be broken! What shall we say, however, when we remember
that they are not only considered nothing before God, but are also an
abomination, as I have proved above? It is superfluous to speak further about an
unnecessary matter. To reassure pious consciences and free them from all
misgivings, this one ground of proof seems to me to be fully sufficient: all
works which do not flow from a pure source and are directed toward a lawful end
are rejected by God, and so rejected that he forbids us no less to continue in
them than to begin them. For from this follows the conclusion: vows that are
born of error and superstition have no meaning at all with God, and must
accordingly be set aside by us.
IV,13,21 Whoever holds this answer, moreover, will also
be able to defend such people against the vituperations of good-for-nothing
people who leave monasticism and enter into a respectable way of life. They are
fiercely accused of having broken their word and of being perjurers, because
they have broken what is generally considered to be the indissoluble bond by
which they were bound to God and to the Church. I maintain, on the other hand,
that there was no "bond" at all, since God (in this case) declares null and void
what man puts into effect. And then: if we ourselves admit that they were under
obligation when they were held in bonds by the ignorance of God and error, I
maintain that now, having been enlightened by the knowledge of the truth, they
are at the same time free through Christ’s grace. For if the cross of Christ has
such power as to set us free from the curse of the divine law, by which we were
held in bondage (Gal 3:13), how much more will it tear us out of such strange
fetters, which after all are nothing but snares of the devil! There is no doubt,
then, that Christ frees all those to whom he shines through the light of his
gospel from all the snares in which they have entangled themselves out of
superstition. Admittedly, if they have not been able to keep celibacy, they do
not lack another means of defense. For an unfulfillable vow means the certain
ruin of the soul, and yet God wants it to be preserved and not lost. From this
it follows that one should not persist in such a vow at all. But how
unfulfillable the vow of abstinence is for those who are not equipped with the
special gift (Mt 19,11 s.), I have explained above, and experience testifies
to it, even if I remain silent; for it is very well known how much immorality
almost all monasteries are overflowing with. And if some monasteries seem to be
more respectable and demure than others, they are not chaste because they
suppress and hold down the evil of unchastity within! God punishes with terrible
punishments the presumption of men when they do not think of their weakness and,
against the resistance of nature, strive for something that is denied to them,
and when, disregarding the remedies that the Lord had given them, they are
confident that they can overcome the infirmity of their unchastity by defiance
and obstinacy. For what else can we call it than defiance when someone is made
aware of the fact that he needs marriage and that it is given to him by the Lord
as a remedy, and then nevertheless not only despises it, but still commits
himself by an oath to despise it?
IV,14,1 With the preaching of the gospel is related
another aid to our faith: it lies in the sacraments. It is now highly necessary
for us that clear and definite instruction be given on this, from which we can
then learn for what purpose the sacraments are instituted and in what way they
are used today. First of all, it is appropriate to pay attention to what a
sacrament is. It seems to me that it is a simple and proper definition to say
that a sacrament is an outward sign (symbolum) by which the Lord seals to our
conscience the promises of his kindness toward us, in order to offer support to
the weakness of our faith, and by which, in turn, we testify our piety toward
him both before his face and the face of angels, and before men. An even shorter
definition can be given: sacrament means a testimony of divine grace against us,
confirmed by an external sign, and at the same time a testimony of our piety
towards God. Whichever of these two definitions one chooses, both are not
different from Augustine’s, when he declares that sacrament is a visible sign of
a holy thing, or also: it is the visible form of the invisible grace. However,
our definitions bring the matter itself better and more precisely to the
statement. For since in such brevity (as Augustine uses) lies a certain
darkness, which then gives many less knowledgeable people the occasion for
reverie, I have wanted to give a more complete explanation in many words, so
that no ambiguity remains.
IV,14,2 For what reason the ancients applied the word
"sacrament" in the sense given here is readily apparent. For the ancient
translator (of the Bible into Latin), wherever he wanted to render the Greek
word "mysterion" (mystery), especially where divine things were concerned, used
the translation "sacrament" (sacramentum). This happens for example in the
letter to the Ephesians when it says: "… to make known to us the mystery (sacramentum)
of His will" (Eph 1:9; not Luther text). Or likewise: "As you have heard of the
ministry of God’s grace which was given to me in you, that this mystery (sacramentum)
was made known to me by revelation …" (Eph 3:2f.). Similarly, in Colossians:
"The mystery (sacramentum), which was hidden from the world and from the ages,
is now revealed to His saints, to whom God willed to make known the glorious
riches of this mystery (sacramentum) …" (Col 1:26f.). Likewise in the (first)
letter to Timothy, where it is said: "The mystery of God (sacramentum) is
exceedingly great: God is revealed in the flesh …" (1Tim 3:16). Now the
translator did not want to use the (related) word "arcanum" (hidden thing), so
as not to give the impression of saying something that fell short of the
greatness of things, and therefore he put for "hiddenness", and specifically for
the hiddenness of a holy thing, the word "sacrament". In this meaning the word
occurs again and again in the ecclesiastical writers. It is also sufficiently
known that what the Latins call "sacrament" is called "mystery" by the Greeks,
and this similarity of meaning of the two words puts an end to all dispute. From
here it came that the word "sacra-ment" was transferred to such signs; which
offered a sublime representation of high and spiritual things. This is also
noted by Augustine in one place. He says: "It would go too far if we were to
discuss the variety of signs which, when they refer to divine things, are called
sacraments" (Letter 136,1,7; to Marcellinus).
IV,14,3 From the definition thus established, we now see
further that a sacrament is never without a preceding promise, but that it is
rather added to the promise, as it were, as an appendage. This happens for the
purpose that it affirms and seals the promise itself and makes it better
witnessed to us, yes, as it were valid. For God foresees that it is necessary,
first, for our ignorance and sloth, and secondly, for our weakness. But in this,
God – to speak in the proper sense – has no need both to confirm his holy word,
and rather to strengthen us in our faith in his word. For God’s truth is firm
and sure enough by itself, and it can receive no better affirmation from
elsewhere than from itself. But since our faith is small and weak, it must be
supported from all sides and made firm in every way; otherwise it will soon be
shaken, waver and falter, and even collapse. And here the merciful Lord in His
immeasurable goodness adapts Himself to our capacity. But since we are earthly
beings and as such, always crawling on the ground and clinging to the flesh, are
not able to think anything spiritual and not even to comprehend it, he does it
in such a way that he finds no difficulty in leading us to himself even with
such earthly elements and holding up a mirror of spiritual goods to us in the
flesh itself. If we were in the flesh, as Chrysostom says, the Lord would also
present these goods to us naked and in the flesh. But now, since we have a soul
that is immersed in the body, he gives us the spiritual through the visible
(Sermon 60 to the People). This is not because such gifts, which are given to us
in the sacraments, are in the nature of things; no, they are precisely
designated by God to have this meaning.
IV,14,4 Now this is the sense of the common way of
speaking, that the sacrament consists of the word and the outward sign. When we
speak of the "word", we must not understand by it a word that, whispered without
meaning and without faith, would have the power to sanctify the "element" by its
sound alone – as if we were dealing here with a magic incantation -; no, we must
rather think here of the word that is preached and thereby lets us recognize
what meaning the visible sign has. What happened under the tyranny of the pope
was not without an outrageous desecration of the mysteries (sacraments): it was
thought to be enough if the priest murmured the consecration formula under the
stupefaction of the people, who did not understand anything about the matter.
Indeed, under the pope it was deliberately ensured that the people would not
receive any instruction from this act, namely by speaking everything in Latin in
front of people without scientific education. After that, superstition went so
far that it was thought that the consecration was only done properly if it was
done with a hoarse murmur that only a few people heard. Augustine, on the other
hand, teaches much differently about the word spoken at the sacrament (verbum
sacramentalis). He says: "If the word comes to the element, it becomes a
sacrament. For from where does this mighty power of water, that it touches the
body and washes the heart clean, come other than from the action of the word?
And not because it is spoken, but because it is believed! For even with the word
itself, the fading sound is something different from the lasting power. ’This is
the word of faith which we preach,’ says the apostle (Rom 10:8). Therefore, in
the Acts of the Apostles it says: ’And purified their hearts by faith …’ (Acts
15:9). And the apostle Peter says: ’So also baptism makes us blessed, which is
not the putting away of filthiness of the flesh, but the responsibility of a
good conscience’ (1 Pet. 3:21; not Luther text; Calvin himself translates
instead of ’responsibility’ in Sect. 24: the testimony …). It is the word of
faith that we preach, by which, without any doubt, baptism is also consecrated,
so that it is able to purify" (Homilies on the Gospel of John 80:3). Here we see
how Augustine demands preaching so that faith may grow from it. Nor is there any
need for us to struggle to prove this; for it is clear enough what Christ did,
what he commanded us to do, what the apostles followed, and what the purer
Church has held fast. Yes, it is well known that since the beginning of the
world, as often as God gave any sign to the holy fathers, there was inseparably
connected with it also the Word, without which our senses would be thrown into
confusion by mere (that is, unveiled) looking at it. Therefore, when we hear the
word spoken at the sacrament (verbum sacramentalis) mentioned, let us understand
by it the promise which, preached by the minister (at the word) with a clear
voice, takes the people by the hand and leads them to where the sign is directed
and where it directs us.
IV,14,5 One must also not listen to the people who try to
fight against this with an either-or, which is more perceptive than valid. They
say: Either we know that God’s word, as it precedes the sacrament, is God’s true
will, or we do not know it. If we know it, we learn nothing new from the
sacrament that then follows. But if we do not know it, the sacrament will not
teach it to us either, because its power lies entirely in the word. To this I
will briefly reply. The seals that are attached to official documents and other
public writings are nothing in and of themselves, because they would be attached
to them in vain if nothing were written on the parchment; and yet it is so that
they confirm and seal what is written when they are attached to such writings.
Nor can those people claim that this parable has only recently been brought up
by us; for Paul himself used it, calling circumcision a "seal" (Rom 4:11). In
this passage he asserts with full intention that the circumcision of Abraham was
not for the purpose of acquiring righteousness, but rather represented a seal of
the covenant in which Abraham believed, so that he was justified in that faith.
And I would like to know what reason there should be for anyone to take great
offense at our teaching that the promise is sealed by the sacraments – when it
is clear from the promises themselves that one receives its confirmation through
the other! For the clearer a promise is, the more suitable it is to offer
support to faith. The sacraments, however, carry the clearest promises to us and
have the special advantage over words that they paint these promises as if in a
picture and thus make them vividly present to us. There is, of course, a
difference between the sacraments and the seals attached to the documents, in
that one says that Both consist of the carnal elements of this world, and
therefore the sacraments cannot suffice or be able to seal the promises of God,
which are spiritual and eternal, in the same way as the affixing of seals is
used to confirm princely decrees which refer to impermanent and transitory
things, but we should not be misled by this objection. For when the sacraments
come before the eyes of a believer, he does not dwell on that carnal image, but
ascends in pious contemplation, on the steps of analogy (between the spiritual
meaning and the visible sign) set forth above, to the sublime mysteries which
lie hidden in the sacraments.
IV,14,6 Since the Lord calls His promises covenants (Gen
6,18; 9,9; 17,2) and the sacraments signs of these covenants, a parable can be
drawn from the covenants of men. For what effect would the slaughter of a sow
have if it were not preceded by words, or even if it were not preceded by words?
Very often sows are slaughtered without a deeper or more sublime mystery. What
effect should the handshake (in and of itself) have, when one not infrequently
becomes "hand in hand" with another in a hostile sense? But where words have
preceded, the conditions of the covenant are undoubtedly confirmed by such
signs, although they have already been drawn up, established and decided by
words. The sacraments, then, are exercises which more certainly vouch for the
word of God, and because we are carnal, they are presented among carnal things,
so as to educate us according to the perceptive faculty of our indolent nature,
and to guide us by the hand, as teachers are wont to do with children. In this
sense, Augustine calls the sacrament a "visible word" (Homilies on the Gospel of
John 80:3; Against the Manichaean Faustus 19:16), because it makes God’s
promises present to us as if depicted in a picture, and presents them to us in
painted and pictorial expression. There are also other parables that serve to
define the sacraments more clearly. This is what happens, for example, when we
call them pillars of our faith. For just as a building is erected and rests on
its foundation, but is supported more securely by the underpinning of pillars,
so faith rests on the word of God as on its foundation, but when the sacraments
are added, these act on top of that as pillars on which it rests more firmly. We
have a similar parable when we refer to the sacraments as "mirrors" in which the
riches of God’s grace, which he grants us, can be viewed. For in the sacraments,
as has already been shown, he reveals himself to us as far as it is given to our
shortsightedness to recognize him, and in them he testifies to his benevolence
and love toward us more clearly than is done in words.
IV,14,7 It is also not a sufficiently adequate argument
when the above-mentioned theologians claim that the sacraments are not
testimonies of God’s grace, not because they are also offered to the ungodly. In
fact, the godless do not feel that God is more merciful to them because of the
sacraments, but rather they incur a more serious condemnation. For, according to
the same proof, the gospel would not be a testimony of God’s grace either,
because it is heard and despised by many. Yes, even Christ himself would not be
a testimony of God’s grace, for he was seen and known by a great many people,
among whom there were very few who accepted him. Something similar can be
observed in the documents. For that seal which is to authenticate the author is
ridiculed and scoffed at by very many of the great multitude, although they know
that it went out from the prince to seal his will; others attach no importance
to it at all, as if it were a matter which did not concern them; others there
are who curse it! Sacraments and seals are therefore subject to the same
conditions, and when we see this, the parable we have used above must be more
and more obvious to us. It is certain, then, that the Lord offers us his mercy
and a pledge of his grace both through his word and through the sacraments.
Both, however, are grasped only by those who accept the Word and the sacraments
with certain faith, just as Christ was offered and set before all by the Father
for salvation, but was not recognized and accepted by all. In order to show
this, Augustine said in one place: "The efficacy of the Word is manifested in
the sacrament, not because the Word is spoken, but because it is believed"
(Homilies on the Gospel of John 80:3). Hence it is that when Paul speaks to
believers, he speaks of the sacraments in such a way as to include communion
with Christ in them. So he does, for example, when he says, "For how many of
your … have been baptized, they have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27). Or likewise
when he writes: "One body and one Spirit are we all who are baptized into
Christ" (1Cor 12:12 s.; not Luther text). If, on the other hand, he speaks of
the wrong use of the sacraments, he does not give them any other value than
meaningless and empty images. In this way he indicates that however much the
godless and hypocrites in their perversity may suppress, obscure, or hinder the
effect of the sacraments, there is nothing to prevent these sacraments, where
and as often as it pleases God, from bearing true witness to communion with
Christ, and that the Spirit of God also offers precisely what the sacraments
promise. We conclude, then, that it is true when the sacraments are described as
testimonies of God’s grace and, as it were, as seals of the kindness that God
bears toward us in his heart, as seals that seal such kindness of God to us and
thereby support, sustain, strengthen, and increase our faith. But the reasons
that some people bring against this proposition are completely insignificant and
powerless. They say that if our faith is good, it cannot become better, for it
is faith only if it rests unshaken, firmly and irrevocably on God’s mercy.
Whoever speaks in this way would have done better to pray with the apostles that
the Lord would increase his faith (Lk 17:5), than to carelessly claim such a
perfection of faith as no one of the children of men has ever attained and no
one will attain in this life. Let them tell me what kind of faith they think
that man had who said, "I believe, Lord, help my unbelief" (Mark 9:24). For
although this man’s faith was still in its infancy, it was good and could be
made better by removing unbelief. But for the refutation of these people there
is no stronger proof than their own conscience; for if they confess that they
are sinners – and they cannot deny this, whether they want to or not – they must
inevitably attribute this very fact to the imperfection of their faith!
IV,14,8 Yes, they say, but Philip gave the answer to the
"eunuch" that he could be baptized if he believed with all his heart (Acts
8,37)! What place should the confirmation (of faith) by baptism have here, since
faith fills the whole heart? I would like to ask them, if they do not notice
that a large part of their heart is still empty of faith, and if they do not
recognize that faith is growing day by day. There was once a man who boasted
that he would become an old man through his learning. So if we Christians would
become old men without progressing in the meantime, we would be threefold
miserable people, when our faith has to progress through all ages until it grows
to an existence as a "perfect man" (Eph 4,13). So when it says in that passage
(Acts 8:37): "believe with all your heart" it does not mean: believe completely
in Christ, but only: accept Him with all your heart and with a sincere mind; it
does not mean that you are satiated by Him, but that you hunger, thirst and long
for Him with fervent zeal. Scripture has the habit of saying that something is
done "with all my heart" when it wants to indicate that it is done sincerely and
with a right will. In this sense it is said, "I seek you with all my heart" (Ps
119:10), or, "I thank the Lord with all my heart" (Ps 111:1; 138:1), or
similar. In the same way, Scripture, when it rebukes deceivers or liars,
reproaches such people with having a double (Luther: discordant) heart (Ps
12:3). But the above-mentioned people continue to say that if faith is increased
by the sacraments, then the Holy Spirit is given in vain, for it is His power
and work to begin, maintain and complete faith! I admit to them that faith is
the real and complete work of the Holy Spirit: if we are enlightened by Him, we
recognize God and the treasures of His goodness, but without His light our mind
is so blind that it sees nothing of spiritual things, and so dull that it cannot
even receive a smell of them. However, instead of the one benefit of God that
those theologians preach, let us consider their three. For, first, the Lord
teaches and instructs us by his Word; secondly, he strengthens us by the
sacraments; and finally, he enlightens our minds by the light of his Holy
Spirit, and through him opens to the Word and sacraments the entrance to our
hearts; for otherwise they would merely sound at our ears or be placed before
our eyes, but would in no way touch the interior.
IV,14,9 So, when I speak of a strengthening and increase
of faith through the sacraments, I would like the reader’s attention to be drawn
to the following – as I hope to have already stated in very clear terms: If I
attribute this service to the sacraments, it is not as if I were of the opinion
that they have a permanent, I do not know what kind of hidden power by which
they are able to promote and strengthen the faith from within themselves; no,
this service is based on the fact that the sacraments are instituted by the Lord
to serve for the consolidation and increase of the faith. Moreover, they perform
their function properly only when they are joined by that inward teacher, the
Holy Spirit, by whose power alone the hearts are penetrated and the
sensibilities moved, and the sacraments have access to our souls. If the Holy
Spirit is not present, the sacraments can give no more to our hearts than if the
radiance of the sun shines to blind eyes or a voice sounds to deaf ears. Between
the Spirit and the sacraments, then, I divide in such a way that with the Spirit
lies the power to work, but to the sacraments is left exclusively the service,
and that service which without the action of the Spirit remains empty and
insubstantial, but is filled with great power when the Spirit is at work within
and reveals his power. Now it is clear in what way, according to the view
presented here, a devout heart is strengthened in faith by the sacraments: this
happens precisely in the way that the eyes also see by the brilliance of the sun
and the ears hear at the sound of a voice. But the eyes would not be touched in
any way by any light if they did not possess an inherent power of sight which
now grasps the light of its own accord, and the ears would be struck in vain by
any sound if they were not born and prepared to hear. That which produces in our
eyes the sight that enables us to perceive the light, and that which produces in
our ears the hearing that enables us to hear a voice, is in our hearts the work
of the Holy Spirit, which is effective in starting, sustaining, maintaining and
strengthening faith. If this is true – and it should be established for us once
and for all – then the following double fact also results from it: on the one
hand, the sacraments do not accomplish the least without the power of the Holy
Spirit, and on the other hand, there is nothing to contradict the fact that they
make faith stronger and greater in our hearts, which have already been
instructed by that teacher (i.e. the Holy Spirit). There is only one difference:
the ability to hear and see is given to our ears and eyes by nature, while
Christ, on the other hand, produces such effects in our hearts by special grace,
beyond the measure of nature.
IV,14,10 With this, at the same time, some objections are
refuted, such as many people hold in fear. Thus it is said that if we maintain
that creatures can serve for the growth and confirmation of faith, this does
dishonor to the Spirit of God, for He alone must be acknowledged as the giver of
such growth and confirmation. (This objection is settled.) For if we speak in
this way, we do not in any way take away from the Holy Spirit the praise that he
strengthens and makes our faith grow; no, we rather maintain that this very work
of increasing and strengthening our faith is nothing else than that he prepares
our hearts with the inner illumination he has wrought, so that they receive that
strengthening which is given to us by the sacraments. What has been too obscure
in what has been said so far will become completely clear in the following
parable that I will now give. If you undertake to persuade a man by words to do
something, then you will consider all the reasons by which he might be drawn to
your view and virtually compelled to be obedient to your advice. But all effort
will be in vain if he is not of a perceptive, keen judgment, so as to be able to
consider the weight to be attached to your reasons; all effort will be in vain
if he is not teachable in his nature and ready to listen to instruction – and
if, finally, he does not have that opinion of your reliability and prudence
which could form for him, as it were, a provisional judgment which would lead
him to give his assent to everything. For there are many hard-headed people whom
you will never be able to guide with any reasons; and where your reliability is
suspected, where your authority is despised, there will be little that can be
done even with teachable people. On the other hand, where the above conditions
are all present, they will certainly have the effect that the man to whom you
give your advice will rely on it, while in the other case he would have
ridiculed it. This is precisely the work that the Holy Spirit does for us: so
that the word does not ring in vain in our ears and the sacraments do not appear
before our eyes in vain, he points out that it is God who speaks to us in them,
he softens the rebelliousness of our hearts and prepares them for the obedience
that is due to the word of the Lord. In short, he carries those outward words
and sacraments from the ears into the soul. The Word as well as the sacraments,
then, confirm our faith by setting before us the good will of the heavenly
Father toward us, through the knowledge of which the whole firmness of our faith
is sustained and its power increases. The Spirit, on the other hand, affirms our
faith by engraving such affirmation (effected by word and sacraments) in our
hearts, thus making it effective. However, the Father of lights cannot be
forbidden to illuminate our hearts through the sacraments, just as he
illuminates our physical eyes with the rays of the sun.
IV,14,11 That this quality (to strengthen and increase
our faith) is inherent in the external word, the Lord demonstrated by calling it
"seed" (Mt 13,3-23; Lk 8,5-15). For if a seed has fallen into a desolate
and neglected piece of land, it cannot but die; but if it has been thrown into a
properly cultivated and cared-for seed field, it will bring forth its fruit with
the best profit. Likewise, if the word of God falls on some hard neck, it
remains without fruit, as if it had been thrown on the sand, as it were; but if
it meets a soul that has been taken under the plow by the hand of the Spirit
from heaven, it will bear the richest fruit. If the seed and the word are the
same, and the grain is born of the seed, grows and comes to maturity, why should
we not also say that faith receives its origin, growth and perfection from the
word? Paul sets both apart excellently in various places. He wants to remind the
Corinthians how effectively God used his ministry (1Cor 2:4), and for this
purpose he boasts of having the "ministry of the Spirit" (2Cor 3:6), as if the
power of the Holy Spirit was connected to his preaching by an indissoluble bond
to enlighten and move the heart. In another place, however, he wants to draw
attention to what power the word preached by man has of itself, and for this
purpose he compares the servants (i.e. the preachers) to tillers of the soil,
who apply their labor and diligence to cultivate the land, but then have nothing
further to do. What good would plowing and sowing and watering be if what is
sown were not made fruitful by heavenly beneficence? From here Paul comes to the
conclusion that both he who plants and he who waters are nothing, but everything
must be attributed to God, who alone gives prosperity (1Cor 3:6-9). So the
apostles in their preaching make manifest the power of the Spirit insofar as God
uses the instruments He has ordained for the unfolding of His spiritual grace.
And yet we must hold that difference, that we consider what man is able to do of
himself, and what is proper to God.
IV,14,12 Now as to the sacraments, they are in such
measure affirmations of our faith that sometimes when the Lord wants to take
away confidence in the things He has promised in the sacraments, He takes away
the sacraments themselves. When he takes away the gift of immortality from Adam
and expels him from it, he says: "… lest he … break from the fruit of life
and live forever" (Gen 3,22). What do we hear here? Was this "fruit" able to
give Adam back the immortality he had already lost? No, not at all! But it is as
if God had said: so that Adam does not nourish a vain confidence in himself, if
he still possesses the mark of my promise, let it be taken away from him what
could give him some hope of immortality. Paul also speaks in this sense; he
admonishes the Ephesians to remember that they had been strangers to the
promises, "apart from the citizenship of Israel," without God, without Christ
(Eph 2:12), and in doing so he also says that they had not been partakers of the
description (Eph 2:11). Thus, by instituting the one term for a relative (metonymice),
he gives to understand that, not having received the pledge of the promise, they
were also excluded from the promise itself. Now the above theologians, as stated
(cf. beginning of section 10), make yet another objection. They think that our
view transfers the glory of God to creatures: these are granted so much power,
and thus the glory of God is entered in the same measure. To this it is easy to
reply: we do not put any power into creatures at all: only this we say: God uses
means and instruments of which he himself foreknows that they are useful;
everything is to be serviceable to his glory, since he himself is Lord and
Controller of all. Just as he sustains our bodies through bread and other foods,
as he makes the world bright through the sun, as he warms it through fire, – and
as neither the bread nor the sun nor the fire are anything, but only in so far
as he distributes his blessings to us through the mediation of these
instruments, so he also nourishes our faith spiritually through the sacraments,
whose only office it is to set his promises visibly before us, even to be their
pledges for us. And as it is our duty not to attach any confidence to the other
creatures, which by God’s beneficence are destined for our use, and through
whose ministry he bestows upon us the gifts of his goodness, and not to admire
and praise them as causes of our welfare, so our confidence must not attach
itself to the sacraments, and God’s glory must not be transferred to them, but
our faith and confession must leave all this aside and ascend to the Giver
himself, who has given us the sacraments as well as all things!
IV,14,13 Finally, there are some people who (in support
of the view rejected here) bring forward a proof based on the word "sacrament."
But this proof is not valid. This word, they say, has many meanings in the
recognized (Roman) writers; but among them there is only one that fits the
signs: that is, that in which "sacrament" means a solemn oath, such as the
soldier makes to the commander when he enters military service. For just as the
newly entering soldiers bind their allegiance to the commander with this oath of
war and make the confession that they now want to be soldiers, so we confess
Christ as our field commander with our signs and testify that we do military
service under his signs. Those theologians also add parables here to make the
matter clearer. Just as the toga, they say, distinguished the Romans from the
Greeks, who wore their Greek cloak, and just as in Rome the classes were
distinguished from one another by the signs peculiar to them, the member of a
senatorial family from the knight by the purple and the sickle-shaped decoration
on his shoes, the knight again from the man of the common people by the ring –
so also we bear our marks, which are to distinguish us from the people of the
world. Now it is more than clear from our above explanation that the ancients
(i.e. the Fathers of the Church), who attached the name "sacraments" to the
signs, did not at all take into consideration the sense in which the
(non-ecclesiastical) Latin writers used this word, but that they attached this
new meaning to the word, as it seemed convenient to them, in order to use it
simply to refer to the sacred signs. If we want to let our acumen penetrate more
deeply, it can perhaps be seen in this way: if the Fathers of the Church turned
the term "sacrament" in such a way that it got the meaning mentioned, they
proceeded in exactly the same way as with the word "faith" (fides), so that it
got the sense in which it is used today; for "faith" actually means the "truth"
(= truthfulness) in the fulfillment of promises; nevertheless, the ancients
understood by faith the certainty or the sure conviction which one had of the
truth itself. In the same way it has happened with the word "sacrament":
although it actually means the oath with which the soldier pledges himself to
his commander, one has made of it an oath of the commander, by virtue of which
he receives the soldiers into his host. For through the sacraments the Lord
promises to be our God and we should be his people. But we leave aside such
sophistical inquiries, since I believe I have proved with sufficiently clear
reasons that the ancients had nothing else in view by their use of "sacrament"
than to express that the sacraments are signs of holy and spiritual things. The
parables of the external signs of status which those people put forward we allow
to stand, but we do not tolerate their making what is subordinate in the
sacraments the first or only thing about them. But the first thing about the
sacraments is that they serve our faith before God, and the subordinate thing is
that they testify to our confession before men. It is in the latter sense that
the parables are valid. Meanwhile, however, that first is to remain; for the
sacraments, as we saw, would otherwise become meaningless if they were not aids
to our faith and appendages to doctrine, which are to be serviceable to the same
use and purpose (as the latter).
IV,14,14 Conversely, we must be made aware of the
following: as the last mentioned people weaken the power of the sacraments and
completely abolish their use, so there are others on the opposite side who
attribute to the sacraments I don’t know what kind of hidden powers, of which
one nowhere gets to read that they were put into them by God. By this error,
simple-minded and inexperienced people are dangerously deceived, because on the
one hand they are taught to look for God’s gifts where they are not to be found
at all, and on the other hand they are gradually withdrawn from God, so that
they accept nothing but vanity instead of His truth. In fact, the schools of the
scholastics were unanimous in their teaching that the sacraments of the "new
law," i.e., the sacraments that are practiced by the Christian church today,
provide us with justification and grant us grace, provided we do not commit a
"mortal sin" and thereby prevent their effect. It is impossible to express in
words how deadly and pernicious this opinion is, all the more so because it has
been established in a significant part of the world for many centuries, to the
great detriment of the Church. In any case, it is decidedly diabolical; for by
promising righteousness without faith, it plunges souls headlong into ruin, and
since it further derives the cause of righteousness from the sacraments, it
entangles the poor souls of men, who are already more than enough directed to
earth in and of themselves, in the superstition that they rely on the sight of a
bodily thing rather than on God Himself. Would to God that we did not know both
these things so precisely from experience! In any case, there can be so little
talk about it that it would need a detailed proof! What then is a sacrament
received without faith but the utterly certain ruin of the church? For nothing
can be expected from the sacrament apart from the promise, and the promise
threatens unbelievers with wrath no less than it offers grace to believers.
Therefore, whoever thinks that he will receive more through the sacraments than
what is offered to him in the Word of God and what he then takes with true faith
is deceiving himself. From this then follows a second thing: confidence in
salvation does not depend on participation in the sacrament, as if justification
lay therein; for we know that justification rests in Christ alone, and is
communicated to us no less by the preaching of the gospel than by the sealing
which the sacraments confer upon us, and that it can fully exist even without
such sealing. In this respect it is true what Augustine also writes: "The
invisible sanctification can be without the visible sign, and on the other hand
the visible sign can be without the true sanctification" (Questions on the
Heptateuch III, 84). "For men," as Augustine also says elsewhere, "sometimes
draw Christ so far as to receive the sacraments, and sometimes so far as to
sanctify their lives. Now the former may be common to good and evil; but the
latter is proper (alone) to the good and pious" (Of Baptism Against the
Donatists V,24,34).
IV,14,15 Hence also comes – if it be rightly understood –
the distinction frequently noted by the same Augustine between the sacrament and
the thing signified by the sacrament (res sacramenti). For this not only gives
to understand that image and truth are enclosed together by the sacrament, but
also that they are not so much related that they cannot be separated, and that
even in the relatedness itself the thing must always be distinguished from the
sign, lest we transfer to the one what is proper to the other. He speaks of
separation (of sign and thing) when he writes that the sacraments effect what
they depict in the elect alone. Likewise, he speaks of the separation when he
says about the Jews: "Although the sacraments were common to all, grace was not
common to all – and yet it is the power of the sacraments! Likewise, the bath of
regeneration (Tit 3:5) is common to all today; but grace itself, by virtue of
which the members of Christ are reborn with their head, is not common to all
alone" (on Ps 77:2). Again, in another place he writes about the Lord’s Supper:
"Today we also receive a visible food; but the sacrament is something different
from the power of the sacrament. How is it that many receive the sacrament from
the altar, and yet die, yea, that they die by receiving the sacrament? For even
the morsel that the Lord gave to Judas became poison to him, not because Judas
had received something evil, but because, being evil, he received the good evil"
(Homilies on the Gospel of John 26:11). A little later he writes: "The sacrament
which this thing means, namely, the unity in the body and blood of Christ, is
prepared in some places every day, in some places also at certain intervals, on
the table of the Lord, and from the table some receive it to life, others to
destruction. But the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament (and sign), is
unto life to all them that partake of it, and to none it is unto destruction"
(Homilies on the Gospel of John 26:15). A little earlier he had said, "He who
has eaten of it shall not die – but this is he who belongs to the power of the
sacrament, not to the visible sacrament, who eats it internally, not externally,
who eats it with the heart, and not he who crushes it with the teeth" (Homilies
on the Gospel of John 26:12). Here we hear everywhere: the sacrament is so cut
off from its truth by the unworthiness of the one who receives it, that nothing
remains but an empty and useless image. So that one does not have a sign that is
stripped of its truth, but rather the thing together with the sign, one must
take hold in faith of the word that is included in it. Therefore, to the extent
that one advances in communion with Christ through the sacraments, one will
benefit from them.
IV,14,16 If these explanations are still too unclear for
the sake of their brevity, I will elaborate them in more words. I maintain:
Christ is the matter or, if one prefers, the substance of all sacraments; for
they have all their substance in him, and apart from him they promise nothing.
The less is the error of Peter Lombardus to be borne, who expressly declares the
sacraments to be the cause of righteousness and blessedness, of which they are
(yet in fact) parts (Sentences IV,1,5). Therefore, we should reasonably abandon
all the causes that the mind of man invents, and let ourselves stick to this
single one (namely, to Christ). So, as far as the service of the sacraments
helps us, that on the one hand the true knowledge of Christ is preserved,
strengthened and increased in us, and on the other hand we possess Him more
completely and enjoy His riches, so far their effect is on us. But this happens
when we accept in true faith what is offered to us in the sacraments. Do the
ungodly, it will be asked, manage by their ingratitude to make God’s order lose
its validity and become null and void? I answer that what I have said is not to
be understood as if the power or the truth of the sacrament depended on the
condition or even on the discretion of the one who receives it. For what God has
established remains firm and retains its nature, however much men may change.
But offering and accepting are two different things, and therefore there is
nothing to prevent the mark, sanctified by the word of the Lord, from being in
fact what it ought to be in name, and from retaining its force – while yet no
benefit whatever accrues from it to a good-for-nothing and godless man. But this
question Augustin resolves impeccably in a few words; he says: "If you receive
it carnally, it does not cease to be spiritual-but to you it is not spiritual."
But as he sets forth in the passages given above that the sacrament is a thing
of no consequence if separated from its truth (cf. Homilies on the Gospel of
John 26:11 s.15; previous section), so elsewhere he calls attention to the fact
that even in the connection of sign and thing a distinction is necessary, lest
we become too firmly attached to the outward sign. "As it is a sign of servile
weakness," he says, "to attach to the letter and take signs for things, so it is
also a sign of evil circumlocution to interpret signs uselessly" (Of Christian
Instruction III:9). He mentions two errors to be avoided; one is that we take
the signs as if they were given in vain, and then in our wickedness diminish or
belittle their hidden meanings, causing them to bear us no fruit; the other
error we commit when we do not raise our senses on high above the visible sign,
thus transferring to the sign the praise for the goods that are granted to us
solely by Christ, through the Holy Spirit who makes us partakers of Christ
Himself. Now this work (of the Holy Spirit) is done with the aid of the outward
signs; but if these, while inviting us to Christ, are turned in another
direction, all their usefulness is ignominiously abolished.
IV,14,17 Therefore it must stand firm that the sacraments
have no other task than the word of God. This task is to present and set before
us Christ, and in Him all the treasures of heavenly grace. But the sacraments
grant and benefit us nothing if they are not received in faith. I will give an
example: if wine or water or any other liquid is poured out abundantly, it will
all flow away and be lost if the mouth of the vessel is not open, and the vessel
itself will be poured over and over, but will remain empty and hollow. Moreover,
we must be careful not to fall into another error similar to the one just
mentioned: namely, we might be tempted to do so by the somewhat too grandiose
statements written by the ancients to glorify the dignity of the sacraments.
This error would consist in thinking that there is some hidden power attached or
attached to the sacraments, by virtue of which they could bestow upon us of
themselves the graces of the Holy Spirit, as wine is bestowed in a milk jug. In
fact, however, they have been given only this one office by God, to testify and
confirm God’s kindness toward us, and they cannot be of any further use to us
than only when the Holy Spirit joins in, opening our minds and hearts and making
them receptive to such testimony. Then also the manifold and various gifts of
God shine radiantly. For the sacraments, as I indicated above, are to us from
God what messengers of joyful events are to men, or pledges in the confirmation
of covenants; for they do not of themselves grant us any grace, but they make
known to us what has been given to us out of God’s bounty, pointing to it and,
since they are pledges and marks, confirming it in us. It is the Holy Spirit,
whom the sacraments do not bestow indiscriminately on all, but whom the Lord
bestows on His own in particular, who brings God’s gifts of grace with Him, who
makes room for the sacraments in us, and who causes them to bear fruit. Of
course, we do not deny that God himself assists his foundation with the most
effective power of his Spirit, so that the distribution of the sacraments
decreed by him is not unfruitful and vain. But we do maintain that the inward
grace of the Spirit, which is indeed distinct from the outward ministry, must
accordingly be observed and considered in its own right. God, therefore, grants
in truth all that he promises and represents figuratively in the signs, and the
signs do not remain without effect, so that it may be proved that their giver is
true and faithful. The only question here is whether God works out of his own
or, as we say, out of his inherent power – or whether he leaves his substitution
to the external signs. But we now maintain that, whatever tools he may use, he
nevertheless does not in any way refrain from his all-founding activity. When
the sacraments are taught in this way, their dignity is glorified, their use is
clearly indicated, their benefits are abundantly glorified, and at the same time
the best measure is observed in all this, so that nothing is attributed to them
that does not rightly belong to them, and on the other hand nothing is denied to
them that belongs to them. In this way, that fantasy is also dismissed in which
the cause of justification and the power of the Holy Spirit are enclosed in the
elements as in vessels or chariots – and at the same time, that most noble power
of the sacraments, which other people have left aside, is explicitly stated.
Here we must also remark that what the minister (at the Word) pictures and
witnesses in his outward action is wrought by God Himself within, lest what He
reserves for Himself alone should be transferred to a mortal man. Augustine also
draws attention to this in an understandable way; he says: "How can it come
about that Moses sanctifies – and also God? Moses does not do it in God’s stead.
No, he acts with visible sacraments through his ministry, but God in invisible
grace through the Holy Spirit, and therein also lies the whole fruit of the
visible sacraments. For what good are they without such sanctification by
invisible grace?" (Questions on the Heptateuch III,84).
IV,14,18 The term "sacrament," in the sense in which we
have thus far set it forth, embraces in general all the signs which God has ever
enjoined upon men to make them certain and sure of the truth of his promises.
Now sometimes these signs have consisted in natural things according to his
will, sometimes he has brought them to light in miracles. Examples of the first
kind include the following events. God gave to Adam and Eve the "tree of life"
as a pledge of immortality, so that they might hope for such immortality
unconcernedly as long as they ate of the fruit of that tree (Gen 2:9; 3:22).
For Noah and his descendants, he set up the rainbow as a memorial sign that he
would not again devastate the earth with a flood (Gen 9:13). These signs were
sacraments for Adam and Noah. Not that the tree would have granted them
immortality, which it was not able to give itself, or that the rainbow, which is
only a reflection of the sunshine on the clouds opposite, would have been able
to hold back the masses of water. No, they were sacraments, because both bore a
sign engraved in them by God’s Word, so that they would be proofs and seals of
God’s covenants. Also, before, the tree was a tree and the bow was a bow; but
when they were marked by God’s Word, they were given a new form, so that they
now began to be something they had not been before. Lest anyone think that this
is said in vain, the bow is still today, for us, a witness to the covenant that
the Lord made with Noah, and as often as we look at it, we read in it God’s
promise that the earth shall never perish by a flood. So if some
pseudo-philosopher wants to ridicule the simplicity of our faith and to this end
makes the assertion that such a multiplicity of colors would arise naturally
from the reflection of rays and an opposite cloud, we will well let this stand –
but we now laugh on our part at his obtuseness, which does not recognize God as
the Lord and Controller of nature, who uses all elements at his discretion for
the service of his glory. If he had impressed such marks of thought upon the
sun, the stars, the earth, and the stones, they would all be sacraments to us.
For why is not raw and minted silver of the same value, although it is (in both
cases) the same metal? Precisely because the raw silver has nothing but its
nature, whereas the silver, struck with the official stamp, becomes a coin and
receives a new valuation. And then shouldn’t God be able to mark his creatures
with his word, so that they become sacraments, whereas before they were mere
elements? Examples of the second group of signs were when God showed Abraham a
glow of fire at a smoking furnace (Gen 15:17), when, in order to promise
victory to Gideon, he moistened the hide with dew while the earth remained dry,
and again covered the earth with dew while the hide remained untouched (Judg.
6:37f.), and when he made the shadow of the sundial go ten strokes backward to
make the promise to Hezekiah that he would be healed (2Ki 20:9-11; Isa
38:7). Since these events happened to give help and strengthening to the
weakness of the faith of these people, they were also sacraments.
IV,14,19 However, it is the task of the discussion here
to deal in a special way with those sacraments which, according to the will of
the Lord, are to be in regular use in His Church, in order to call His servants
and servants to one faith and to the confession of that one faith. "For" – to
use Augustine’s words – "men cannot grow together into any religion, true or
false, unless they are bound together by a common participation in visible
signs" (Against Faustus the Manichee XIX,11). Since our glorious Father, then,
provided for this necessity, he established certain exercises of piety for his
servants from the beginning. These Satan then transferred to godless and
superstitious worship, and thus distorted and corrupted in many ways. Here come
the acts by which the heathen were initiated into their sacred things, and also
the other degenerate customs, which, though filled with error and superstition,
were at the same time themselves a sign that men, in professing a religion,
could not dispense with such signs. But because these customs were not based on
the Word of God, nor did they have any relation to the truth, which must be the
aim of all signs, they are not worthy of being mentioned when we think of the
sacred signs which were established by God and did not deviate from their
foundation, that is, from the fact that they should be aids to true piety. Now
these do not consist in simple signs, as the rainbow and the tree (of life)
were, but in ceremonies; or, if you prefer, the signs given here are ceremonies.
And just as, according to our exposition above, they are from the Lord
testimonies of grace and salvation, so again from us they are marks of our
confession, by which we publicly swear by God’s name, and bind our allegiance to
Him in our turn. It is therefore fitting when Chrysostom calls these signs in
one place (contractual) promises in which, on the one hand, God allies us to
Himself and, on the other, we commit ourselves to the purity and holiness of our
lives. For here a mutual contractual obligation is actually established between
God and us. Just as the Lord promises here that he will wipe out and redeem all
the guilt and punishment we have incurred through our transgressions, and just
as he reconciles us to himself in his only begotten Son, so on the other hand,
through this confession, we commit ourselves to strive for piety and innocence.
It can therefore be said with good reason that the sacraments are such
ceremonies by which God wishes to exercise His people, first, in nourishing,
awakening, and confirming the faith within, and second, in confessing His
religion before men as well.
IV,14,20 These sacraments also varied according to the
different circumstances of the time, according to the order in which it pleased
the Lord to make Himself known to men, sometimes in one way and sometimes in
another. Thus circumcision was enjoined upon Abraham and his posterity (Gen
17:10), and to it were later added purifications, sacrifices and other
observances based on the Mosaic Law (Lev 11-15; Lev 1-10). These were the
sacraments of the Jews until the coming of Christ. By the coming of Christ they
were abolished, and now two sacraments were instituted which are in practice
with the Christian church today, namely baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Mt
29:19; 26:26-28). Now I speak here of the sacraments which are instituted to be
practiced by the whole church. For although I do not dislike the fact that the
laying on of hands, with which the ministers of the church are initiated into
their office, is also called a sacrament, I do not count it among the ordinary
sacraments. But what meaning is to be given to the other "sacraments" which are
generally enumerated as such, we shall soon see. However, those ancient
sacraments also referred to the same point of reference that ours serve today:
they were supposed to lead to Christ and to guide us by the hand to him, or
better: they were supposed to make him present in images and to make him known,
so that he would be recognized. For we have already shown that the sacraments
are, as it were, seals with which the promises of God are sealed, and it is also
absolutely certain that no promise of God has ever been made to man except in
Christ (2Cor 1:20); therefore, if the sacraments are to tell us of any promise
of God, they must necessarily show us Christ! Here is to be mentioned that
heavenly archetype of the tabernacle and of the worship prescribed in the law,
which was held before Moses on the mountain (Ex 25:9, 40; 26:30). There is only
one difference between the sacraments of the Old Covenant and those of the New
Covenant, that those foreshadowed the promised Christ when He was still
expected, whereas these testify to Christ as the One already granted and
revealed to us.
IV,14,21 When these things are explained piece by piece
and in their details, they will become much clearer. Circumcision was a marker
for the Jews to call their attention to the fact that everything that comes from
the seed of man, that is, the whole nature of man, is corrupt and in need of
circumcision; moreover, it was a proof and a reminder by which they were to
strengthen themselves in the promise made to Abraham, the promise of the blessed
Seed in whom "all the nations of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen 22,16), and
from which they could expect their blessing also for themselves. This salvific
seed, as we are taught by Paul, was Christ (Gal 3,16), in whom alone they hoped
to regain what they had lost in Adam. Circumcision was therefore for them what
it had been for Abraham according to Paul’s teaching, namely a "seal of the
righteousness of faith" (Rom 4:11), that is, a seal by which they were to be
more certainly confirmed that their faith, with which they expected that seed,
was counted to them by God for righteousness. But we shall pursue the comparison
between circumcision and baptism elsewhere at a better opportunity. Washings and
cleansings showed the people of the Old Covenant their uncleanness, impurity and
defilement with which they were defiled in their nature; but they also promised
them another bath by which all their filth would be wiped away and washed away
(Hebr 9:10: 14). Now this new bath was Christ, and by His blood washed clean (1
John 1:7; Acts 1:5) we bear His purity before God’s face, that it might cover
all our defilement. The sacrifices convicted the ancients of their
unrighteousness and at the same time taught them that some satisfaction was
necessary by virtue of which God’s judgment would be satisfied. They thus
learned that a supreme priest would come, a mediator between God and men, who
would make satisfaction to God by the shedding of his blood and by the offering
of a sacrifice sufficient for the forgiveness of sins. This supreme priest was
Christ (Hebr 4:14; 5:5; 9:11): he shed his own blood, he himself was the
sacrifice; for he proved obedient to the Father unto death (Phil 2:8) and by
this obedience put away the disobedience of man that had provoked God’s wrath
(Rom 5:19).
IV,14,22 As for our (present) sacraments, they present
Christ to us all the more clearly, since He has also been revealed to men more
closely since He was presented by the Father in truth as He was promised. For
baptism testifies that we are cleansed and washed away, and Holy Communion that
we are redeemed. In the water the washing away is pictured, in the blood the
satisfaction. Both are found in Christ, who, as John says, came "with water and
blood" (1Jn 5:6), that is, who came to cleanse and redeem. The Spirit of God
is also a witness to this. Yes, there are three that witness it together, the
water, the blood and the spirit (1. John 5,7f.). In the water and in the blood
we have the testimony of our cleansing and our redemption, but the Spirit as the
supreme witness gives us the certainty of faith in such testimony. This sublime
mystery is gloriously set before us (in that event) at the cross of Christ, when
water and blood flowed from His holy side (John 19:34), which for this reason
Augustine also rightly called the fountain of our sacraments (Homilies on the
Gospel of John 120:2; on Ps 40:10; on Ps 126:7; on Ps 138:2; Homily
5:3). Of these our sacraments, however, we must speak in a little more detail.
That here also the grace of the Spirit is more abundantly manifested (than in
the old sacraments) is, comparing time with time, not subject to doubt. For this
belongs to the glory of the kingdom of Christ, as we learn from many passages,
especially from the seventh chapter of the Gospel of John (John 7,38f.). In this
sense we must also understand Paul’s word that under the law there were
"shadows", but in Christ there was a "body" (Col 2,17). In this passage, he
does not intend to remove the effect of the testimonies of grace with which God
wanted to prove Himself true to the fathers in the past, just as He does to us
today in baptism and Holy Communion, but he wants to praise by way of comparison
what has been given to us, so that no one will be surprised that through
Christ’s coming the ceremonies of the law have been abolished.
IV,14,23 The scholastic doctrine, however, according to
which there is such a great difference between the sacraments of the "old" and
those of the "new law", as if the latter had merely indicated the grace of God,
while the latter offered it as present, is to be rejected completely. For when
Paul teaches that the fathers ate the same spiritual food with us, and when he
explains that this food is Christ (1Cor 10:5), he speaks of the sacrament of
the old covenant just as powerfully as of those of today. Who would dare to
declare that sign to be without content, which after all offered the Jews true
fellowship with Christ? Also, the state of Paul’s discussion in this passage
clearly argues for us. For Paul wants to prevent that someone, trusting in an
unsubstantial knowledge of Christ, in the empty name of Christianity and in the
outward signs, dares to despise God’s judgment. To this end, he brings forward
the evidence of divine severity that can be seen in the Jews: we are to know
that the same punishments that they had to endure also threaten us if we indulge
in the same vices. In order for the comparison to fit, however, he had to show
that there is no dissimilarity between us and the Jews with respect to the goods
of which, according to his instruction, we should not falsely boast. Therefore,
first of all, he declares that they are equal to us in the sacraments, and does
not leave us one bit of privilege that could encourage us to hope that we would
remain unpunished (in case of such contempt of God’s judgment). Nor may we
ascribe more to our baptism than Paul elsewhere ascribed to circumcision,
calling it a "seal of the righteousness of faith" (Rom 4:11). Everything that
is offered to us today in the sacraments, therefore, was received by the Jews in
theirs in the past, namely Christ with his spiritual riches. The power that our
sacraments have, they also felt in theirs, namely that they served them as a
seal of divine benevolence towards them, for the hope of eternal bliss. If the
scholastics had been skillful interpreters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they
would not have fallen into delusions of this kind; but in fact they now read in
this Epistle that sins had not been atoned for by the ceremonies of the law,
indeed that the old shadows had no significance for righteousness (Hebr 10:1),
and then they left aside the comparison, which is under discussion there, only
the one sentence, that the law did not bring any benefit to its servants by
itself – and thereby gained the opinion, that it was simply a matter of images,
which would have been empty of truth. The intention of the apostle, on the other
hand, is to deny any value to the ceremonial law until one comes to Christ, on
whom alone rests all its efficacy.
IV,14,24 But the scholastics hold against us the words
that can be read in Paul about the circumcision of the letter, namely that it
has no value before God, brings no benefit and is vain (Rom 2,25; 1Cor 7,19;
Gal 6,15). Such statements seem to push circumcision deep below our baptism. I
answer: no, not at all. For the same could rightly have been said of baptism.
Yes, it is indeed said of it, and first of all by Paul himself, in that he sets
forth that God does not care at all about the outward washing away by which we
receive our admission into religion, unless our hearts are cleansed inwardly and
also remain in such purity to the utmost (1Cor 10:5). Secondly, it is also
expressed by Peter, who testifies that the truth of baptism does not lie in the
outward washing away, but in the testimony of a good conscience (1 Pet. 3:21).
But – one objects – Paul seems to fully despise the hand circumcision in another
place, comparing it (to its disadvantage) with the circumcision of Christ (Col
2,11). I answer that also in this passage no entry is made to the dignity of
circumcision. Paul argues here against such people who demanded circumcision as
necessary, while it had already been abolished. Therefore he admonishes the
believers to let go of the old shadows and to stand firm on the truth. Those
teachers, he says, urge that your bodies be circumcised. But you are spiritually
circumcised, according to soul and body. So you have the revelation of the thing
- and this is far more important than the shadow! Now someone could have
objected that even though they had the thing, the image was not to be despised;
for even among the fathers there had been that putting away of the old man of
which the image spoke, and yet for them the outward circumcision had not been
superfluous. Paul avoids this objection by adding that the Colossians were
buried with Christ through baptism (Col 2,12). Thus he indicates that baptism
is for Christians today what circumcision was for the ancients, and that
therefore circumcision cannot be imposed on Christians without doing injustice
to baptism.
IV,14,25 Far more difficult to solve, however, is the
question that is posed to us by the following passage, which I have already
mentioned; there it is said that all Jewish ceremonies were "shadows of that
which was to come", while the "body itself" was "in Christ" (Col 2,17). By far
the most difficult to clarify, however, is what is discussed in many chapters of
the letter to the Hebrews: there we read that the blood of the animals did not
touch the consciences (Hebr 9,12f.), the law had "the shadow of the goods to
come" but not the image of the things themselves (Hebr 10:1; 8:5), the servants
of the law had not attained any perfection from the ceremonies instituted by
Moses (Hebr 7:19; 9:9; 10:1), and the like. Now here I repeat what I have
already indicated: Paul does not declare the ceremonies to be shadowy because
they had nothing definite, but because their fulfillment was, as it were, in
abeyance until the revelation of Christ. Furthermore, I maintain that this
passage (Col 2,17) is not to be understood in view of the effective power of
the ceremonies, but rather in view of the kind of indication that lies in them.
For before Christ was revealed in the flesh, all the signs indicated him, as it
were, as absent in shadow, although he inwardly made known to the faithful the
presence of his power, even of himself. Above all, however, one must pay
attention to the fact that Paul does not speak unrelatedly in all these
passages, but in the course of an argument; for he had to fight with false
apostles, who were of the opinion that piety lies solely in the ceremonies,
without any consideration of Christ; for the refutation of such people it was
therefore enough if he merely pursued the question of what value the ceremonies
had in and of themselves. The author of the letter to the Hebrews followed the
same point of view. Let us bear in mind, then, that the discussion here is not
about the ceremonies insofar as they are understood in their true, original
meaning, but rather insofar as they are perverted in the sense of a false and
wrong interpretation; it is not a question here of the rightful use of the
ceremonies, but of the abuse that superstition makes of them. What, then, is to
be wondered at if the ceremonies lose all force when they are thus separated
from Christ? For all and any signs become void when the thing to which they
point is taken away. When Christ once had to deal with people who thought that
the manna was nothing but food for the body, he adapted his words to their rough
opinion and said that he gave a better food through his service, which nourished
the souls to the hope of immortality (John 6,27). If we wish to have a clearer
solution, the matter, according to its essential content, boils down to the
following: first, that whole effort of ceremonies which existed in the Mosaic
law is an insubstantial and void thing if it is not directed to Christ.
Secondly, these ceremonies were directed toward Christ in such a way that they
found their fulfillment only at that time when he was revealed in the flesh. And
finally, they had to be necessarily abolished with the coming of Christ, just as
the shadow fades when the light of the sun shines. However, I defer a still more
detailed discussion of this point until the place where I intend to compare
baptism with circumcision. Therefore, I will content myself here with a brief
mention.
IV,14,26 Perhaps these poor clever ones were also
deceived by the immoderate praises about the sacraments, which one gets to read
in the ancients with reference to our (today’s) signs. Thus we find in Augustin
the sentence that the sacraments of the "old law" had only promised the Savior,
while ours granted salvation (to Ps 73,2). Since the scholastics did not notice
that these and similar figures of speech were exaggerated, they also gave their
exaggerated doctrines, but in a completely different sense than the writings of
the ancients had. For Augustin, in the above-mentioned passage, had nothing else
in mind than what he also writes elsewhere, namely, that the sacraments of the
Mosaic law had proclaimed Christ beforehand, whereas ours proclaimed him (as
present) (Questions on the Heptateuch IV,33). In the same sense, in his writing
against Faustus, it is said that the old sacraments were promises of things that
were only to be fulfilled, whereas ours are indications of things that had
already found their fulfillment (Against the Manichaean Faustus XIX,14). He
wants to say, as it were: the old sacraments represented Christ figuratively,
when he was still expected, the present ones, however, show him as the present
one, since he is already given to us. But he is now speaking of the kind of
indication which lies in the sacraments, as he points out elsewhere when he
says: "The law and the prophets had sacraments which announced a future thing
beforehand, but the sacraments of our time testify that what those still
proclaimed as future has come" (Against the Epistles of Petilian II,37,87). But
what he thought about the matter and the effect (which was peculiar to the
ancient sacraments) he sets apart in several places; for example, when he says
that the sacraments of the Jews were different in their signs, but the same in
the matter indicated by them, they were different according to their visible
appearance, but the same according to their spiritual power (Homilies on the
Gospel of John 26:12). Likewise he says: "With different signs nevertheless the
same faith remains. For the diversity of signs is the same as the diversity of
words. The words change their sound in the change of the times, and in general
words are nothing else than signs. The fathers drank the same spiritual drink
(as we do), but not the same bodily one. So you see how with the same faith the
signs are changed. With them the rock (from which they drank 1Cor 10) was
Christ, for us what is offered to us on the altar is Christ. They drank as a
great sacrament the water that flowed from the rock, and what we drink is known
to believers. If one considers the visible appearance, it is something else, but
if one directs one’s attention to the meaning which is thereby brought to the
understanding, they drank the same spiritual drink as we do" (Homilies on the
Gospel of John 45:9). Elsewhere it is said, "In the mysteries (sacraments) their
meat and their drink was the same as ours; but the sameness is in the meaning
and not in the appearance; for it is the same Christ who was pictured to them in
the rock and is revealed to us in the flesh" (on Ps 77:2). However, we admit
that even in this piece there is some dissimilarity between the ancient and the
present sacraments. Both testify that God’s fatherly kindness, which comes to us
in Christ, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit are presented to us; but our present
sacraments do so more luminously and clearly. In both Christ is presented; but
this is done more abundantly and completely in our sacraments, precisely
according to that distinction of the Old from the New Testament of which we have
already spoken above. This is what Augustine – whom we cite more frequently as
the best and most reliable witness of all ancient times – has in mind when he
teaches that after the revelation of Christ sacraments were instituted which,
though fewer in number (than the earlier ones), were more sublime in their
meaning and more excellent in their power (Against Faustus XIX,13; Of Christian
Instruction III,9,13; Letter 54,1 to Januarius). It is appropriate that the
reader is also briefly reminded that everything that the clever ones have
conjured up about the work once done (opus operatum) is not only false, but also
contradicts the nature of the sacraments. God instituted the sacraments so that
the faithful, empty of all goods and poor, would bring nothing but their
beggary. It follows, then, that in receiving the sacraments they accomplish
nothing by which they can earn praise, and that in this action – which, as far
as they are concerned, is of the kind that they do not act but receive – no work
whatsoever can be attributed to them.
Of Baptism
IV,15,1 Baptism is a sign of initiation, by which we are
received into the fellowship of the Church, to be incorporated into Christ, and
thus to be numbered among the children of God. But it is now given to us by God
- as is the case with all sacraments according to our explanation above – for
the purpose of serving, first, our faith before Him and, second, our confession
before men. We shall deal with the manner of each of these two effects in turn.
Baptism performs a threefold service to our faith, which we must also treat in
turn piece by piece. The first is that it is set before us by the Lord to be a
sign and proof of our purification, or – to better explain what I mean – a
signed document, as it were, by which he wants to confirm to us that all our
sins are so done away with, blotted out, and blotted out that they will never
again come before his face, that they will no longer be remembered or counted.
For he wills that all who believe shall be baptized for the remission of sins.
Therefore, those who thought that baptism was nothing more than a sign or mark
by which we profess our religion before men, just as soldiers wear the insignia
of their commander to show that they are his soldiers, did not take into account
the first thing about baptism. But this first thing is that we are to receive
baptism under the promise: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"
(Mark 16:16).
IV,15,2 In this sense it is to be understood when Paul
writes that the church was sanctified by Christ, her spouse, and "cleansed by
the water bath in the word" of life (Eph 5,26). And likewise when it says in
another place, "According to his mercy he made us blessed by the bath of
regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Tit 3:5). In the same sense we
read in Peter that baptism makes us blessed (1Pet 3:21). For Paul did not mean
to imply by his words that our washing and our blessedness come about through
the water or that the water carries the power to cleanse us, to create rebirth
or to give renewal. Likewise, Peter does not want to express that in this
sacrament the cause of blessedness is taken, but he only wants to show that in
it we attain the knowledge and certainty of such goods; this is also clearly
enough shown by the given wording. For Paul calls the word of life and baptism
in close connection with each other, as if he wanted to say: through the gospel
the message of our washing and cleansing is brought to us, and through baptism
such testimony is sealed. Peter goes on to say that baptism is not the removal
of the stains of the flesh, but a good conscience before God (1Pet 3:21), which
comes from faith. Indeed, baptism promises us no other cleansing than that which
takes place through the sprinkling of the blood of Christ; for this blood is
figuratively represented by the water, which in a similar way has the property
of cleansing and washing away. Who, then, would claim that we are cleansed by
water, when this very fact certainly testifies that Christ’s blood is the true
and only cleansing bath? Therefore it is not possible to seek a clearer reason
for refuting the fancies of such people, who refer everything to the power of
water, than from the very meaning of baptism itself; for baptism draws our
senses away from that visible element (the very water) which is brought before
our eyes, as from all other means, in order to bind them to Christ alone.
IV,15,3 But we must not believe that baptism is applied
only to the past, so that for new sins into which we fall after baptism we must
seek other, new means of atonement in who knows what other sacraments, as if the
power of baptism had been extinguished. Because of this error, some people in
ancient times wanted to be initiated through baptism only when their lives were
in extreme danger, even when they were in the last stages, so that they could
obtain forgiveness for their entire lives in this way. In their writings, the
old bishops very often speak out against this misplaced caution. No matter at
what time we receive baptism, we must always remember that it washes away and
purifies us for our whole life. So whenever we have fallen into sin, we should
recall our baptism and arm our hearts with it, so that they may always be sure
and certain of the forgiveness of sins. For although it may seem that baptism,
once performed, has now passed away, it has not been done away with by
subsequent sins. For in it the purity of Christ has been presented to us, and
this remains in force at all times and is not covered by any stains, but covers
all our impurities and wipes them away. Nevertheless, we must not derive from
this any arbitrary freedom to sin in the future, as we are in no way instructed
to such presumption from this consideration. No, this teaching is told only to
those who, having sinned, groan weary and depressed under their sins: they are
to have a reason for raising themselves up and comforting themselves, lest they
throw themselves into confusion and despair. Thus Paul says that Christ was made
a propitiation for us, a forgiveness for our previous iniquities (Rom 3:25). In
saying this, he does not deny that in Christ we receive a lasting and constant
forgiveness of sins unto death; but he indicates that Christ is given by the
Father only to poor sinners who are wounded under the branding iron of
conscience and now long for the physician. To such people God’s mercy is
offered. But whoever wants to justify an unrestrained freedom to sin from such
exemption from punishment, does nothing else but provoke God’s wrath and
judgment against himself.
IV,15,4I know, of course, that another view has generally
prevailed: according to it, we obtain forgiveness after baptism through the
benefit of repentance and the power of the keys, whereas it is granted to us in
the first rebirth through baptism alone. But the people who invent this are on
an erroneous path in that they do not consider how the key power of which they
speak is so dependent on baptism that it cannot be separated from it in any way.
The sinner receives forgiveness through the ministry of the Church, that is, not
without the preaching of the Gospel. But what is the content of this? That we
are cleansed from our sins by the blood of Christ! But what is the sign and
testimony of this cleansing bath other than baptism? We see, then, that this
(ecclesiastical) absolution (in the "key power") is related to baptism. The
error of which I speak here has now given rise to the devised sacrament of
penance, of which I have already briefly explained some things and will treat
the rest in the place provided for it. Now there is nothing surprising in the
fact that men, who in the coarseness of their nature are immoderately attached
to external things, have also in this piece made the mistake of not being
satisfied with the pure institution of God and have therefore come up with new
means which they had devised for themselves. As if baptism itself did not
constitute the "sacrament of repentance"! Now, if repentance is recommended to
us for the whole of life, the power of baptism must also be extended to the same
limits. Therefore, there is no doubt that all the pious, in the whole course of
their lives, as often as they are tormented by the consciousness of their sin,
should dare to recall their baptism, in order to strengthen themselves in the
confidence of that certain, lasting washing away which we have in the blood of
Christ.
IV,15,5 Baptism grants us a second fruit, because it shows
us our mortification (mortificatio) in Christ and the new life (nova vita) in
Him. For we are, Paul says, "baptized into his death," "buried with him in
death," so that we may now "walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:3f.). With these
words the apostle does not merely exhort us to follow Christ, as if he were
saying that through baptism we are encouraged to die to our desires after the
example of Christ’s death and to rise to righteousness after the example of his
resurrection. No, he goes deeper into the matter by pointing out that Christ
made us partakers of his death through baptism so that we might be incorporated
into such death (Rom 6:5). And as the branch draws its substance and
nourishment from the root into which it is implanted, so also those who accept
baptism with the faith that comes with it experience in truth the power of
Christ’s death in the mortification of their flesh and at the same time the
power of His resurrection in their being made alive by the Spirit (Rom 6:8).
From there Paul also takes the occasion for an exhortation: if we are
Christians, we must also "have died to sin" and "live to righteousness" (Rom
6,11). He uses the same proof elsewhere when he writes that we are "circumcised"
and have taken off the old man after we are "buried with Christ through baptism"
(Col 2:11 s.). In this sense, he also called baptism a "bath of rebirth and
renewal" in the passage already cited above (Tit 3:5). Thus, in baptism we are
first promised the gracious forgiveness of sins and the imputation of
righteousness, and then the grace of the Holy Spirit, which transforms us into
new life.
IV,15,6 Finally, our faith also receives from baptism the
benefit that it testifies to us with certainty that we are not only incorporated
into Christ’s death and life, but are also united with Christ in such a way that
we become partakers of all His goods. For he consecrated and sanctified baptism
in his own body (Mt 3,13-17), so that he would share in it with us and it
would be the firmest bond of union and fellowship that he deigned to enter into
with us. Therefore, Paul proves from the fact that we "put on Christ" in
baptism, the sentence that we are God’s children (Gal 3,26f.). Thus we see that
the fulfillment of baptism is in Christ: for this reason we also call him in the
proper sense the one on whom baptism hangs (proprium fidei obiectum). It is
therefore not surprising that the apostles, according to our reports, baptized
in His name (Acts 8:16; 19:5), although they had been instructed to baptize in
the "name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19).
For all the gifts of God that are presented to us in baptism can be found in
Christ alone. But it cannot be otherwise than that he who baptizes into Christ
should at the same time call upon the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit.
For we receive cleansing through the blood of Christ because the merciful
Father, in his incomparable kindness, wanted to accept us for grace, and for
this purpose he placed this mediator between himself and us, so that he might
obtain favor with him. But we receive the new birth from Christ’s death and
resurrection only when we, sanctified by the Spirit, are filled with a new,
spiritual nature. Therefore, the cause of our purification as well as of our
rebirth is in the Father, its cause in Christ and its effect in the Holy Spirit,
and we look at them in distinction. This is how John first baptized, then also
the apostles baptized with the "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of
sins" (Mt 3,6.11; Lk 3,3.16; John 3,23; 4,1; Acts 2,38.41). By
"repentance" they understood such rebirth and by "forgiveness of sins" that
washing away (in the above sense).
IV,15,7 By these explanations it becomes also completely
certain that the office of John (namely the baptist) was absolutely the same, as
it was assigned to the apostles afterwards. For the different hands by which the
baptism is administered do not make the baptism itself different; nay, the
remaining the same in doctrine shows that the same baptism also exists. John and
the apostles were unanimous in one doctrine, both baptizing them for repentance,
both for remission of sins, both baptizing them in the name of Christ, from whom
came repentance and remission of sins. John said of Him, "Behold, this is the
Lamb of God, which bareth the sin of the world" (John 1:29), thus declaring Him
to be the sacrifice that is acceptable to the Father, the bringer of
righteousness and the giver of salvation. What could the apostles have added to
this confession? Therefore, no one should be misled by the fact that the
ancients took pains to distinguish John’s baptism from that of the apostles. For
the men of the early church must not be held in such esteem by us that the
certainty of Scripture is thereby shaken. Who will listen more to Chrysostom,
who declares that John’s baptism did not include the forgiveness of sins
(Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 10:1), than to Luke, who on the contrary
claims that John preached the "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of
sins" (Lk 3:3)? Equally unacceptable is Augustine’s pointed opinion that in
John’s baptism sins were forgiven in hope, whereas in Christ’s baptism there was
actual forgiveness (Of Baptism Against the Donatists V,10,12). For the
evangelist clearly testifies that John promised forgiveness of sins in his
baptism, and how should it be necessary under such circumstances to weaken these
statements, when there is no compulsion to do so? But if anyone wants to know
from the word of God what the difference was between these two baptisms, he will
find none other than that John baptized into Him who was to come, but the
apostles baptized into Him who had already revealed Himself (Lk 3:16; Acts
19:4).
IV,15,8 The fact that after the resurrection of Christ the
gifts of the Holy Spirit were poured out more abundantly has nothing to do with
the fact that one could claim a difference between the two baptisms. For the
baptism administered by the apostles while Christ was still on earth has been
called his baptism, and yet no greater abundance of the Spirit was given with it
than with John’s baptism. Yea, even after the ascension, the Samaritans, though
they had nevertheless been baptized in the name of Jesus, were not gifted with
the Spirit beyond the ordinary measure which had also been given to the earlier
believers-until Peter and John were sent to them to lay hands on them (Acts
3:14, 17). In my opinion, only one fact led the men of the early church to claim
that John’s baptism was only a preparation for the baptism of the apostles:
namely, they read that Paul baptized people who had already received John’s
baptism once for the second time (Acts 19:3, 5). But what kind of error they got
into, will be clearly explained elsewhere at the appropriate place. What does it
mean when John said that he baptized with water, but that Christ would come to
baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3,11)? This question can be
solved in a few words. John did not intend to distinguish one baptism from the
other, but he compared his person with Christ’s person and explained how he did
his ministry with water, while Christ was the giver of the Holy Spirit, who
would bring such power to light with a visible miracle on the day when he would
send the Holy Spirit to the apostles with fiery tongues (Acts 2:3). Now, what
could the apostles claim beyond this (i.e. beyond John’s ministry)? What can
those who perform baptisms today claim? For they are merely ministers of an
outward sign, whereas Christ is the giver of inward grace. This is the teaching
of the same theologians of the early church, especially Augustine, who in his
fight against the Donatists based himself mainly on the sentence that the
baptizer may be whoever he wants, but Christ alone has the leadership in baptism
(Against the Letter of Parmenian II,11,23).
IV,15,9 What we have said of the mortification (of the
flesh) as well as of the washing away was shadowily implied in the people of
Israel, and Paul says for this reason that the people were baptized "with the
cloud and with the sea" (1Cor 10:2). The mortification was figuratively
represented when the Lord, in delivering the people from the hand and cruel
bondage of Pharaoh, made a way for them through the Red Sea and drowned Pharaoh
himself, together with the enemies, the Egyptians, who stalked the people in the
rear and threatened them above the neck (Ex 14:21, 26-28). For in the same way
the Lord also promises us in baptism, and shows it to us by the sign given by
him, that we are brought out of the captivity of Egypt, that is, out of the
bondage of sin, by his power, and are delivered, and that our Pharaoh, that is,
the devil, is drowned, though even so he does not cease from tormenting and
wearying us. But as that Egyptian Pharaoh was not sunk in the depths of the sea,
but lay stretched out on the shore and still terrified the Israelites with his
terrible sight, but still was not able to do any harm – so also our Pharaoh
still threatens, he shows his weapons, he makes himself known to us, but he
cannot defeat us! In the "cloud" (Num 9,15; Ex 13,21) lay a sign of
purification. For just as the Lord covered those Israelites with a cloud
hovering over them and thereby granted them cooling, so that they would not tire
and sink in the merciless heat of the sun, so too we recognize in baptism that
we experience cover and protection through Christ’s blood, so that God’s
severity, which in truth is an unbearable flame, no longer weighs upon us.
Admittedly, this mystery was still dark at that time and was recognized by only
a few; but since there is no other way to attain blessedness than it lies in
these two gifts of grace (mortification and washing away), God did not want to
withhold from the ancient fathers, whom He had adopted as heirs, the marks that
exemplified these two gifts.
IV,15,10 Now it also becomes clear how wrong is the
doctrine held by some people in older times, and still held by others until now,
that through baptism we are absolved and made free from original sin and from
the corruption that spread from Adam to all his posterity, and brought back to
that righteousness, that purity of our nature, which Adam would have retained if
he had remained in the innocence in which he was created at the beginning. For
these kinds of teachers have never, ever grasped what original sin is, what
original righteousness is, and what the gift of grace of baptism is. Now we have
already established in an earlier discussion that original sin is the wickedness
and corruption of our nature, which first makes us guilty of God’s wrath and
then (secondly) also produces in us the works which Scripture calls "works of
the flesh" (Gal 5:19). So here we must consider these two things separately.
First, because we are so corrupt and perverse in all aspects of our nature, we
are deservedly counted condemned and convicted before God for the sake of such
corruption alone; for nothing is pleasing to Him but righteousness, innocence,
and purity. And so even the little children carry their damnation in themselves
from their mother’s womb: they have not yet brought the fruits of their
unrighteousness to light, but the seed is already decided within them. Yes,
their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin, and therefore it cannot happen
that it would not be hateful and abominable to God. Through baptism, believers
receive the assurance that this condemnation has been lifted and removed from
them; for through this sign, as already said, the Lord gives us the promise that
a complete and full remission has taken place, both of the guilt that should
have been imputed to us and of the punishment that we should have taken upon
ourselves for the sake of such guilt. At the same time, believers grasp
righteousness – but such a righteousness as God’s people can attain in this
life, namely, a righteousness that comes about through imputation alone, because
namely the Lord in His mercy allows His own to be counted as righteous and
innocent.
IV,15,11 Secondly, it should be noted that such
perversity never remains inactive in us, but continually produces new fruit,
namely those works of the flesh which we have described above (compare Book II,
Chapter 1, Section 8). It is no different here than in the case of a burning
furnace, which continually blows out flames and sparks from itself, or in the
case of a spring, which gushes forth water from itself without end. For
covetousness never fully disappears or is extinguished in men until they are
freed by death from the body of death, and thus completely strip themselves.
Baptism does indeed give us the promise that our Pharaoh (compare section 9) is
drowned, it promises us the mortification of sin, but not in such a way that sin
now no longer exists or no longer troubles us, but only in such a way that it no
longer overcomes us. For as long as we live locked up in the prison of our body,
the remnants of sin will dwell in us, but if we hold fast in faith to the
promise that God gave us in baptism, they will not rule and reign. But let no
man deceive himself, let no man please himself in his wickedness, when he hears
that sin dwelleth in us always. For this is not said so that such, who are also
more than sufficiently inclined to sin anyway, may sleep carelessly over their
sins; no, it is said only so that people who are tickled and stung by their
flesh may not grow weary and despair. Such people should rather consider that
they have made a great progress when they experience that their covetousness
becomes a little less day by day – until they have reached the goal they are
aiming at, namely, the final passing away of their flesh, which is completed in
the passing away of this mortal life. In the meantime, they should not cease to
fight bravely, to strive for progress and to incite themselves to complete
victory. For this too must sharpen their efforts all the more, so that they see
how, after they have labored hard for a long time, there is still so much work
left for them. Thus we must consider that we are baptized for the mortification
of our flesh, which begins with us at baptism, which we continue day by day, but
which will receive its completion when we pass from this life to the Lord.
IV,15,12 We are not saying anything else here than what
the apostle Paul states with the utmost clarity in the seventh chapter of the
letter to the Romans. He had, after all, first spoken of gracious righteousness.
Now there were some godless people who came to the conclusion that one could
lead one’s life according to one’s own will, because we did not achieve God’s
pleasure through the merits of our works. In contrast, Paul continues and
explains that all who are clothed with the righteousness of Christ receive their
rebirth through the Spirit and have a pledge of such rebirth in baptism (Rom
6:3 ss.). He then exhorts the believers not to allow sin to have dominion in
their members (Rom 6,12). And since he knew that there would always be some
weakness in the believers, he added the comfort that they were not under the law
so that they would not be discouraged (Rom 6:14). Now, however, it could again
seem as if the Christians could become overconfident, precisely because they
were not under the yoke of the law. Therefore, Paul goes on to explain the
nature of this abolition of the law (Rom 7:1-6), and at the same time, what use
the law finds among us (Rom 7:1-13) – a question that he had already postponed
twice. The main content of these explanations is now this: we are made free from
the strictness of the law in order to stand in firm life relationship with
Christ. The office of the law is to convict us of our perversity, so that we can
confess our powerlessness and our misery. But because this perversity of nature
does not easily appear in an unholy man who lets his desires run wild without
the fear of God, Paul takes a born-again man as an example, that is, himself. So
he says that he has to struggle on and on with the remnants of his flesh, and
that he is held in bondage by miserable servitude, so that he is not able to
consecrate himself completely to obedience to the divine law. Thus he is
compelled to cry out with groans, "I wretched man, who will deliver me from this
body that is subject to death?" (Rom 7:24; not quite Luther text). Now if the
children of God are imprisoned in a dungeon as long as they live, they must
necessarily be in great fear over the contemplation of their perilous condition,
unless this fear is counteracted. To this end, therefore, Paul adds the
consolation, "There is therefore nothing condemnable in those who are in Christ
Jesus" (Rom 8:1). Thus he teaches that those whom the Lord once accepted by
grace, incorporated into fellowship with his Christ, and received into the
fellowship of the church by baptism, if they persevere in faith in Christ, may
indeed be touched by sin, and may even carry sin about within themselves, but
are nevertheless free from guilt and condemnation. If this is a simple and
proper interpretation (of Paul’s words), there is no reason for anyone to think
that we are presenting an uncommon doctrine here.
IV,15,13 But baptism serves our confession before men in
the following way. It is a sign by which we publicly confess that we want to be
counted among the people of God, by which we testify that we are united with all
Christian people in the worship of the one God and in one religion in harmony,
and by which we finally give expression to our faith before the public, so that
not only our hearts breathe the praise of God, but also our tongues and all the
members of our bodies echo it with all the signs they can give. For in such a
way, as is fitting, all that we have is put to the service of the glory of God,
by which all must be filled, and at the same time the rest of mankind are
spurred on to the same zeal by our example. This is what Paul had in mind when
he asked the Corinthians if they had not been baptized in Christ’s name (1Cor
1:13). For with this he indicates that they had pledged themselves to Him
precisely because they had been baptized in Christ’s name, that they had sworn
to His name and bound their allegiance to Him before men, so that they were now
unable to confess anyone else but Christ alone – provided they did not want to
deny the confession they had made in baptism.
IV,15,14 Now that we have shown what our Lord intended by
the institution of baptism, we can also easily gain a judgment as to the manner
in which we should use or receive it. For inasmuch as it is given to establish,
maintain, and strengthen our faith, we must take it, as it were, as if from the
hand of its giver, and reasonably have the assurance and conviction that it is
he who speaks to us by the sign that he is, who cleanses and washes us away, and
blots out the memory of our iniquities; that it is he who makes us partakers of
his death, who takes away Satan’s kingdom, who weakens the powers of our
covetousness, yea, who grows together with us into one, so that, as such as have
put on him, we are counted children of God. These gifts, I maintain, he presents
to our souls inwardly as truly and as surely as we see our bodies outwardly
washed, submerged, and washed around. For there is a correspondence or
similitude here, and these form the surest rule in the sacraments: we are to
receive in bodily things the spiritual, as if they were set before us; for it
pleased the Lord to present them under such images. Now this is not based on the
fact that such gifts of grace would be tied to the sacrament or included in it,
so that they would be granted to us through the power of the sacrament; no, it
only happens because the Lord testifies to his will under these signs, namely
precisely this, that he wants to grant us all this. He does not only give us a
feast for the eyes by letting us see only the outward image, but he leads us to
the thing itself and brings to fulfillment what he depicts in an effective way.
IV,15,15 A proof for these remarks may be the centurion
Cornelius. He had already been made a partaker of the forgiveness of sins, had
already received the visible gifts of the Holy Spirit as a gift; then he
received baptism (Acts 10:48); but he did not seek to obtain a more abundant
forgiveness from baptism, but this pledge was to serve him for a more certain
exercise in faith, yes, for an increase of his confidence. Perhaps, however,
someone might have made the objection: But why then did Ananias tell Paul to
wash away his sins by baptism (Acts 22:16)? What should have been the meaning of
this, if by the power of baptism itself there is no washing away of sins? I
answer this as follows: When the Lord presents us with something, so far as it
touches the sense of our faith, it means that we receive it, obtain it, and
obtain it for ourselves, and that no matter whether such gift constitutes a
first-time testimony or whether it more strongly and more certainly affirms a
testimony already given. Ananias, then, had only this one thing in mind: that
thou, Paul, mayest be assured that thy sins are forgiven thee, be baptized; for
the Lord promises in baptism the forgiveness of sins: which receive, and then be
at ease. However, I do not intend to diminish the power of baptism, as if the
sign were not accompanied by truth and substance, as long as God works through
the external means. However, from this sacrament, as from all others, we receive
only as much as we receive in faith. If faith is lacking, the sacrament becomes
a proof of our ingratitude, which puts us on trial before God as accused,
because we have behaved unbelievingly towards the promise given in the
sacrament. But inasmuch as baptism is a mark of our confession, we are thereby
to bear witness that our confidence is in God’s mercy and our purity in the
forgiveness of sins which has come to us through Jesus Christ, and that we enter
the Church of God to live in one accord with all believers in a unity of faith
and love. This last is what Paul had in mind when he said that we were all
baptized in one Spirit to be one body (1Cor 12:13).
IV,15,16 We have now established above that the sacrament
is not to be judged by the hand of the one who administers it, but, as it were,
by God’s own hand, because it came forth from God without any doubt. But if this
is true, it may be inferred that nothing is added to or taken away from the
sacrament by the worthiness of him who administers it. And as it is of no
consequence to men, when a letter is sent out, who the messenger is or what his
character is, if only the handwriting and the sign (of the sender) are
sufficiently known, so it must be sufficient for us also to recognize the
handwriting and the sign of our Lord in the case of the sacraments, by whatever
messenger they may finally be delivered to us. Thus we have an apt refutation of
the error of the Donatists, who measured the power and value of the sacrament
according to the worthiness of the minister (of the Church). Nowadays, our
Anabaptists are of the same kind, who, because we received baptism in the papal
kingdom from the ungodly and idolaters, deny that we were baptized legitimately,
and therefore demand rebaptism with wild vehemence. Against the silliness of
these people we are now armed with a sufficiently sound ground of proof when we
consider that by baptism we are not initiated into the name of any man, but into
the name of "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Mt 23:19),
and that therefore baptism is not the business of any man, but of God, by
whomsoever it may be finally administered. However little the people who
baptized us may have known about God and all godliness, however much they may
have despised it, they did not baptize us to have fellowship with them in their
ignorance and desecration of the sanctuary, but they baptized us to faith in
Jesus Christ; for they did not call upon their own name, but God’s, nor did they
baptize us in any other name. But if this baptism was God’s baptism, it also
undoubtedly carried with it the promise of the forgiveness of sins, the
mortification of the flesh, spiritual vitalization, and participation in Christ.
In the same way, it did not harm the Jews that they had been circumcised by
impure and apostate priests, nor did the sign therefore become invalid, so that
it would have been necessary to repeat it, no, it was enough if one returned to
the pure, original way. The Anabaptists object that baptism must be celebrated
in the assembly of the pious; but this objection does not have the effect of
extinguishing the whole force of a cause which has in part fallen into
corruption. For when we teach what ought duly to be done, that baptism may be
pure and void of all defilement, we do not abolish God’s institution, however
much it may corrupt idolaters. For although circumcision was once defaced by
many superstitious customs, it did not therefore cease to be a mark of grace,
and when Josiah and Hezekiah gathered out of all Israel those who had fallen
away from God, they still did not call these people to a second circumcision.
IV,15,17 Now the Anabaptists ask us what kind of faith
followed baptism from our side for a number of years. With this question they
want to assert their opinion that our baptism was just without validity, since
it is only sanctified in us when word and promise are accepted in faith. To this
question we give the answer: We were, however, blind and unbelieving, and for a
long time we did not hold on to the promise that was given to us in the course
of time. But the promise itself was from God and therefore has always remained
unshaken, firm and true. For although all men are lying and faithless, God does
not cease to be true (Rom 3,3f.), although they are all lost, Christ remains
the salvation! We admit, then, that baptism did not profit us in the least at
that time; for the promise made to us in it, without which it is nothing, lay
neglected. But now, when we begin to repent by God’s grace, now we accuse our
blindness and hardness of heart of having been ungrateful for so long to so
great a goodness of God. However, we believe that the promise itself is not
nullified; rather, we consider that God promises forgiveness of sins through
baptism, and on the basis of this promise He will undoubtedly grant it to all
who believe. This promise was offered to us in baptism; so let us grasp it in
faith! For a long time it was buried for us because of our unbelief – so let us
now grasp it by faith! Therefore, when the Lord calls the Jewish people to
repentance, he does not give them any instructions about a repetition of
circumcision – although they had been circumcised by ungodly and sacrilegious
hands, as we have said, and had lived for a long time in the ensnarement of the
same ungodliness – no, he only urges the conversion of the heart. For as much as
the covenant had been violated by this people, the mark of such covenant
remained firm and inviolable at all times due to the appointment of the Lord.
Repentant conversion was therefore the only condition for the people’s
readmission to the covenant that God had once made with them in circumcision –
in the circumcision that they had, however, received at the hands of
covenant-breaking priests and had in turn, as much as they were able, stained
anew and brought to an end in its effect..
IV,15,18 But now the Anabaptists hope to launch a fiery
projectile against us by pointing out that Paul had rebaptized people who had
already received the baptism of John (Acts 19,3.5). But according to our
concession, John’s baptism was completely the same as ours today: just as those
people (Acts 19), who were previously instructed wrongly, were rebaptized into
the right faith after their instruction, so also that baptism (received by us
under the papacy), which remained without the true doctrine, is (in and of
itself) to be regarded as nothing, and we must be baptized anew, namely into the
true religion, in which we are now instructed for the first time. (So much for
the opposing opinion.) Now some have the opinion that there was a false
successor of John who initiated these people (of whom Acts 19 speaks) with the
first baptism into a vain superstition. A presumption in this direction they
seem to take from the fact that the disciples of John mentioned confess that
they were without any knowledge of the Holy Spirit, while John would never have
sent out disciples of such ignorance of himself. Now it is not probable that
there should have been Jews (at all) who – even if they had not received any
baptism – would have been without any knowledge of the Holy Spirit, when this is
made known in so many testimonies of the Scriptures. So when these disciples of
John answer that they do not know "whether there is a Holy Spirit" (Acts 19:2),
this is to be understood as if they had said that they had not yet heard whether
the gifts of the Spirit, about which they were questioned by Paul, would be
given to the disciples of Christ. But I now admit on my part that the baptism
which these people had received was the true baptism of John and (thus) one and
the same as the baptism of Christ. On the other hand, I deny that they were
baptized anew. Now what do the words mean: "Then they were baptized in the name
… Jesus" (Acts 19:5)? Some explain this passage as if these disciples had only
been instructed by Paul in the true doctrine. However, I would like to
understand it more simply in such a way that they received the baptism of the
Holy Spirit, i.e. the visible gifts of the Spirit, as a gift through the laying
on of hands. It is not new that these gifts are called "baptism". Thus it is
reported that on the day of Pentecost the apostles remembered the words of the
Lord about the baptism with fire and the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). And Peter
mentions that the same words (of Christ) came to his mind when he saw the gifts
of grace that were poured out on Cornelius, his house and his relatives (Acts
11:16). To the interpretation of our passage given here (Acts 19) it is also not
contradictory that it says afterwards: "And when Paul laid his hands on them,
the Holy Spirit came upon them" (Acts 19:6). For Luke does not here narrate two
different events, but he follows the form of narration common among the Hebrews:
these first place the essential content of the matter at the head, and then set
forth the matter in greater detail. Everyone can observe this (in our place) by
the context of the words themselves. Luke says: "When they heard this, they were
baptized in the name … Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy
Spirit came upon them" (Acts 19:5f.). The second statement describes how the
baptism (mentioned in general in the first clause) took place (in detail). If
the ignorance (of these disciples) caused the earlier baptism to be deficient,
so that it had to be corrected by a second baptism, then the apostles would have
had to be baptized again first of all, who had hardly received a small piece of
the pure doctrine all the three years after their baptism. And how many streams
would be sufficient for us to repeat so many baptisms, so much ignorance being
punished in us day after day by the Lord’s mercy?
IV,15,19 Power, dignity, benefit and purpose of this
mystery (sacrament) must, if I am not mistaken, now be sufficiently clarified.
Now, as to the outward mark (i.e., the outward design of baptism), – oh, if only
Christ’s original institution had retained its validity to the extent that it
had been able to keep the forwardness of men in check! (As if it were a
contemptible thing to be baptized with water according to Christ’s instruction,
a blessing or better an enchantment of the water was invented, which led to the
fact that the truthful consecration of the water was stained. Then one let
follow still the wax candle and the anointing oil, and one was of the opinion,
only the blowing (of the baptized one by the priest) opened the entrance to the
baptism. I am well aware of how ancient this mixture of strange additions is;
but it is nevertheless right and proper that I, together with all pious people,
reject with disgust everything that men have dared to add to Christ’s
institution. When Satan saw how, through the foolish credulity of the world, his
deceptions were accepted without difficulty almost in the early days of the
gospel, he went further and brought up still greater ridicule and scorn: hence
it comes that in unbridled arbitrariness the spitting and other buffoonery was
introduced for the open reviling of baptism. From such experiences we should
learn that there is nothing holier, nothing better, and nothing less dangerous
than to be satisfied by the authority of Christ alone. Therefore, it would be
better to leave aside all showy pomp, which blinds the eyes of the simple and
dulls their senses, and observe the following procedure: Whenever someone is to
be baptized, he is made present to the assembly of the faithful and presented to
God, with the whole church watching the proceedings as a witness and praying
over the one being baptized; then the confession of faith is said, in which the
neophyte is to be instructed, the promises are communicated which apply to
baptism; then the neophyte is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19), and finally he is dismissed with prayer
and thanksgiving. In this procedure nothing would be omitted that belongs to the
matter, and that one ceremony, which proceeded from God, the author of the
sacrament, would shine most clearly without being covered by any foreign dirt.
Moreover, it makes no difference whether the baptized person is completely
immersed, whether this is done once or three times, or whether water is merely
poured over him and sprinkled on him. Rather, this must be left to the
discretion of the churches according to the diversity of the countries. However,
the word "baptize" itself means as much as "immerse," and it is certain that the
early church kept the custom of immersion.
IV,15,20 Further, it is pertinent to know that it is a
wrong procedure for unofficial people to presume the administration of baptism.
For the administration of baptism, like the distribution of Holy Communion, is a
part of the ecclesiastical office. Also, Christ did not give the commission to
baptize to women or to any random people, but he assigned this task to those
whom he had appointed as apostles. And when he commanded his disciples to
administer Holy Communion as he himself had done before their eyes, he
undoubtedly intended that they should follow his example in their actions, since
he exercised the office of a proper administrator of this sacrament. For many
centuries, indeed, already since the time of the origin of the church, the
practice has prevailed that, in case of danger to life, also people from the
people ("laymen") practiced baptism, provided that no minister of the word was
present early enough. But I do not see with what valid reason one could defend
this. Even the ancients themselves, who either held or tolerated this custom,
were not clear whether it was rightly done this way. For Augustine expresses
this doubt when he says: "If a layman has already given baptism under the
pressure of necessity, I do not know whether it would be piously done if someone
claimed that such a baptism should be repeated. For if such a thing is done
without any compelling necessity, it is the usurpation of another’s office; if,
on the other hand, necessity presses, it is either no offense at all or yet a
venial one" (Against the Letter of Parmenian II,13,29). As far as women are
concerned, it was decided at the Council of Carthage, without any exception,
that they should not take the liberty of baptizing under any circumstances. But,
it will be replied, there is a danger that the sick person, if he dies without
baptism, will lose the gift of rebirth! No, not at all. When God makes the
promise that He will be our God and the God of our seed after us (Gen 17:7), He
announces to us that He will adopt our children as His own even before they are
born. In that word their salvation is decided. And no one will dare to show such
contempt for God that he would deny that God’s promise is strong enough in
itself to produce its effect! Only a few people realize how much damage has been
done by that ill-conceived doctrine, according to which baptism is necessary for
salvation, and that is why very little attention is paid to it. For once the
view has prevailed that all are lost who were not granted to be baptized with
water, our situation is worse than that of the ancient people; it is then almost
as if the grace of God had narrower limits with us than under the law; For under
such circumstances one must think that Christ did not come to fulfill the
promises, but to destroy them, because then the promise in and of itself, which
at that time had sufficient power to procure salvation for a child before the
expiration of the eighth day (on which the circumcision was to take place),
would have no validity today without the aid of the sign.
IV,15,21 What kind of custom prevailed before Augustine’s
lifetime is first of all evident from Tertullian, who reports that a woman was
not allowed to speak in the church, nor to teach, baptize and sacrifice, lest
she claim for herself the task of an office belonging to the man, let alone to
the priest (De velandis virginibus 9). A fully valid witness to the same fact is
Epiphanius, who in one place reproaches Marcion for giving women the liberty to
baptize (Against the Heretic Marcion Panarion 42,4). I also know very well the
answer of those who hold the opposite view; namely, they say that there is,
after all, a great difference between the ordinary practice and an extraordinary
means that is applied in the urge of extreme necessity. Epiphanius, however,
declares that it is a mockery to give women liberty to baptize, and he makes no
exception: from this, then, it is clear enough that this mischief is condemned
by him, so that it cannot be glossed over under any pretext (ibid. 42:4). Also
in the third book (of his writing), where he holds the doctrine that even the
holy mother of Christ did not have such permission, he adds no qualification
(ibid. 79,3).
IV,15,22 It is inappropriate to use the example of
Zipporah here (Ex 4,25). Since the angel of God calmed down after Zipporah had
taken a stone and circumcised her son with it, one wrongly draws from this the
conclusion: therefore her action had found the approval of God. If this were
correct, one would also have to claim that the worship which the pagans brought
from Assyria had established was pleasing to God. However, it can be proved with
other valid reasons that it is imprudent to present the action of that foolish
woman as something to be imitated. It would be sufficient to refute this view if
I said: this action of the woman was something unique and therefore must not be
used as an example, especially since one nowhere gets to read that in ancient
times the priests received in a special way the order for circumcision, and
circumcision and baptism are therefore (in this respect) different. Christ’s
words are clear and distinct: "Go ye … and teach all nations and baptize them
…" (Mt 28,19). For he has appointed the same men as heralds of the gospel
and ministers of baptism; but now, according to the testimony of the apostle, no
one in the church may arrogate to himself an honor, unless he be "called …
like Aaron" (Hebr 5,4); whoever baptizes without being rightfully called, is
taking hold of a foreign office (cf. 1 Petr. 4,15). Paul says it loud and clear
that even in very minor things like food and drink everything is "sin" that we
attack with a troubled conscience (Rom 14,23). If, then, baptism is
administered by women, this is a much more serious sin, because in this way the
rule taught by Christ is manifestly violated; for we know that it is forbidden
for us to tear apart what God has joined together. But all this I leave aside; I
only wish the reader to direct his attention to the fact that Zipporah had
nothing less in mind than to render service to God. She saw her son in danger,
and now she got into anger and murmuring, and, not without indignation, hurled
his foreskin to the ground; but in doing so she so insulted her husband that she
was at the same time angry against God Himself. In short, it is obvious that her
whole behavior grew out of inner chastity; for she was outraged against God and
her husband because she felt compelled to shed the blood of her son. Moreover,
even if she had behaved righteously in all other things, it would still have
been inexcusable presumption for her to circumcise her son in the presence of
her husband, and yet this husband of hers was not just any unworthy man, but
Moses, God’s most noble prophet, who was so great that no one greater than he
ever arose in Israel. Therefore, Zipporah had no more right to do what she did
than women (even according to the opinion of the opponents) have today (to
baptize) under the eyes of a bishop. But this discussion is immediately
clarified by the principle: if it happens to children that they have to leave
the present life before it was given to them to be immersed in water (i.e.
baptized), they are not thereby excluded from the kingdom of heaven. On the
contrary, we have already seen that we do God’s covenant no small dishonor if we
do not rely on it (and pretend, for instance) as if it were powerless in and of
itself. For its effect is dependent neither on baptism nor on any additions. The
sacrament then comes after it like a seal; but not as if it first gave validity
to God’s promise, which in and of itself would be powerless, but it is
exclusively to confirm it to us. From this it follows that the children of the
faithful are not baptized for the purpose of becoming children of God, whereas
before they had been strangers outside the church; no, they are received into
the church with a solemn sign, because by virtue of the gift of grace of the
promise they already belonged to the body of Christ. If, therefore, in the
omission of the sign there is neither sloth, nor contempt, nor negligence, we
are safe from all danger. It is much holier, then, if we show such reverence to
the ordinance of God that we do not seek sacraments elsewhere than where the
Lord has set them down. And if we cannot obtain such sacraments from the Church,
God’s grace is not so bound to the sacraments that we cannot (even without them)
obtain them in faith from the Word of God!
Infant baptism is in perfect harmony with Christ’s foundation
and with the nature of the sign.
IV,16,1 Now, in our time, certain morbid spirits have
stirred up serious turmoil in the church because of infant baptism, and they
have not yet ceased to make a fuss. In view of this fact, I cannot help but
include an appendix here in order to put the rage of these people in check. If
this appendix seems too far-reaching to anyone, I would ask him to consider how
the purity of doctrine in such an exceptionally important matter and the peace
of the church must be of such value to us that one must accept without
reluctance anything that may contribute to its achievement. Moreover, I shall
endeavor to arrange this discussion in such a way that it will serve not a
little to explain more clearly the mystery of baptism. The ground of proof with
which the above-mentioned people oppose infant baptism is, on the face of it,
really worthy of applause: namely, they declare that infant baptism is not
founded on any institution of God, but was merely brought about by the
presumption and perverse presumption of men, and then came to be accepted in
foolish levity without deliberation. (This ground of proof seems good.) For if a
sacrament does not rest on the sure foundation of the Word of God, it hangs by a
thread. But what shall we say, if, on a right consideration of the matter, it
shall clearly appear that such dishonor is falsely and unreasonably inflicted
upon the holy ordinance of God? So let us first examine the origin of infant
baptism. And if it should then turn out that it was devised solely by the
imprudence of men, let us abandon it and measure the true practice of baptism
exclusively by the word of God. But if it turns out that infant baptism does not
exist at all without the certain authority of God, we must be careful not to
show contempt even for its author by undermining the holy institutions of God.
IV,16,2 First of all, it is a sufficiently well-known
proposition, accepted by all the pious, that the right contemplation of the
signs does not rest merely on the outward ceremonies, but depends above all on
the promise, and on the spiritual mysteries, for the presentation of which the
Lord orders the very ceremonies. Whoever, therefore, wishes to ascertain
thoroughly what value baptism has, what purpose it serves, in short, what it is
in general, must not let his knowledge stop at the "element" or at the bodily
sight, but must rather direct it upward to the promises of God which are offered
to us in it, and to the deeper mysteries which are made present to us in it. He
who knows these has grasped the well-founded truth of baptism and, so to speak,
its whole substance, and from there he will then also be instructed as to the
meaning and benefit of external sprinkling. And on the other hand: whoever
disdainfully leaves aside those decisive things and keeps his mind fully
attached to the external ceremony, he will neither understand the power nor the
actual essence of baptism, indeed, he will not even comprehend what the water
(in this) means and what use it has. This sentence is proved by too many and too
clear testimonies of the Scriptures, so that it would be necessary to go into it
further for the time being. It remains for us, then, to inquire, on the basis of
the promises given in baptism, what the power and essence of baptism is.
Scripture shows that in baptism, first, we are pointed to the cleansing from
sins that we obtain through Christ’s blood. Secondly, according to the testimony
of Scripture, in baptism we are pointed to the mortification of the flesh, which
consists in partaking of the death of Christ, through which believers are born
again to a new life, and thus also (thirdly) to fellowship with Christ. To this
main sum can be related everything that is taught in Scripture about baptism;
apart from the fact that baptism is also a sign of the testimony of religion
before men.
IV,16,3 Now for the people of God, before the institution
of baptism, circumcision stood in its place, and we shall therefore examine what
difference there is between these two signs, and in what common characteristics
they agree. From this it will then also become clear what leads over from the
one to the other. When the Lord gives Abraham the order to practice
circumcision, he says in advance that he wants to be God to him and his seed
(Gen 17:7, 10). Thereby he adds how the fullness and the fully sufficient
wealth of all things is with him (Gen 17,1.6.8), so that Abraham thinks that
his hand will be for him the fountain source of all good. In these words is
contained the promise of eternal life. Thus Christ interprets them and takes
from them the proof to show the immortality and resurrection of the believers.
For God, he says, "is not a God of the dead, but of the living" (Mt 22:32;
Lk 20:38). Paul expresses himself in the same sense: he wants to show the
Ephesians from what kind of destruction the Lord had delivered them, and for
this purpose he draws the conclusion from the fact that they had no access to
the covenant of circumcision, that they were "without Christ", "without God",
"without hope" and "strangers to the testaments of promise" (Eph 2,12) –
because all this was included in this covenant! Now the first access to God, the
first step to immortal life consists in the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, it
follows that the promise of our purification given in baptism corresponds to
this one (given in circumcision). Afterwards, the Lord lays upon Abraham the
obligation to "walk before Him" in sincerity and innocence of heart (Gen 17:1)
- this is related to mortification and regeneration (as represented in baptism).
And lest anyone be in doubt that circumcision is a sign of mortification, Moses
elsewhere gives a still clearer exposition, namely by exhorting the Israelite
people to circumcise the foreskin of their hearts to the Lord (Deut 10:16), for
the reason that they had been chosen "out of all the peoples" of the earth to be
God’s people (Deut 10:15). As God, when He took the descendants of Abraham as
His people, gave the command to circumcise them (Gen 17), so Moses announced
that the people had to be circumcised in their hearts, and thus he explained the
truth (i.e. the true essence) of the fleshly circumcision (Deut 30:6). And so
that no one would labor by his own strength for such circumcision of the heart,
Moses teaches that it is a work of God’s grace. All this is so often inculcated
by the prophets that it is not necessary to list here the many testimonies which
one readily encounters again and again. We find, then, that the same spiritual
promise was made to the fathers in circumcision as is made to us in baptism; for
circumcision gave them a figurative representation of the forgiveness of sins
and the mortification of the flesh. And further, as, according to our exposition
above, the foundation of baptism is Christ, in whom these two gifts (forgiveness
of sins and mortification of the flesh) are found, so he is undoubtedly the
foundation of circumcision. For he is promised to Abraham, and in him the
blessing upon all nations. But for the sealing of this grace the sign of
circumcision is added.
IV,16,4 Now it is easy to see what is similar in these two
signs and what distinguishes them from each other. The promise, in which,
according to our presentation, the power of the signs consists, is the same in
both: it is precisely the promise of God’s fatherly grace, the forgiveness of
sins and eternal life. Secondly, the thing illustrated in the image (res
figurata) is also one and the same, namely regeneration. The foundation on which
the fulfillment of these things rests is the same in both. Therefore, in the
inner mystery, on the basis of which the whole power and peculiarity of the
sacraments must be judged, there is no difference at all. The difference that
remains lies in the outward ceremony, which is the least of these, for the most
important is based on the promise and the thing exemplified in the image.
Therefore, it can be stated that everything that fits to circumcision refers at
the same time to baptism, apart from the difference in the outward ceremony. To
this connection and comparison we are led by the hand by the rule of the
apostle, in which we are commanded to direct all interpretation of Scripture
according to the proportion of faith (analogia fidei) (Rom 12:3, 6). And
indeed, the truth in this piece comes before us in such a way that we can almost
touch it. Just as the first step for the Jews into the church was circumcision,
because it served them as a kind of sign by which they were assured that they
were accepted into God’s people and household, and by which they in turn
promised to follow God, so we too are consecrated to God through baptism in
order to be counted among his people and to bind ourselves to him by oath. From
this it follows indisputably that baptism has taken the place of circumcision in
order to fulfill the same office in us.
IV,16,5 We now want to pursue the question whether it is
right for baptism to be administered also to children. If someone wants to stay
only with the element of water and with the external exercise, but does not turn
his mind to the spiritual mystery, must we not say that he is behaving too
foolishly, or even that he has delusions? But if we take this spiritual mystery
into account, we will undoubtedly find that baptism is rightly administered to
infants because it is theirs. For in ancient times the Lord did not make the
children worthy of circumcision without making them partakers of all the things
that were then signified by circumcision. Otherwise, if he had deceived his
people with deceptive signs, then he would have done his mockery with them in
loud juggleries – and that is already abominable to hear! For he expressly
declares that the circumcision of a child should act like a seal to seal the
promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and unshaken, it
belongs no less to the children of Christians today than it did to the children
of the Jews under the Old Testament. And now, if they are partakers of the thing
illustrated in the sign, why should the sign be withheld from them? If they
attain the truth, why should they be denied the image? However, in the sacrament
the outward sign is so connected with the word that it cannot be torn away from
it. But if (nevertheless) a distinction is to be made, I ask: which of the two
do we want to esteem more highly? It is indeed like this: since we see that the
sign serves the word, we will say that it is inferior to it, and we will assign
it the lower place. If, then, the word (in) baptism is intended for infants –
why should the sign, that is, the appendage to the word, be withheld from them?
If there were no other reasons besides this one, it would be sufficient to
refute all those who would have objected. But one makes the objection that for
the circumcision a fixed day existed (for the baptism, however, not). But this
is obviously an evasion. We admit that we are no longer bound to certain days as
the Jews were, but if the Lord, while not prescribing a day, nevertheless
declares that it pleases Him that the children be received into His covenant in
solemn custom – what more do we ask?
IV,16,6 However, the Scriptures open to us a still more
certain knowledge of the truth. For it is evident to the highest degree that the
covenant which the Lord once made with Abraham is no less valid for Christians
today than it once was for the Jewish people, and that therefore also that word
refers no less to Christians than it did to the Jews at that time (cf. Gen
17:10). Otherwise we would already have to be of the opinion that Christ by his
coming had diminished or shortened the grace of the Father – and such an opinion
would not be free of abominable blasphemy! Thus the children of the Jews,
because they were made heirs of the covenant and were distinguished from the
children of the ungodly, were called "holy seed" (Ezra 9:2), and for the very
same reason the children of Christians are now considered holy, even if only one
of the parents from whom they are descended is a believer, and according to the
testimony of the apostle they are distinguished from the impure seed of the
idolaters (1Cor 7:14). Now the Lord, immediately after he made the covenant
with Abraham, gave the commandment to seal this covenant to the children in an
outward sign (Gen 17:12); what reason, then, can Christians give why they
should not testify and seal this covenant to their children today also? Let no
one raise the objection that according to the Lord’s ordinance no other sign was
intended for the confirmation of his covenant than circumcision, and that this
had been abolished a long time ago. For here it is easy to counter: God has
appointed circumcision for the time of the Old Testament for the confirmation of
his covenant; after this has now been abolished, the same reason for such
confirmation remains, which we have in common with the Jews. Therefore, we must
continue to be careful about what is common to the Jews and to us, and what they
possess separately from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for its
affirmation is also common. Only the manner of such confirmation is different:
for them it was circumcision, which was replaced by baptism for us. Otherwise,
if the testimony by virtue of which the Jews were assured of the salvation of
their seed had been torn away from us, Christ’s coming would have had the effect
that God’s grace would have been testified to us in a darker and weaker way than
it was before for the Jews. This, however, cannot be said without the worst
reproach of Christ, for through him the boundless goodness of the Father has
been poured out upon the earth and made known to men more clearly and kindly
than ever before. We must therefore necessarily admit that such goodness of God
must truly not be kept more narrowly hidden today, nor glorified with a lesser
testimony than was once done under the dark shadows of the law.
IV,16,7 Now Jesus, the Lord, wanted to give a proof by
which the world should understand that His coming did not serve to limit the
mercy of the Father, but rather to extend it; and for this purpose He took the
little children, who were brought to Him, kindly in His arms and rebuked the
disciples, who tried to keep them away from the entrance to Him, because they
thereby led away from Him the very ones to whom the kingdom of heaven belonged,
through whom alone the entrance to heaven is open (Mt 19,13-15). But,
someone might say, what similarity does this embrace that Christ practices have
with baptism? For it is not said that Jesus baptized these children, but we only
hear that he received them, embraced them and blessed them. So if we want to
follow his example, we want to stand by the children with prayers, but not
baptize them. We, on the other hand, want to consider Christ’s behavior a little
more carefully than that kind of people. For we must not lightly pass over the
fact that Christ adds to the commandment to bring him the little children the
cause: "For such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19,14). Then he testifies to
his will by taking the children in his arms and offering them to the Father with
his prayer and blessing. If it is right to bring children to Christ, why not
also to admit them to baptism, which is the sign of our union and communion with
Christ? If "such is the kingdom of heaven," why deny them the sign which, as it
were, opens to them access to the Church, so that, having been received therein,
they may be counted among the heirs of the kingdom of heaven? How unjust we are
when we reject those whom Christ invites to Himself, when we deprive (of these
gifts) those whom He adorns with His gifts, when we exclude those whom He
Himself freely admits to Himself: And if we are to enter into a discussion of
how different baptism is from what Christ did in this place, we must ask, how
much higher, then, is baptism, in which we testify (merely) that the children
are included in God’s covenant, to us than the receiving and embracing, the
laying on of hands, and the (blessing) prayer, by which Christ declares in his
own person that they belong to him and are sanctified by him? Our adversaries,
however, put forward another excuse with which they try to evade the point made
here, but in doing so they only show their own ignorance. They draw from
Christ’s word: "Let the little children come to me" the subtle conclusion that
these children were already a little older, because they were already in the
days to "come" to him. But these children are called by the evangelists "brephe
kai paidia", and with such expressions the Greeks mean children who still hang
on the mother’s breast. So "coming" is simply put for "approaching"! There one
sees, however, what kind of deceptions such people are forced to take as a
pretext, who have hardened themselves against the truth! Furthermore, they claim
that the kingdom of heaven is not granted to children (in the sense of infancy),
but to those (people, also adults) who are similar to them, because it is called
"such", not "their". But this objection is not more valid than the previous one.
For if this is accepted, what is to become of Christ’s reasoning, with which he
wants to show that children are not alien to him in age? He commands that
children should come to him, and therefore nothing is clearer than that he means
a real infancy! So that this command does not seem absurd, he adds: "For such is
the kingdom of heaven. Among these (according to the state of things) must be
necessarily decided also the children (in the sense of infancy); but if it is so
stated, then it is also perfectly clear that the expression "such" denotes the
children themselves and such as are like them.
IV,16,8 Now there is no one who would not agree that
infant baptism was by no means "forged together from man"-it rests, after all,
on such a strong approval of Scripture! Neither is it a sufficiently beautiful
gossip what those put forward who raise the objection that it is nowhere
(reported) that even a single child was baptized by the hand of the apostles.
Now this is not expressly reported by the evangelists; but on the other hand, as
often as the baptism of a family is mentioned, the children are not excluded.
Who wants to draw the conclusion that the children were not baptized – provided
that he is not delusional? If such reasons were valid, then women would also
have to be excluded from the Lord’s Supper, because nowhere do we read that they
were admitted to it in the time of the apostles (Acts 16:15,32). We are content
here with the rule of faith, because if we consider the meaning of the
institution of the Lord’s Supper, then we will also easily gain a judgment as to
which people are to be given a share in its practice. We observe the same in the
case of baptism. For as soon as we pay attention to the purpose for which it is
instituted, it is obvious to us that it is not less appropriate for children
than for people of a higher age. It cannot, therefore, be taken away from
infants without thereby openly violating the will of the giver, that is, the
will of God. But when the Anabaptists spread the claim among the simple-minded
people that after Christ’s resurrection a long series of years had passed during
which infant baptism had been unknown, this is a quite pitiful lie. For there is
no (ecclesiastical) writer, no matter how old he may be, who did not trace back
with certainty the origin of infant baptism to the time of the apostles..
IV,16,9 So that no one will despise infant baptism as
useless and idle, it remains for us to show what fruits accrue from this
practice both to the faithful who bring their children before the church for
baptism and to the children themselves who are baptized with the sanctified
water. If, however, it occurs to anyone to ridicule infant baptism on this
pretext (namely, that it brings no benefit), he is also ridiculing the
commandment of circumcision given by the Lord. For what could such people
possibly bring forward to fight against infant baptism that would not fall back
on the commandment of circumcision? In this way, the Lord punishes the
presumption of those who immediately condemn what they do not understand with
the sensibility of their flesh. However, God equips us with other weapons to
counter the folly of these people. This holy institution, through which our
faith, as we experience it, is helped in the most glorious consolation, does not
deserve to be called superfluous. For the sign of God given to a young boy
affirms, like an impressed seal, the promise made to the pious father or mother,
and declares it agreed that the Lord will be not only the God of the father or
mother, but also the God of their seed, and will meet not only them with His
goodness and grace, but also their descendants to the thousandth generation.
Since God’s immeasurable kindness comes to light here, it gives such people
first of all the richest occasion to praise his glory and pervades their pious
hearts with unusual joy, by which they are at the same time all the more
strongly stimulated to love such a pious father again, because they perceive how
he also cares for their offspring for their sake. I also do not care if someone
objects here that the promise (alone) must also suffice to confirm the salvation
of our children. For it has pleased God (now once) differently: he has
recognized our weakness and has wanted to be lenient to it in this matter just
in the same measure in which he has recognized it. Therefore, whoever accepts
the promise that God’s mercy should extend to his children, should consider that
it is his duty to carry such children before the church for the drawing with the
mark of this mercy, and thereupon to encourage himself to be all the more
confident, because he sees with his own eyes how the Lord’s covenant is
impressed on the bodies of his own children. On the other hand, the children
also receive many benefits from their baptism, because they are thereby
incorporated into the body of the Church and are thus much more emphatically
commanded to the other members (of this body). And when they have grown up, they
are not a little spurred by their baptism to earnestly strive for the worship of
God, who has adopted them as children by the solemn sign of their adoption,
before they were able to recognize him as a father because of their age. And
finally, we must be terrified by the curse word, according to which God wants to
act as a retaliator, if someone contemptuously rejects to mark his son with the
sign of the covenant, because by such contempt of the sign the offered grace is
rejected and, as it were, abjured (Gen 17,14).
IV,16,10 Now we want to discuss the reasons of proof with
which certain raging animals incessantly run against this holy institution of
God. First of all, since they realize how the similarity of baptism and
circumcision puts them in a tight spot, they take pains to separate these two
signs from each other by a great contrast, so that it may appear that one has
nothing in common with the other. They claim that (first) different things are
meant here, (second) the covenant is completely different, and (third) the
expression "children" is not used in the same sense. a) But when they try to
prove the first claim, they argue that circumcision was a sign of mortification,
but not of baptism. This we admit to them with the greatest readiness. For it
gives us the best support. Nor do we use any other proposition for our proof
than that baptism and circumcision are signs of mortification. On the basis of
this we establish that baptism has taken the place of circumcision, in order
that it may illustrate to us the same thing which circumcision held up as a sign
to the Jews of old. b) And when it is necessary to defend the diversity of the
covenant – in what barbarous audacity do they then tear up and corrupt the
Scriptures! This is not done in a single place, but in such a way that they
leave nothing whole and intact! The Jews describe them as so carnal that they
are more like cattle than men. They declare that the covenant made with the Jews
does not go beyond the temporal life, and that the promises made to them refer
only to present and bodily goods. If this doctrine prevailed, what else would be
left but that the Jewish people had been satiated for a time by God’s
beneficence – not unlike fattening a herd of sows in the robe – and then finally
perishing in eternal ruin? For when we cite circumcision and the promises
associated with it, they immediately reply that circumcision was a subliterate
sign (literale signum), and that its promises were carnal.
IV,16,11 Indeed, if circumcision was a sign standing
under the letter, then one must judge of baptism in exactly the same way. For
the apostle, in the second chapter of the letter to the Colossians, does not
declare the one sign to be more spiritual than the other (Col 2:11). For he
says that in Christ we are "circumcised with the circumcision without hands,"
"by putting off the sinful body" which dwelt "in our flesh"; and this
circumcision he calls the "circumcision of Christ." Then he adds to explain this
phrase, we are "buried with Christ through baptism" (Col 2:12). Now what else
does Paul want to say with these words than that the fulfillment and the truth
of baptism is at the same time the truth and the fulfillment of circumcision,
because they both illustrate one and the same thing figuratively? For surely he
endeavors to prove that baptism is to Christians the same thing that
circumcision was formerly to the Jews. But since we have already clearly shown
that the promises of both signs and also the mysteries represented in them are
consistent with each other, let us not dwell on this for the time being. I only
want to admonish the faithful, even without saying anything, to consider whether
a sign, which has nothing but spiritual and heavenly aspects, can be considered
earthly and a matter of letters. But in order that they do not bring their misty
vapor to the attention of simple people, let us invalidate in passing the
assertion with which they seek to cover this impudent lie. It is more than
certain that the most noble promises in which the covenant God made with the
Israelites under the Old Testament was written were spiritual and referred to
eternal life. It is equally certain that these promises were also received
spiritually by the fathers, as they should have been, so that they might draw
from them confidence in eternal life, for which they longed with all the
stirrings of their hearts. However, we do not deny that God also showed his
benevolence to them with earthly and carnal benefits, and we also claim that
through these benefits the hope in the spiritual promises was confirmed. This is
what happened when He promised eternal bliss to His servant Abraham: He wanted
to present him with a tangible proof of His grace and therefore added the
further promise according to which Abraham should possess the land of Canaan
(Gen 15:1, 18). All the earthly promises made to the Jewish people must
therefore be understood in the sense that the spiritual promise as the main
thing always has the first place and the others are related to it. But since I
have dealt with these things in more detail in the exposition of the difference
between the Old and New Testaments, I content myself here with a rather brief
mention.
IV,16,12 c) With regard to the term "children" they find
(between circumcision and baptism) the difference that under the Old Testament
those appear as children of Abraham who derived their (natural) origin from his
seed, whereas today this term means those who follow his faith. Therefore, they
further assert, that fleshly filiality, received into the fellowship of the
covenant by circumcision, figuratively exemplified the spiritual children of the
New Testament, born again of God’s Word unto immortal life. In these words, of
course, we see a small grain of truth, but these superficial spirits are very
guilty of grabbing hold of what first comes to their hand and stubbornly
sticking to the one word, while one should actually go further and compare many
things with each other. From there it cannot be otherwise than that they
immediately come to erroneous ideas; for they do not proceed from any thing to a
thorough knowledge. We admit, however, that the carnal seed of Abraham held for
a time the place of the spiritual seed, which is implanted in him by faith. For
we are called his children, even though there is no natural relationship between
him and us (Gal 4:28; Rom 4:12). But if they now hold – and this view they
make perfectly clear – that the carnal seed of Abraham was never promised the
spiritual blessing of God, then they are far in error in this. Therefore, we
must orient ourselves to a better point of direction, to which we are led by the
perfectly sure guidance of Scripture. So the Lord promises Abraham a future seed
in whom "all the nations of the earth shall be blessed," and at the same time He
gives him the promise that He will be his and his seed’s God (Gen 12:3; 17:6).
All who now accept Christ as the giver of such blessings in faith are heirs of
this promise and are therefore called "children of Abraham."
IV,16,13 However, after the resurrection of Christ, the
boundaries of God’s kingdom have begun to expand far and wide to all peoples
indiscriminately, so that, according to Christ’s word, believers will be
gathered from all sides to sit at table "with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob" in
heavenly glory (Mt 8,11). But God had nevertheless embraced the Jews with
such great mercy many hundreds of years before. And since He had chosen this one
people, bypassing all others, to have His mercy decided in them for a time, He
also declared them to be His "own" and the people He had purchased (Ex 19:5).
To testify to such beneficence, the people were given circumcision, which was a
mark to instruct the Jews that God was the guardian of their salvation. Through
such knowledge their hearts were raised to the hope of eternal life. For what
can he lack whom God has once taken into his keeping? Therefore, in order to
prove that the Gentiles are Abraham’s children together with the Jews, the
apostle also uses the following expression: "Abraham was justified by faith
while he was still uncircumcised. But the sign of circumcision he then received
as a seal of the righteousness of faith … so that he might become a father to
all who believe and are not circumcised, … and would also become a father of
the circumcision, and that not of those who only boast of circumcision, but also
walk in the footsteps of faith, which was in our father Abraham when he was not
yet circumcised" (Rom 4:10-12; occasionally not Luther text). Do we not see
there how both are made equal in dignity? For a time, as far as God had
ordained, Abraham was a father of circumcision. When then, as the apostle writes
in another place (Eph 2,14), the fence was broken down that separated the
Gentiles from the Jews, and thus also the access to the kingdom of God was
opened to the Gentiles, then Abraham also became their father, and that without
the sign of circumcision, because they have baptism instead of circumcision. But
when Paul expressly declares that Abraham is not the father of those who are
merely of the circumcision (Rom 4:12), this is said to dampen the arrogance of
certain people who left aside the concern for piety and merely boasted of the
ceremonies. It is done in the same way as one might counter the vanity of those
today who seek nothing but water in baptism.
IV,16,14 But against this another passage from the
apostle, namely Romans 9,7, will be cited: there he teaches that those who are
according to the flesh (Abraham’s offspring) are not Abraham’s children (Rom
9,7f.), but only those who are "children of promise" are counted among his seed.
For it seems as if he wants to give to understand here that the fleshly
relationship with Abraham, which we nevertheless put on a certain level, is
nothing. However, we must be more attentive to what kind of case the apostle is
dealing with in this passage. For he wants to show the Jews how God’s goodness
is not at all bound to the seed of Abraham, nay, how purely nothing creates the
fleshly kinship with him of itself, and in proof of this he refers to Ishmael
and Esau; for these, although they were true descendants of Abraham according to
the flesh, were nevertheless rejected as if they were strangers, while the
blessing rested on Isaac and Jacob. From this follows what Paul then afterwards
asserts: salvation depends on God’s mercy, with which He meets whom He wills
(Rom 10:15f.), and the Jews have no reason why they should please or boast
themselves by reference to the covenant, unless they keep the law of the
covenant, that is, obey the word. And again: Having taken away the vain
confidence of the Jews in their descent, he now perceived, nevertheless, on the
other hand, that the covenant which God had once entered into with the posterity
of Abraham could in no wise be invalidated, and therefore he sets forth in the
eleventh chapter that the carnal kinship of Abraham cannot be deprived of its
dignity; for their sake, he teaches, the Jews are the first and born heirs
of the gospel, unless they are rejected as unworthy because of their
ingratitude, in such a way, of course, that the heavenly blessing has not fully
departed from their people. For this reason he calls them, as stubborn and
unruly as they were, nevertheless "holy" (Rom 11:16) – he gives so much honor
to the holy generation that God would have honored with his holy covenant -, but
he considers us in relation to them as children of Abraham who were born after
or not yet born, and that through adoption into the childship, not on the basis
of natural descent, like when a rice is cut down from its tree and is grafted
onto a foreign trunk (Rom 11:17). So that the Jews would not be deprived of
their privilege, the gospel had to be preached to them first. For they are, as
it were, the firstborn in God’s household. Therefore this dignity had to be
given to them, until they rejected the offered honor and brought it with their
ingratitude to the point that it now passed over to the Gentiles. But no matter
how stubbornly they persist in waging war with the gospel, we must not despise
them, if we consider that for the sake of the promise God’s blessing still
remains among them, as the apostle testifies that this blessing will never
completely depart from them, "for God’s gifts and calling cannot repent of Him"
(Rom 11:29).
IV,16,15 There we see the value of the promise made to
the posterity of Abraham, and on what scales it must be weighed. Therefore, we
do not doubt that in the distinction between the heirs of the kingdom and the
bastards and strangers, God’s election alone freely rules; at the same time,
however, we recognize that it pleased Him to embrace the seed of Abraham in a
special way with His mercy, and to seal this mercy, so that it might be
considered better attested, by circumcision. Now it is quite the same with the
Christian church. For as Paul says above that the Jews were sanctified by their
parents, so he teaches elsewhere that the children of Christians receive the
same sanctification from their parents (1Cor 7:14). From this it follows that
they are deservedly set apart from others who are themselves accused of being
unclean. Who can now doubt that it is completely wrong when the Anabaptists now
continue with the assertion that the children who were circumcised at that time
merely illustrated the spiritual filiation that arises from the rebirth through
the Word of God? The apostle does not philosophize so subtly when he writes that
Christ was a "minister of circumcision" in order to fulfill the promises made to
the fathers (Rom 15:8); for this is just as if he were to say: since the
covenant made with Abraham refers to his seed, Christ came to salvation for the
Jewish people in order to fulfill and redeem the word once given by the Father.
Do we see now how, according to Paul’s judgment, even after Christ’s
resurrection, the promise of the covenant had to be fulfilled, not only
allegorically (allegorice), but according to the wording, in the fleshly seed of
Abraham? It also belongs here that Peter tells the Jews in Acts 2:39 that they
and their seed are entitled to the benefits of the gospel by virtue of covenant
law, and that in the following chapter he calls them "children of the covenant,"
that is, his heirs (Acts 3:25). The other passage from the apostle already
mentioned above does not deviate significantly from this either, where he holds
and asserts that circumcision, which is impressed on the children, is a sign of
the fellowship they have with Christ (Eph 2:11 s.). And truly, if we listen to
the chatter of the Anabaptists, what is to become of that promise with which the
Lord in the second principal (commandment) of his law gives his servants the
promise that he will "do mercy" to their seed even to the thousandth member? Are
we supposed to take recourse to allegories here? But that would be a too
farcical evasion. Or shall we say that this is abolished? But with that the law
would fall into dissolution – and Christ rather wanted to affirm it, as long as
it is for our good and for our life! It should therefore not be subject to
dispute that God is so kind and bountiful toward His own that for their sake He
also wants the children they have begotten to be counted among His people.
IV,16,16 The distinctions that the Anabaptists try to
make between baptism and circumcision are not only ridiculous and devoid of all
semblance of justification, but also contradictory among themselves. For they
first assert that baptism refers to the first day of spiritual conflict, while
circumcision refers to the eighth, after mortification has already been
completed. But immediately they forget this sentence, turn the little song
around and call circumcision a figurative representation of the mortification of
the flesh, baptism, on the other hand, the burial of the flesh, to which only
those could come who had already died. What delusions of insane people could
possibly burst apart in such levity? For according to the first sentence,
baptism must take precedence over circumcision; according to the second, it is
relegated to a subordinate place. However, the example is not new that the
spirits of men, as soon as they worship everything they have dreamed up as the
most certain word of God, whirl up and down in such a way. So we claim that the
first mentioned difference is a pure reverie. If one wanted to take the eighth
day (on which the circumcision should take place) as an occasion for allegorical
interpretations, it should not be done in this way. It would be much better, if
the number eight, according to the ancient process, were to refer to the
resurrection that took place on the eighth day (after the beginning of the time
of suffering), because we know that the newness of life is based on it, or to
the whole course of the present life, in which the mortification must go on and
on until it has come to its end and thus also the mortification of the flesh has
become perfect. However, it can also be seen that God wanted to take into
account the tenderness of the age by postponing the circumcision to the eighth
day, because the wounding (resulting from it) must be quite dangerous for the
just born, which still had a reddish skin from the mother. How much more force
might the second claim of the Anabaptists have, that we, already dead, would be
buried by baptism? For Scripture expressly objects to this and says that we are
buried with the determination to die and thereupon seek such mortification (Rom
6:4)! Equally clever is the excuse: if baptism should be made equal to
circumcision, then girls should not be baptized. For it is completely agreed
that by the sign of circumcision the sanctification of the seed of Israel was
testified; but if it is so, then it follows also without doubt that this sign
was given for the sanctification of male as well as female descendants. But only
the bodies of the babes were given this sign, because it was possible with them
by nature; but nevertheless in such a way that the girls were, as it were,
comrades and sharers in this sign through the boys. Let us therefore leave such
sillinesses of the Anabaptists far from us, and hold fast to the similarity of
baptism and circumcision; for we see that this comes about quite excellently in
the inward mystery, in the promises (connected with them), in the exercise and
in the effect.
IV,16,17 The Anabaptists also think they have a very
valid reason for keeping children away from baptism, by pointing out that
children, because of their age, are not yet able to grasp the mystery presented
in baptism. For this mystery (they say) is, after all, the spiritual rebirth,
which cannot fall within the first childhood. Therefore they draw the conclusion
that the children, before they have grown to the age suitable for a second
birth, must be regarded as nothing else than children of Adam. But against all
these assertions God’s truth raises an objection everywhere. For if these
children must be left among Adam’s children, they are left in death; for in Adam
we can do nothing but die. In contrast, Christ commands that one should bring
the children to Him (Mt 19,14). And why this? Because he is the life! So, in
order to make them alive, he makes them partakers of him – while the Anabaptists
meanwhile turn them far away from him and consign them to death. If they make
the excuse that these children would not be lost if they were regarded as Adam’s
children, their error is more than sufficiently refuted by the testimony of
Scripture. For it says that in Adam all die (1Cor 15:22), and from this it
follows that there is no hope of life left but in Christ alone. So, in order for
us to become heirs of life, we must have fellowship with Him. And since, on the
other hand, it is written elsewhere that by nature we are all subject to the
wrath of God (Eph 2:3) and are conceived in sins (Ps 51:7), with which
condemnation is continually connected, we must therefore move out of our nature
before access to the kingdom of God is open to us. And how could a clearer
statement be found than that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"
(1Cor 15:50)? So everything that is ours must be put away – and this will not
happen without being born again -; then (only) will we behold this possession of
the kingdom! And finally: if Christ speaks truthfully when he proclaims that he
is the life (Jn. 11:25; 14:6), we must necessarily be incorporated into him, so
that we may be delivered from the bondage of death. But, they say, how can
children be born again who are not yet endowed with any knowledge of good and
evil? We answer that even if the work of God is not accessible to our
understanding, it is not non-existent. Furthermore, it is perfectly clear that
the children who are to be saved – and undoubtedly some will be saved from this
age – will first be born again of the Lord. For if they bring with them inherent
corruption from their mother’s womb, they must be cleansed of it before they are
admitted into God’s kingdom; for nothing stained or defiled enters there (Acts
21:27). If they are born as sinners, as David as well as Paul claim (Eph 2,3;
Ps 51:7), they either remain displeasing and detestable to God – or they have
to be justified. And what do we look for further, since the judge himself openly
declares that access to life is open to none but the born again (John 3,3)? In
order to silence the contumacious people like the Anabaptists, He gave proof of
what He is able to do with the others in John the Baptist, whom He sanctified in
his mother’s womb (Lk 1:15). The Anabaptists will not achieve anything with the
excuse they use here: they say that this happened (only) once, and that it does
not immediately follow that the Lord always treats children in this way. Because
we do not lead our proof in this way either! We only want to show that it is
unreasonable and malicious if they force God’s power into such narrow limits in
which it cannot be enclosed. A second evasion they make has just as much weight.
They claim that according to the customary usage of Scripture, the phrase "from
the womb" means as much as "from early youth. But it can be clearly perceived
that the angel, when he announced this message to Zacharias (Lk 1:15), had
something else in mind, namely that the child, not yet born, should be filled
with the Holy Spirit. We do not want to try to impose a law on God, that he
could not sanctify those he wants in the same way as he sanctified the child
John, because nothing has been taken away from his power since then.
IV,16,18 Certainly Christ was sanctified for this purpose
from his earliest youth, that he sanctified his elect in himself from any age
without distinction. For as, for the destruction of the guilt of disobedience
committed in our flesh, he put on that very flesh itself, to render perfect
obedience for our sake and in our stead, so also was he "conceived by the Holy
Ghost," that, being fully imbued with his holiness in the flesh which he
assumed, he might cause it to overflow upon us also. If we have in Christ (from
his earliest infancy) the most perfect model of all the gifts of grace with
which God bestows on his children, he can serve as proof to us in this very
piece that infancy is not so much in contradiction to sanctification. Be that as
it may, we find it indisputable that none of the elect (i.e. not even a child!)
is called away from the present life who is not first sanctified and born again
by the Spirit of God. If, on the other hand, the Anabaptists raise the objection
that the Holy Spirit knows of no other rebirth in Scripture than that which is
"of incorruptible seed," that is, through the Word of God (1 Pet. 1:23), then
this is an erroneous interpretation of the passage from Peter, for Peter
includes only those believers who had been instructed through the preaching of
the gospel. We freely admit that for such believers the word of the Lord is the
only seed of their spiritual regeneration; but we deny that it could be inferred
from this that children could not be born again by God’s power; for this power
he can wield so easily and so effortlessly as to be incomprehensible and
admirable to us. Furthermore, it would also not be safe enough to deny the Lord
the ability to make Himself known and thereby recognizable to the children in
any way.
IV,16,19 But, they say, faith comes from hearing
(Rom 10:17), and children have not yet gained any experience of this; nor can they be
able to know God, because Moses teaches that they lack the knowledge of good and
evil (Deut 1:39). But the Anabaptists do not notice that the apostle, when he
declares hearing (the sermon) to be the beginning of faith, is merely describing
the ordinary order and mode of distribution which the Lord is wont to observe in
calling his own, but does not set him any permanent rule, so that he could not
adopt any other procedure. He has undoubtedly used such a different way in the
calling of many people, whom he has endowed with the true knowledge of himself
in an inward way through the enlightenment mediated by the Holy Spirit, without
any interposition of preaching. But if the Anabaptists are of the opinion that
it is quite absurd to attribute any knowledge of God to the children, to whom
Moses (already) denies the understanding of good and evil, I would like them to
answer the question of what danger there is in saying that they now receive a
little piece of grace, the full riches of which they are to enjoy soon after.
For the fullness of life consists in the perfect knowledge of God; but if some
of the children, whom death takes away from this life in their earliest youth,
pass over into eternal life, they are thus undoubtedly admitted to the beholding
of the face of God in his perfect presence. So, if the Lord will illuminate such
children with the full radiance of his light, why should he not also, if it
pleases him, illuminate them for the present time with a little sparkle of such
light, especially since he will not strip them of their ignorance until he takes
them out of the bondage of the flesh? I do not say this because I would
carelessly claim that the children are endowed with the same faith that we
experience in ourselves, or that they have a knowledge similar to faith at all –
I would rather leave that up in the air – but only to put the foolish
presumption of such people in check a little, who, depending on how their cheeks
are puffed up, blithely deny or claim everything imaginable.
IV,16,20 But to give their view in this piece an even
stronger emphasis, they add the assertion that baptism is after all the
sacrament of repentance and faith; but for this reason, since neither repentance
nor faith fall into the tenderest childhood, one must beware that this meaning
of the sacrament would become vain and insubstantial by admitting children to
communion at baptism. But these bullets are now directed more against God than
against us. For it is perfectly clear from many testimonies of Scripture that
circumcision also has been a sign of repentance. Moreover, it is called by Paul
the "seal of the righteousness of faith" (Rom 4:11). So God Himself must be
called to account for why He commanded that circumcision be impressed on the
bodies of children. Since baptism and circumcision are the same, they cannot
give anything to circumcision without also giving it to baptism. If here they
again look for their usual excuse, that at that time the spiritual children were
figuratively illustrated by the infantile age, then the way is already barred to
them. We therefore maintain that since God bestowed circumcision, which was a
sacrament of repentance and faith, upon children, it cannot seem absurd that
they should now also partake of baptism, unless one wanted to openly vent one’s
anger against God’s institution. However, as in all acts of God, so also in this
one enough wisdom and justice shines to dampen the resistance of the wicked. For
although the children, at the moment they were circumcised, did not yet
understand with their minds the meaning of that sign, nevertheless, in truth,
they were circumcised for the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature,
in order that later, when they had grown up, they might direct their
consideration to such mortification. In short, this objection can be easily
overcome by the consideration: the children are baptized for their future
repentance and their future faith; both have not yet taken shape in them, but
through the hidden work of the Spirit the seed for both is nevertheless decided
in them. Through this answer, everything that they take from the meaning of
baptism and turn against us is overturned at once. This also includes the praise
with which Paul honors baptism by calling it "the bath of rebirth and renewal"
(Titus 3:5). From this they draw the conclusion that baptism should not be
granted to anyone unless he is capable of these things. But we can then object
on the other side that circumcision, which denotes rebirth, should not have been
granted to anyone other than the born-again. And in this way God’s appointment
would then be condemned by us. Therefore, as I have already touched upon several
times, all the grounds of evidence that are capable of causing circumcision to
waver have no power even to combat baptism. Nor can they escape when they say:
what is based with certainty on God’s authority, that is firm and unshakable for
us, even if no justification for it were discernible, but this reverence is due
neither to infant baptism nor to other similar things, because they are not
commanded to us by an express word of God. For they then remain perpetually
caught in the either-or: God’s command to circumcise the children was either
lawful and not subject to any evasions – or it was reprehensible; but if there
was nothing inconsistent or absurd in this command, then there will also be
nothing absurd in the practice of infant baptism.
IV,16,21 The stain of absurdity, which they now try to
put on us in this passage, we wipe off as follows. When men whom the Lord has
chosen, after receiving the sign of rebirth, depart from this present life again
before they have grown up, he renews them with the incomprehensible power of his
Spirit in a way which he himself alone foresees will lead to the goal. If they
grow up to an age in which they can be instructed about the truth of baptism,
they will be all the more fired up to zeal for this renewal, since they now
learn that they have been given the sign of such renewal from their earliest
youth, so that they can strive for it throughout their lives. This is the reason
why Paul teaches in two places that we are buried with Christ through baptism
(Rom 6,4; Col 2,12). For he does not mean here that he who is to be initiated
by baptism must have been buried with Christ beforehand, but he simply sets
forth the doctrine underlying baptism to those who have already been baptized.
Therefore, not even delusional people will be able to defend on the basis of
this passage the opinion that this doctrine precedes baptism. In this way Moses
and the prophets made the people aware of the importance of circumcision, with
which the hearers were already marked as children (Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4)! It
has the same meaning when Paul writes to the Galatians that when they were
baptized they "put on Christ" (Gal 3:27). What for? They were supposed to live
Christ henceforth, because they had not lived Him before! And although with
older people the reception of the sign is supposed to follow the comprehension
of the mystery, it must soon be explained that it has a different meaning with
the children. There is no other way to understand the passage in Peter in which
the Anabaptists think they find an essential protection; Peter says of baptism
that it is not a washing away of the defilements of the body, but the testimony
of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Christ (1Pet 3:21).
On the basis of this passage they claim that nothing is left to infant baptism
but that it is a vain thing, a smoke of mist, and that because this very truth
(of which Peter speaks) is far from it. But here they sin again by the erroneous
opinion which consists in demanding that the thing must always precede the sign
in the temporal order. For the truth of circumcision also consisted in the same
"testimony of a good conscience." Now if this truth had inevitably had to
precede (in time), then the children would never and never have been circumcised
at God’s command. But by showing that the testimony of a good conscience is
inherent in the truth of circumcision, and by giving at the same time,
nevertheless, the instruction to circumcise the little children, the Lord
Himself sufficiently intimates that in this respect circumcision is given for
the time to come. Therefore, in infant baptism we must not look for more in
present effect than that it affirms and proves valid the covenant which the Lord
has made with infants. The other significance of this sacrament will then follow
later, at the time which God Himself has provided.
IV,16,22 I suppose that there is no one now who does not
clearly perceive that all such reasons of proof are nothing but perversions of
Scripture. The rest, which are of the same kind, we will pass over in haste. The
Anabaptists object that baptism is given for the remission of sins. If this is
conceded, it will abundantly support our opinion. For since we are born sinners,
we already need forgiveness and pardon from our mother’s womb. And since,
furthermore, God does not cut off the hope of mercy from this age, but rather
makes it certain, why then should we tear away from him the sign, which after
all stands far lower than the thing itself? Therefore we turn the projectile,
which they endeavored to hurl against us, against themselves and say: the
children receive the forgiveness of sins as a gift, therefore the sign (of such
forgiveness) must not be robbed from them either. At the same time, they also
bring up a word from the letter to the Ephesians, according to which the church
is cleansed by the Lord "through the water bath in the word" of life (Eph
5:26). Now no word could have been adduced which would have been more suitable
for refuting their error. For from it arises for us a convenient proof: if
Christ wills that the washing away by which he purifies his church should be
witnessed in baptism, it does not seem fair that that washing away should lack
this witness in the infants, who after all are rightly reckoned on the side of
the church, since they are called heirs of the kingdom of heaven. For Paul
includes the whole church when he says that it was cleansed by this water bath.
We draw a completely similar conclusion when Paul says in another place that we
are incorporated into the body of Christ through baptism (1Cor 12:13); for
from this we learn that the children, whom he nevertheless counts among his
members, must be baptized so that they are not torn away from his body. There
you can see how mightily they run against the ramparts of our faith with so many
tools of war!
IV,16,23 Now they come to speak of the practice and
custom of the apostolic times, in which no one was found who had been admitted
to baptism without first having confessed his faith and repentance. For when
Peter was asked by those who were minded to repent, "What shall we do now?" he
advised them, first, to repent, and second, to be baptized "for the remission of
sins" (Acts 2:37f.). Likewise, when the eunuch asked to be baptized, Philip
replied, "If you believe with all your heart, it may be so" (Acts 8:37). From
this, the Anabaptists hope to obtain for themselves (the concession) that it is
not at all right to baptize someone without preceding faith and repentance. Yes,
indeed, if we accept this reasoning, the first passage (Acts 2), where we do not
hear any mention of faith, will prove that repentance alone is enough, and the
second (Acts 8), where repentance is not found at all, will prove that faith
alone is enough! In my opinion, you will now claim that these two passages
support each other and must therefore be connected with each other. For my part,
too, I say that here one must compare other passages that have some significance
in untying this knot. For there are many statements in Scripture whose
understanding depends on the circumstances. We have just such an example before
us in the passages presently under consideration; for the people to whom Peter
and Philip say the words adduced are of an age fitted to seek repentance and to
take faith. We emphatically deny that such people may receive baptism unless
their conversion and faith have been perceived, to be sure, only so far as they
can be explored by the judgment of men. But it is more than clear enough that
the children must be counted to another group. For if in ancient times anyone
joined Israel in order to have fellowship with it in religion, he had to be
instructed in the covenant of the Lord and taught the law before he received the
sign of circumcision, because he was an alien according to his origin, that is,
a stranger to the people of Israel with whom the covenant had been made, which
circumcision confirmed.
IV,16,24 In the same way the Lord, when he receives
Abraham, does not begin with the circumcision by concealing from him in the
meantime what he has in mind with this sign; no, he first announces to him what
kind of covenant he intends to make with him (Gen 15,1), and then, after
Abraham has believed the promise, he also makes him partaker of the sacrament
(Gen 17,11). Why is it that the sacrament follows faith in Abraham, but
precedes all knowledge in his son Isaac? Precisely because it was right and
proper that one who was not received into the community of the covenant until
adulthood, with which he had had nothing to do until then, should first become
thoroughly acquainted with its conditions, whereas it was not the same with the
child who came from him; for by virtue of the right of inheritance, according to
the given form of the promise, he was already included in the covenant from his
mother’s womb. Or, to state the matter more clearly and briefly: if the children
of the faithful are partakers of the covenant without the aid of their
understanding, there is no reason why they could be kept away from the sign, for
instance on the grounds that they could not yet swear to the conditions of the
covenant. Here is undoubtedly the reason why God repeatedly declares that the
children descended from the Israelites were generated and born to Him (Eze
16:20; 23:37). For without doubt He treats the children of those to whom He
promised to be the father of their seed as His children (cf. Gen 17:7). But
whoever is unbelieving and descended from godless parents is considered a
stranger to the community of the covenant until he is united with God through
faith. Therefore, it is not surprising if he does not give him a share in the
sign, because its meaning would be deceptive and vain. In this sense Paul also
writes that the Gentiles, as long as they were immersed in their idolatry, were
outside the testament (i.e. the covenant) (Eph 2,12). The whole matter can be
brought to clear resolution, if I am not mistaken, in the following summary:
people who accept faith in Christ only in adulthood, since until then they stood
as strangers outside the covenant, may be marked with baptism only if faith and
repentance intervene, which alone can open for them access to the fellowship of
the covenant; but children descended from Christians are, after all, received by
God into the inheritance of the covenant immediately at birth, and are
accordingly to be admitted to baptism. The report of the evangelist that John
baptized those who confessed their sins (Mt 3,6) is to be referred to this –
an example that, in our opinion, must be kept in mind even today. For if a Turk
showed himself willing to be baptized, he should not be baptized by us
unthinkingly, for if he had not made a confession that would satisfy the church.
IV,16,25 Furthermore, the Anabaptists bring forward the
words of Christ, which are reproduced in the third chapter of John’s Gospel and
in which, according to their opinion, actual rebirth is required for baptism:
"Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God"
(John 3,5). Behold, they say, how baptism by the mouth of the Lord is called
regeneration! With what pretext do we now want to gloss over the fact that we
initiate such people, who, as is known more than enough, are not in the least
capable of rebirth, with baptism, which cannot exist without such rebirth? (So
we should ask about their opinion.) First of all, they are on the wrong track in
that they think that baptism is mentioned in this passage, and that because they
hear the word "water". Christ had first explained to Nicodemus the corruption of
nature and taught him that a rebirth was necessary; but since Nicodemus dreamed
of a bodily rebirth, Christ indicates at this point the way in which God gives
us such a rebirth, namely "of water and the Spirit". It is as if he said: it is
through the Spirit who purifies and sprinkles the souls of believers, thus
fulfilling the role of water. "Water and the Spirit," then, I understand simply
as "the Spirit who is the water." This way of speaking is also not new; for it
fully agrees with that found in the third chapter of Matthew’s Gospel: "who …
coming after me … will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Mt
3,11). "Baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire," now means: to grant the Holy
Ghost, who in regeneration has the office and nature of fire; likewise after
this, "to be born again of water and the Spirit," means nothing else than to
receive that power of the Spirit which accomplishes in the soul what water
accomplishes in the body. I know that others interpret this passage differently;
but I have no doubt that this is its plain meaning here; for Christ, after all,
has no other purpose than to teach that all who seek the kingdom of heaven must
strip off their own kind. If, however, according to the habit of the
Anabaptists, I were to seek dirty excuses, I could easily reproach them again –
even if I granted them what they desire – that baptism (according to this
passage) precedes faith and repentance, because, after all, in Christ’s words it
precedes the Spirit! Now this is undoubtedly referring to the spiritual gifts,
and if these therefore follow baptism, I have obtained what I want. But let us
leave aside such evasions, and hold fast the plain interpretation which I have
put forward, namely, that no man can enter into the kingdom of God until he is
renewed by the living water, that is, by the Holy Ghost.
IV,16,26 That the fantasy of the Anabaptists must be
rejected is also obvious on the basis of the fact that they consign to eternal
death all those who are not baptized. Let us therefore assume, according to
their wish, that baptism is given exclusively to adults. If there is a child who
has been properly instructed in the basic truths of piety, and if it happens to
such a child that it is taken away by a sudden death shortly before the day set
for baptism, against all expectations of people – what should then become of
this child according to their opinion? The promise of the Lord is clear:
Everyone who believes in the Son will not see death nor come into judgment, but
"has passed from death to life" (John 5:24; very vague). And you don’t get to
hear anywhere that he would have condemned one not yet baptized. I do not want
this to be taken by me in the sense of implying that one could despise baptism
with impunity – for I maintain that by despising baptism the covenant of God
would be profaned; so far am I from presuming to excuse such despising. It is
only enough for me to prove (by these explanations) that baptism is not so
necessary that one should think that a man who was deprived of the possibility
of obtaining it must therefore have been lost. If, on the other hand, we accept
the fantasy of the Anabaptists, we must condemn without exception all those whom
some misfortune has kept away from baptism, no matter how much faith they may
have been endowed with, with which Christ Himself is possessed! On top of that,
they make all children guilty of eternal death by denying them baptism, which,
according to their own confession, should be necessary for salvation. Now they
may see how well they agree with Christ’s words, in which the kingdom of heaven
is granted to this very age (Mt 19,14). And even if we concede to them
everything imaginable that is connected with the understanding of this passage,
they will get nothing out of it if they have not first overturned the
proposition of the regeneration of children that we have already established.
IV,16,27 But the most solid bulwark they boast of
possessing is the institution of baptism itself, which they take from the last
chapter of the Gospel of Matthew: there Christ sends out the apostles to all
nations and then gives them the command, first, to instruct them and then,
second, to baptize them (Mt 28,19). Then they also connect with this the
word from the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark: "Whoever believes and is
baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). What more do we look for, they say, when
the words of the Lord clearly and openly say that one should first teach and
then baptize, and when they assign baptism the second place, the place after
faith? The Lord Jesus also gave proof of this order in His own person, when He
did not want to be baptized until He was thirty years old (Mt 3,13; Lk
3,21-23). Good God, in how many ways do they entangle themselves here and
display their ignorance! For they are already more than childish in that they
derive the first institution of baptism from the passages cited, while Christ
has given the apostles the commission to administer it since the beginning of
his preaching. There is, therefore, no reason for their assertion that the law
and the rule of baptism must be taken from these two passages, as if they
contained the first institution of this sacrament. But even if we let them get
away with this fallacy, – what force then has this argument? However, if I
wanted to look for excuses, then not only a nook opened to me, but a completely
wide field to escape! You are so stubborn about the order of the words, and
because it says: "Go … Preach … and baptize" (Mark 16,15; inaccurate) and
likewise: "Whoever believes and is baptized …" (Mar 16,16), they draw the
conclusion that one must first preach and then baptize and believe before he
desires baptism. But if this is how they do it, why should we not also, for our
part, make the counter-assertion that one must baptize before one "teaches" the
"keeping" of the things that Christ commanded? For the passage likewise reads,
"Baptize them, teaching them to keep all that I have commanded you" (Mt
28:19; more precisely). We made the same remark (here: "baptize" is before
"teach") about the saying of Christ mentioned a little further above, which
dealt with the rebirth out of water and the Spirit (John 3:5; cf. section 25).
For if we take the passage as the Anabaptists require, it follows without doubt
that baptism comes before spiritual rebirth, for it is mentioned first. For
Christ does not teach that we must be born again "of spirit and water", but "of
water and spirit".
IV,16,28 One gets the impression that this
"insurmountable" ground of proof, on which the Anabaptists place so much
confidence, has already been shaken to some extent! But since truth finds
sufficient protection in simplicity, I do not want to wriggle out of the matter
with such superficial quibbles. So you shall have a well-founded answer! In this
passage, Christ first of all gives the command to preach the gospel, and to this
he attaches the office of practicing baptism as an appendage. Furthermore,
baptism is mentioned only insofar as its administration belongs to the office of
instruction. For Christ sends the apostles to make known the gospel to all the
peoples of the earth, that they may gather into his kingdom from all quarters
men who were previously lost, through the teaching of salvation. But now what
kind of people are these, and of what kind are they? It is certain that here he
speaks exclusively of those who are able to accept the teaching. He then
instructs that such people should receive baptism after they have been
instructed, and he adds the promise: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be
saved" (Mark 16:16). Now, is there a single syllable about the children in the
whole speech? What, then, is the form of argumentation with which our
adversaries attack us here? "People in adulthood are to be instructed first so
that they may believe, and only then are they to receive baptism. So it is
sacrilege to give even children a share in baptism!" But though they burst at
this, they will prove nothing else from this passage than that the gospel must
first be preached to such as are capable of hearing before they are baptized;
for it is only of them that it is spoken here. From this, if they can get it
done, let them build the barrier dam to keep the children away from baptism!
IV,16,29 But in order that their deceptions may be
perceptible even to the blind in the groping, I will still bring them into the
light with a quite clear parable. The apostle says: "If any man will not work,
neither shall he eat" (2Thess 3:10); now, if someone were to take this word as
a pretext to prove that one must take away the food of the children (who do not
work), would he not be worthy to be despised by all people? And why now? Because
he wants to forcibly apply to everyone without distinction a word that refers to
a certain kind of people and to a certain age. The Anabaptists do not behave any
more skillfully in the matter under discussion here. For what, as everyone can
see, refers exclusively to adulthood, they apply to children, so that this age,
too, is subjected to a rule that was established only for older people. As for
the example of Christ, it contributes nothing to the support of their cause. He
was not baptized, they say, until He was thirty years old (Mt 3:13; Lk
3:23). This is true, but the reason is obvious: he wanted to lay the foundation
of baptism with his sermon, or better: he wanted to strengthen the foundation
that had been laid by John shortly before. So he wanted to establish baptism
with his teaching, and in order to give his establishment greater authority, he
sanctified it in his own body at the most opportune time imaginable, namely when
he began his sermon. In short, the Anabaptists can prove nothing else from this
fact than that baptism took its origin and beginning in the preaching of the
gospel. Now, if they want to make a fixed rule out of the thirtieth year of
life, why do they not keep it, but admit everyone to baptism when, in their
judgment, he has progressed far enough? Yes, even Servet, one of their masters,
did stubbornly insist on the thirty years – but he had nevertheless already
begun to pretend to be a prophet at the age of twenty-one! This is just like
tolerating a man who arrogates to himself the teaching office in the church
before he is a member of the church itself!
IV,16,30 Finally, the Anabaptists make the objection that
there is no stronger reason for giving children a share in baptism than in the
Lord’s Supper, which is not granted to them at all. As if the Scriptures did not
indicate in all sorts of ways a far-reaching difference between the two
sacraments! It was indeed done in this way in the early church (that children
were also given the Lord’s Supper), as is clear from Cyprian and Augustine; but
this custom has deservedly been abandoned again. For if we consider the nature
and peculiarity of baptism, it is in any case in a sense the entrance or, as it
were, the initiation into the Church, by which we are numbered among God’s
people; it is the sign of our spiritual rebirth, by which we are born anew as
children of God. The Lord’s Supper, on the other hand, is intended for the
elderly, who have passed through tender childhood and can already bear solid
food. This difference is shown exceedingly clearly in Scripture. For there, as
far as baptism is concerned, the Lord does not allow any selection with regard
to age. The Lord’s Supper, however, is not offered in such a way that all may
partake of it equally, but only those may partake of it who are able to
"discern" the body and blood of the Lord, to "examine" their own conscience, to
"proclaim the death of the Lord" and to rightly consider his power. Do we want
anything clearer than what the apostle teaches when he gives the admonition,
"But let a man examine and search himself, and so let him eat of this bread and
drink of this cup" (1Cor 11:28; small addition)? So a (self-)examination must
precede, and this is expected in vain in children. Likewise the apostle says:
"Whoever eats unworthily … eats and drinks himself to judgment, because he
does not distinguish the body of the Lord" (1Cor 11:29). If only those who know
how to duly distinguish the holiness of the body of Christ can worthily partake
of the Lord’s Supper, why should we then offer our tender children poison
instead of the life-giving food? What should the Lord’s instruction mean to us:
"Do these things in remembrance of me" (Lk 22:19; 1Cor 11:25)? And what shall we
say to the other instruction that the apostle derives from it: "As often as you
eat of this bread … you shall proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1Cor
11:26)? I would like to know: what kind of "remembrance" do we want to demand
from the children – with reference to a thing that they have never and never
grasped with their senses? What kind of "proclamation" of the Cross of Christ
should we demand from them, whose power and benefits they do not yet comprehend
with their intellect? In baptism nothing of the kind is prescribed, and
therefore there is a very essential difference between these two signs. The same
difference we notice under the Old Testament between the two similar signs
(circumcision and Passover). Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponded
to our baptism, was intended for infants. The Passover, on the other hand, which
has now been replaced by the Lord’s Supper, did not admit all and any table
companions without distinction, but was lawfully eaten only by those who,
according to their age, were able to ask its meaning (Ex 12:26). Would the
Anabaptists, if they had even a modicum of common sense left, be blind to a
thing so plain and so immediately obvious?
IV,16,31 Although it displeases me to inconvenience the
readers with such a mass of verbiage, it will nevertheless be appropriate to
briefly invalidate the seeming grounds of proof which Servet, not the least
among the Anabaptists, indeed a great ornament of that crowd, has seen fit to
put forward when he prepared for battle.
(1) He protects the assertion that Christ’s marks are perfect and that they
require people who are perfect or capable of perfection. But there the answer is
already ready: the perfection of baptism extends to death, and it is therefore
wrong to limit it to a single point in time. I also add: it is foolish to look
for perfection in a man on the first day (at his baptism), to which baptism
invites us throughout our lives in an uninterrupted succession of stages.
(2) Servet now interjects that the marks of Christ were instituted in his
memory, so that everyone might remember that he was buried with Christ. I reply
to this: what he has devised out of his head needs no refutation. Yes, what he
refers to baptism is peculiar to the Lord’s Supper, as Paul’s words show: "Let a
man examine himself…" (1Cor 11:28). With regard to baptism, the same is nowhere
found. From this we see that baptism is rightfully given to those who, according
to the measure of their age, are not capable of such (self-)examination.
(3) Third, he cites the passage: "He who does not believe the Son abides in
death, and the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36; middle inaccurate). From
this he concludes: therefore also the children, who were not able to believe,
remained in their damnation. To this I give the reply: Christ does not speak
here of the general guilt, in which all descendants of Adam are arrested, but he
only threatens the despisers of the gospel, who reject the grace offered to them
with arrogance and stiff-neckedness. But this has nothing to do with the
children. At the same time I oppose his assertion with an opposite reasoning:
everyone whom Christ blesses, he may be whoever he wants to be, he is taken away
from the curse on Adam and from the wrath of God. Since it is therefore known
that the children are blessed by Him (Mt 19:15; Mar 10:16), it follows
that they are redeemed from death. Falsely, Servet then cites a passage that is
nowhere to be read (in Scripture): "He that is born of the Spirit heareth the
voice of the Spirit." Even if we admitted that this was written, he could not
prove anything from it except that believers are fashioned to obedience in
proportion as the Spirit is at work in them. But it is wrong to apply a word
that refers to a certain number of people equally to all.
(4) Fourthly, he makes the objection: because what is natural (precedes what is
spiritual) (1Cor 15:46), so one must wait for a time ripe for baptism, which
after all is spiritual in nature. Now I freely admit that all the offspring of
Adam are born of the flesh and carry their damnation with them from their
mother’s womb; but I still deny that this meant a hindrance, wherefore God could
not immediately apply a remedy against it. For Servet will not be able to prove
that God had prescribed a certain number of years with which the new spiritual
life could begin. In any case, Paul is a witness that the children born of
believers may be lost in nature, but are holy through supernatural grace (1Cor
7:14).
(5) He then brings up an allegory: David, when he approached Mount Zion, had
neither the blind nor the lame with him, but valiant soldiers (2Sam 5:6). But
what does Servet mean when I contrast this with the parable in which God invites
the blind and the lame to the heavenly banquet (Lk 14:21)? How will he wriggle
out of this knot? I also ask: didn’t the lame and the maimed fight with David
before? But it is superfluous to stop longer at this train of thought; because
the readers will already find out on the basis of the Holy History that it is
forged together out of pure deceit.
(6) Then follows another allegory: the apostles were "fishers of men", but not
fishers of little children (Mt 4,19). But I now ask what then the word of
Christ is supposed to mean, according to which fish of "every kind" are caught
in the net of the gospel (Mt 13:47). But because I have no desire to play
with allegories, I answer: if the apostles were charged with the office of
teaching instruction, this did not prevent them from baptizing children.
However, I would also like to know why Servet, when the evangelist speaks of
"men" – an expression that includes the human race without exception – wants to
deny that the children are men.
(7) Regarding the seventh, Servet claims that since spiritual things belong to
spiritual men (1Cor 2:13f.), infants who are not spiritual are unfit for baptism.
But it is clear at first how wrongly he twists the passage in Paul. It is a
matter of doctrine, and since the Corinthians now more than cheaply pleased
themselves in their vain perspicacity, Paul drew to light (and showed) their
slothfulness, that they still needed to be instructed in the first rudiments of
heavenly doctrine. Who now wants to draw from this the conclusion that baptism
must be denied to children, whom God, although they are born of the flesh,
graciously accepts as children and thereby consecrates
for Himself?
(8) He further states that if the children were new men, they would have to be
nourished with spiritual food (which is not yet possible for them). But here the
answer is easily given, the children are received into Christ’s fold by baptism,
and the mark of their reception into the filiation is sufficient for them until
they are grown up and thus able to bear solid food; one must therefore wait for
the time of trial which God expressly requires at Holy Communion.
(9) Then he makes the objection that Christ calls to the Holy Supper all who
belong to His own. But it is sufficiently clear that he admits only those who
are already prepared to celebrate the memorial of his death. From this it is
evident that the children whom he has worthy to be taken in his arms, though
until they have grown up they stand on a separate and proper stage, yet they are
not strangers. And if Servet then replies that it is surely monstrous that a
man, after he has been born (spiritually new), should not eat (spiritually, i.e.
in the Lord’s Supper), I answer: souls are fed otherwise than by the outward
enjoyment of the Lord’s Supper, and Christ is therefore nevertheless the food
for the children, even if they abstain from the mark (of such food, i.e. the
Lord’s Supper). With the baptism it is differently ordered, by it alone the
entrance gate is opened to them to the church.
(10) Again, Servet interjects that a good steward gives food to his household
"in due season" (Mt 24,45). Now I readily admit this; but by what right does
he want to fix for us the time for baptism, in order to prove that it is not
given to the children "in due season"? Moreover, he cites Christ’s instruction
to His apostles to hasten to the harvest when the fields were white (John 4:35).
But Christ has only one thing in mind here: the apostles should see that the
fruit of their labor lay before them, and therefore prepare to teach all the
more eagerly. Who wants to conclude from this that only the time of harvest is
the right time for baptism?
(11) His eleventh reason for proof is that in the first church "Christians" and
"disciples" were the same (Acts 11:26). But we have already seen that he thus
foolishly concludes from one part to the whole. "Disciples" are called men of
proper age, who had already been instructed and had entered into the succession
of Christ, just as the Jews under the law had to be disciples of Moses; but from
this no one will be justified in concluding that the children were outsiders,
when God has testified that they are his household.
(12) Moreover, he also states that all Christians are brothers, and the children
did not belong to the brothers for us as long as we kept them away from the
Lord’s Supper. I return to the principle that only those who are members of
Christ are heirs of the kingdom of heaven; furthermore, it was a true sign of
adoption into sonship that Christ took the children in his arms (Mt 19 and
parallels), and through this adoption into sonship the children are embraced
together with the adults; finally, even the temporary abstention from the Lord’s
Supper does not stand in the way of the fact that they belong to the body of the
church. Even Schacher, who was converted on the cross, did not cease to be a
brother of the pious, although he never came to the Lord’s Supper.
(13) Then Servet adds that no one becomes our brother except through the spirit
of adoption, which is obtained only by hearing the faith. I answer: he falls
into the same false conclusion again and again, because he incorrectly applies
words that apply to adults alone to children. Paul teaches in this passage (Rom
10:17; Gal 3:5) how God usually takes the path in calling that he leads his
elect to faith by raising up faithful teachers for them, through whose service
and work he reaches out to them. But who would presume to impose a law upon him
thereupon, that he should not inculcate the children in Christ in some other,
hidden way?
(14) Furthermore, he appeals to the fact that Cornelius was baptized after
receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48). But how wrong it is that he wants to
prove a general rule from this one example comes out in the case of the eunuch
and in the case of the Samaritans (Acts 8:27-38; 8:12), in whom God caused the
reverse order to occur, that baptism preceded the gifts of the Spirit.
(15) His fifteenth reason for proof is more than inconsistent: he says that
through regeneration we become gods; but gods are those to whom God’s word has
been done (John 10:34f.), and this cannot be said of underage children. That he
imputes divine nature to the believers is one of his delusions, the refutation
of which does not belong here; but to twist the Ps passage (Ps 82,6) in a
sense so foreign to it, that is hopeless impudence. Christ declares that the
kings and authorities are called "gods" by the prophet because they bear an
office imposed upon them by God. But this adroit interpreter relates a word
which is about the special commission to govern, and which is addressed to
certain persons, to the teaching of the gospel, in order to turn the children
away from the church.
(16) On the other hand, he makes the objection: the children could not be
considered new men because they were not born through the Word. I repeat again
what I have already said several times: the "incorruptible seed" for our rebirth
(1Pet 1:23) is the teaching, as long as we are able to receive it; but where we
are not yet able to receive teaching because of our age, God has his
step-by-step sequence in hand to bring us to rebirth.
(17) After that he returns to his allegories and says that under the law sheep
and goats would not have been offered for sacrifice immediately after they had
come out of the womb, if I would now feel like drawing figurative illustrations
here (also on my part), I could easily make the counter-assertion: "all kinds of
first-born" were, immediately when they "broke the mother", sanctified to God
(Ex 13,2), and furthermore a lamb of one year was to be slaughtered (already)
(Ex 12,5). From this it follows then that one must by no means wait for the
male power, but that rather also the just born and still even tender offspring
are chosen by God for sacrifices.
(18) Moreover, Servet claims that only those could come to Christ who had first
been prepared by John. As if John’s ministry had not been temporal (and thus
temporary)! But, to leave that aside: in the case of the children whom Christ
took into his arms and blessed (Mt 19 and parallels), that preparation was
in any case not present. Therefore, let us let him run with his false principle!
(19) Finally, he takes (the scriptures with reference to) the (Hermes)
Trismegistos and the Sibyls as protective helpers for the fact that the holy
ablutions were only for adults. There you can see what a reverent opinion he has
of the baptism of Christ, judging it according to the unholy customs of the
pagans, so that it would not be administered differently than it pleased
(Hermes) Trismegistos! But for us, in the higher place is the authority of God,
to whom it pleased to sanctify infants and to initiate them with the sacred
mark, the power of which they did not yet understand because of their age, nor
do we think it right to borrow from the atonement customs of the pagans anything
that should alter in our baptism God’s eternal and inviolable law, as he
established it with reference to circumcision.
(20) And at the end he makes the consideration: if infants were allowed to be
baptized without understanding anything about it, baptism might be administered
even by children at play for imitation or for jest. But about this he might
argue with God, at whose command circumcision was given to children before they
had received understanding, was it therefore a playfulness or a thing subject to
childish silliness, so that children might have overturned the holy institution
of God? But it is not to be wondered at that such rejected spirits, as if driven
by madness, bring forward even the grossest absurdities in defense of their
errors; for by such giddy frenzy God takes just vengeance upon them for their
pomposity and contumacy. In any case, I hope I have made it clear with what
frail supports Servet assisted his brethren, the Anabaptists.
IV,16,32 I suppose that it is now no longer doubtful to
any sensible person how rashly the church of Christ is brought into confusion by
such people as excite strife and contention over infant baptism. But it is now
appropriate to pay attention to what Satan actually sets in motion with such
great deviousness: he wants to snatch from our hands precisely the unique fruit
of confidence and spiritual joy that can be gained from infant baptism, and also
to damage the glory of divine goodness to the same extent. For how sweet it is
for pious hearts to gain assurance, not only by the word, but also by what they
may see with their eyes, of how they obtain so much grace from their heavenly
Father that he also still provides for their posterity! For here it is true to
observe how he takes on the role of a very caring father of the house towards
us, who even after our death does not abandon the care for us, but looks after
our children and gives them his care. Should we not rejoice and give thanks with
all our heart after David’s example, so that His name may be sanctified by such
a proof of His goodness (Ps 48:11)? Therefore, it is without doubt Satan’s doing
when he runs with so much force against infant baptism: this very testimony of
God’s grace is to be done out of the means, and thus also the promise, which is
held before our eyes by it, is finally to disappear little by little! From this
then shall arise not only an ungodly ingratitude against God’s mercy, but also a
certain slothfulness to educate the children to godliness. For if we consider
that our children are treated and acknowledged by him as children from the
moment of their birth, this is an incentive that not a little encourages us to
educate them in the earnest fear of God and in keeping the law, so let us not
maliciously obscure God’s beneficence, let us offer him our children, to whom he
assigns a place among his friends and household, that is, among the members of
the church!
Of the Holy Supper of the Lord – and what it brings us
IV,17,1 God once took us into his household, not only to
regard us as his servants, but as his children. But having done this, he also
wants to fulfill the office of a very good father who takes care of his
children, and for this purpose he takes it upon himself to give us food
throughout the course of our lives. Yes, he has not been satisfied with this,
but has given us a pledge with which he has wanted to assure us of such
continual kindness. For this purpose, through the hand of His only begotten Son,
He gave His children the second sacrament, namely the spiritual meal, in which
Christ testifies that He is the life-giving bread through which our souls are
fed to true, blessed immortality (John 6:51). Now it is of urgent necessity to
know this great mystery, and in view of its importance it requires a thorough
exposition. Moreover, Satan has wanted to deprive the Church of this
immeasurable treasure and, with this intention, has first raised fog and then
darkness before it in order to obscure its light; he has also stirred up
quarrels and fights in order thus to dissuade the senses of simple-minded people
from the enjoyment of such holy food, and he has also tried the same ruse in our
time. I must therefore first summarize the essential content of the matter with
regard to the comprehension of the uninformed, but then also untie those knots
in which Satan has tried to entangle the world. First: the signs (in this
sacrament) are bread and wine: they represent to us the invisible food which we
receive from Christ’s flesh and blood. For as God in baptism gives us
regeneration, incorporates us into the fellowship of his children, and by
receiving us into filiation makes us his own, so, as has been said, he fulfills
the office of a caring householder in granting us food continually, so as to
preserve and keep us thereby in the life to which he has begotten us by his
word. And then: the one food of our soul is Christ, and therefore the heavenly
Father invites us to him, so that, being made partakers of him, we may receive
refreshment and thereby continually gather new strength until we have attained
to heavenly immortality. But this mystery of Christ’s hidden union with the
pious is incomprehensible by its nature; therefore he makes known a
representation or image of such mystery in visible signs, which are best adapted
to our small measure, yes, he gives us, as it were, pins and marks and thus
makes it a certainty for us, as if we saw it with our eyes. For it is a familiar
parable that penetrates even to the most ignorant mind: our souls are fed with
Christ just as bread and wine sustain bodily life. Thus it is already clear to
us what purpose this hidden blessing (mystica benedictio) serves: it is to
provide us with the certainty that the body of the Lord was once sacrificed for
us in such a way that we now enjoy it as food and, through such enjoyment,
experience the efficacy of this one sacrifice for us, – and that his blood was
once poured out for us in such a way that it becomes a drink for us forever. So
the words of the promise are added: "Take, … this is my body, which is given
for you" (Lk 22:19; not Luther-text; 1Cor 11:24; Mt 26:26; Mar 14:22).
So we are told to "take" and "eat" the body that was once offered for
our salvation, so that we may see that we are made partakers of this body and
come to the firm assurance that the power of His life-giving death will be at
work in us. Therefore He also calls the cup the "covenant" (Luther text: "the
new testament") in His blood (Lk 22:20; 1Cor 11:25). For every time he
gives us that holy blood to drink, it is in such a way that he renews the
covenant that he once confirmed with his blood, or better continues it, as far
as it serves to strengthen our faith.
IV,17,2 Rich fruit of confidence and sweetness can now be
received by the pious souls from this sacrament, because they have the testimony
that we have grown together with Christ into one body, so that everything that
is his may also be called our own. From this it follows that we may dare to be
confident that eternal life belongs to us because he himself is his heir, that
the kingdom of heaven, into which he has already entered, can no more be
snatched from us than from him, and that, on the other hand, we cannot be
condemned by our sins because he has already absolved us of the guilt they
establish, having willed that they should be imputed to him as if they were his
own. This is the miraculous exchange that he entered into with us in his immense
goodness: He became the Son of Man with us and made us sons of God together with
Himself; He descended to earth and thereby opened the way for us to ascend to
heaven; He assumed our mortal nature and thereby made us partakers of His
immortality; He made our weakness His own and thereby strengthened us with His
power; He took upon Himself our poverty and thereby added His riches to us; the
burden of our unrighteousness, which oppressed us, He took upon Himself and
thereby clothed us with His righteousness.
IV,17,3 All these things are so fully witnessed to us in
this sacrament that we are to believe with certainty that they are truly
presented to us, not unlike Christ himself being present, coming before our eyes
and being touched by our hands. For this word cannot lie to us nor deceive us,
"Receive, eat, drink; this is my body given for you, this is my blood shed for
the remission of sins." He commands, "Take ye", indicating that it (He) is ours.
He commands, "Eat," and by this he shows that it (he) becomes substance with us.
He preaches of his body that it is given for us, and of his blood that it is
shed for us – thus he teaches that both are not both his, but rather our own;
for he did not accept and put both on for his own benefit, but for our
salvation. But it must be diligently observed that the effect of this sacrament
rests chiefly, indeed almost wholly, on the words. "Which is given for you …
which is shed for you." For otherwise, namely, if the body and blood of the Lord
had not even been given for our redemption and salvation, it would not avail us
much that they are now distributed. They are therefore made present to us under
bread and wine, so that we may learn that they not only belong to us, but are
also intended for us as food for spiritual life. This is what we drew attention
to above: from the bodily things presented to us in the sacrament, we are led
over, as it were, by means of a relationship of correspondence (analogia) to the
spiritual ones. So, when the bread is given to us as a sign of the Body of
Christ, we must immediately take the parable to heart: as such bread nourishes,
sustains and preserves the life of our body, so the Body of Christ is the only
food to nourish our soul and make it alive. Seeing that wine is set before us as
a sign of Christ’s blood, we should consider what benefit wine brings to our
bodies, and then consider that the same benefit comes to us spiritually through
Christ’s blood; but this effect is precisely that we are nourished, refreshed,
strengthened, and made glad by it. If we sufficiently consider what the offering
of this holy body and the shedding of this blood has brought us, we will clearly
perceive that, according to this relationship of correspondence, these qualities
of the bread and the wine, in their effect on us, are best suited to Christ’s
body and blood when they are given to us.
IV,17,4 The most important task of this sacrament is
therefore not to offer us Christ’s body badly and without deeper consideration,
but it consists rather in giving us that promise in which He testifies that His
flesh is in truth a food, His blood in truth a drink (John 6:55), by which we
are fed to eternal life, that promise in which He declares that He is "the bread
of life" (John 6:48), and that whoever eats of this bread will not die for
eternity (John 6:51) – I say: to seal and confirm to us that promise, and to lead
us, so that this may happen, to Christ’s cross, where it has been redeemed in
truth and fulfilled in full. For only as the Crucified can Christ rightfully and
salvifically be our food, grasping the efficacy of his death with living
sensibility. For when He called Himself "the bread of life" (John 6:48), He did
not take this self-designation from the sacrament, as some misinterpret it. No,
he called himself so because he was given to us by the Father as the bread of
life and also proved himself as such by becoming partaker of our human mortality
and thereby making us fellow members of his divine immortality, by offering
Himself as a sacrifice, thereby taking upon Himself our condemnation in order to
imbue us with His blessing, by swallowing up and annihilating death with His
death, and by raising up in His resurrection this our perishable flesh, which He
had put on, to glory and imperishability.
IV,17,5 But now all this must also be adapted to us and
thereby come to us; this happens on the one hand through the Gospel, but on the
other hand even more clearly through Holy Communion, in which He offers Himself
with all His goods and we receive Him in faith. The sacrament, then, does not
have the effect that Christ first begins to be the bread of life with him; no,
it calls to our remembrance that he has become the bread of life, which is to
give us food continually, it grants us a tasting and tasting of this bread, and
in doing this it causes us to experience the power of that bread. For it gives
us the promise that everything Christ did or suffered was done to make us alive.
And further, it assures us that this making alive, by virtue of which we are to
be nourished, sustained, and preserved in such life without end, is eternal. For
just as Christ would not have been the bread of life for us if he had not been
born and died for us and if he had not risen for us, so, on the other hand, he
would not be now at all if the power and fruit of his birth, death and
resurrection were not an eternal and immortal thing. Christ expressed all this
aptly when he said: "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give
for the life of the world" (John 6:51). With these words he undoubtedly gave to
understand that his body would therefore become bread for us for the spiritual
life of the soul, because it was to be given in death for our salvation, and
would be given to us to eat when he made us partakers of it in faith. So he gave
his body once to become bread, when he gave it to the cross for the redemption
of the world, and he gives it (on the other hand also) day by day by offering it
to us, as he was crucified, in the word of the gospel, that we may become
partakers of it, he gives it where he seals such offering in the holy mystery
(sacrament) of the Lord’s Supper, and he gives it by bringing to fulfillment
inwardly what he illustrates outwardly in the sign. Now we must beware of two
errors here: on the one hand, we must not lay too much stress on diminishing the
signs in their value, and thereby give the impression of tearing them away from
the mysteries illustrated in them, to which they are, after all, in a sense
attached; and on the other hand, we must not be immoderately anxious to elevate
them, and thereby give ourselves the appearance of obscuring to some extent in
the meantime also the mysteries themselves. There is no one, unless he be wholly
without religion, who does not admit that Christ is the bread of life with which
believers are fed to eternal blessedness. On the other hand, there is not the
same unanimity among all as to the way in which one partakes of it. There are
some who declare in one word that to eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood is
nothing other than to believe in Christ himself. But it seems to me that Christ,
in that glorious sermon in which he commands us to eat his flesh, wished to
teach something more powerful and sublime, namely, this very thing, that we are
made alive by truly partaking of him; and this he also made known by the words
"eating" and "drinking," to the end that no one should think that we obtain the
life which we receive from him by simple knowledge. For as it is not by looking
but by eating the bread that the body is nourished, so the soul must become
partaker of Christ in truth and through and through, in order to be strengthened
with His power for spiritual life. Meanwhile, we admit that this food is no
other than that of faith, just as no other can be conceived. However, the
difference between my words and those of the above-mentioned people is that for
them "eating" simply means "believing," whereas I maintain that we "eat"
Christ’s flesh in faith, because in faith he becomes ours, and this eating is a
fruit and effect of faith. Or, if you want it clearer: according to them, eating
is faith, whereas according to me, it results from faith. This is a slight
difference according to the words, but not an insignificant one in the matter.
For the apostle certainly teaches that "Christ dwells in our hearts through
faith" (Eph 3:17); but nevertheless no one will interpret this as if such
dwelling of Christ in us were (simply) faith, but there is general agreement in
the view that here a glorious effect of faith is shown, because believers
through faith obtain the gift that they now have Christ as the one who abides in
them. In this sense, when the Lord called Himself the Bread of Life (John 6:48),
He did not only want to teach that salvation for us is based on faith in His
death and resurrection, no, He also wanted to teach how, through true
participation in Him, His life passes into us and becomes our own, just as
bread, when taken for food, gives strength to the body.
IV,17,6 The representatives of the above view now call
Augustin as a warrant. But when he writes that we eat by believing (Homilies on
the Gospel of John 26:1), he does so in no other sense than to show that such
eating is a matter of faith and not of the mouth. For my part, I do not deny
this; but I add at the same time that in faith we do not grasp Christ as one who
appears to us from afar, but as the one who unites himself to us so that he may
be our head and we his members. Nevertheless, it is not that I simply disapprove
of that way of speaking; I only deny that it is a complete interpretation if one
wants to determine by it what it means to eat Christ’s flesh. By the way, I see
that Augustine used this way of speaking more often. For example, when he says
in the third book of his work "On Christian Instruction": "When it is said:
’Will you not eat the flesh of the Son of Man…’ (John 6:53), this is an image
in which we receive the instruction to share in the suffering of the Lord and to
keep sweetly and profitably in remembrance that His flesh was crucified and
wounded for us" (Of Christian Instruction III:16,24). Likewise it happens when
he declares that the three thousand people who were converted by Peter’s
preaching (Acts 2:41) drank in faith the blood of Christ that they had shed in
their raging (Homilies on the Gospel of John 31:9; 40:2). On the other hand, in
very many other passages he gloriously extols the benefit of faith, that through
it our souls are no less refreshed in communion with the flesh of Christ than
our bodies are with the bread they eat. And this is the same thing that
Chrysostom writes in one place: Christ makes us his body not only by faith but
by deed (Sermon 60). He does not understand this as if such good could be
obtained in any other way than by faith; no, he only wants to exclude the
possibility that someone, when he hears faith mentioned, understands it as a
naked imagination. But those people who are of the opinion that the Lord’s
Supper is merely a sign of external confession, I now pass over; for I believe I
have sufficiently refuted their error when I spoke of the sacraments in general.
Let the reader note only this: when the cup is called a "covenant" ("New
Testament") in Christ’s "blood," it expresses a promise strong enough to confirm
faith. From this it follows that we do not use Holy Communion properly unless we
look to God and accept what He presents to us.
IV,17,7 Furthermore, I am not satisfied with those who
acknowledge that we have some fellowship with Christ, but then, when they want
to show this fellowship, let us partake only of His Spirit, making no mention
whatsoever of the flesh and blood. As if it was all said in vain when it is said
that His flesh is truly food, His blood is truly drink (John 6,55), and only he
has life who eats this flesh and drinks this blood (John 6,53)! If, therefore,
it is certain that the full communion with Christ goes beyond the description of
these people, which is much too narrow, I will set out to indicate in a few
words how far it goes and extends, and only then will I deal with the opposite
error, which consists in stretching that description too far. For I will have to
have a longer argument with such teachers who push things too far: in their
ignorance they devise an absurd way of such eating and drinking, and thereby it
comes about that they rob Christ of his flesh and turn him into a ghost. But all
this is only possible if it is possible to grasp this great mystery with any
words – but I see that I do not even understand it sufficiently with my heart,
and I gladly admit this, so that no one will measure its sublimity according to
the small measure of my childish stammering. Yes, I rather urge the readers not
to keep the sensation of their understanding in this too narrow limit, but to
strive that they rise higher than they are able to under my guidance. For it is
the same with me: whenever this matter is discussed, I think, after I have tried
to say everything, that I have said very little compared to the dignity of the
matter. And although the mind achieves more with its reflection than the tongue
with its expression, it too is overcome and overrun by the greatness of the
matter. Therefore, at last, nothing remains but that I break out into the
admiration of this mystery, which neither my mind can fully consider nor my
tongue be able to expound. Nevertheless, I will set forth the main substance of
my opinion, as best I may; for I have no doubt that it is true, and am therefore
confident that it will not be rejected by pious hearts.
IV,17,8 Above all else, we are taught from Scripture that
Christ has been the life-giving Word of the Father since the beginning
(John 1:1), the fountain and source of life, from whom all things have ever received
life. Therefore John calls Him "the word of life" (1Jn 1:1 s.), and soon he
writes that "in Him was life" (John 1:4): with this he indicates that Christ also
permeated all creatures and gave them the power to breathe and live. John then
adds that life was only revealed to us when the Son of God took on our flesh and
allowed Himself to be seen by our eyes and touched by our hands (1Jn 1:2;
John 1:14). For, to be sure, he also previously caused his power to overflow
upon the creatures; but man was, after all, alienated from God through sin, he
had lost his share in life, and now saw death threatening him on every side; so
that he might regain the hope of immortality, he had to be received into
communion with this Word. For what confidence would you draw from it, if you
heard that God’s word, from which you would be as far away as possible, contains
the fullness of life, but in yourself and all around you nothing met you and
nothing came before your eyes but death? But since this fountain of life has
begun to dwell in our flesh, it is no longer hidden from us, but is near us and
offers itself to us so that we can partake of it! Yes, he also allows the flesh
in which he dwells to be life-giving for us, that we may be fed to immortality
by partaking of him. "I am," he says, "the bread of life, come from heaven …
And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of
the world" (John 6:51; cf. John 6:48). With these words he teaches that he is not
only the life inasmuch as he is God’s eternal Word who descended from heaven to
us, but that by his descent he poured into the flesh that power which he assumed
so that from him we might have a share in life. From this it follows that His
flesh is in truth food and His blood is in truth drink (John 6:55) and that
believers are nourished to eternal life through such food. So there is a
glorious comfort for the pious in the fact that they now find life in their own
flesh. For not only do they have easy access to it, but it lies freely before
them and comes to meet them. They only need to open the bosom of their heart to
receive it as present, then they will receive it!
IV,17,9 However, Christ’s flesh does not of itself have so
much power to make us alive; for it was subject to mortality in its former
state, and now that it is endowed with immortality, it does not live of itself.
But it is nevertheless rightly called "vivifying" because it is imbued with the
fullness of life in order to let it pass over to us. In this sense I interpret
with Cyril the word of Christ: "As the Father hath life in himself, even so hath
he given to the Son to have life in himself" (John 5:26). For in this passage
Christ refers in the proper sense to His gifts, and not to those which He
possessed with the Father from the beginning, but to those with which He was
adorned in the very flesh in which He appeared. He thus shows that the fullness
of life also dwells in his human nature: everyone who partakes of his flesh and
blood should at the same time partake of life. In which way this happens, I
would like to explain with a well-known example. From a well the water is
sometimes drunk, sometimes drawn, sometimes diverted through channels for the
irrigation of arable land; nevertheless, it is not due to the well itself that
it allows its water to overflow for so many uses, but to the source, which in
its continual flow again and again offers and gives it new streams. In exactly
the same way, Christ’s flesh is like a rich, inexhaustible fountain that allows
the life that flows over to it from the Godhead (the "divine nature") to
overflow to us. Now who does not realize that communion in Christ’s flesh and
blood is indispensable for all who aspire to heavenly life? Numerous statements
of the apostle also refer to this. For example, the statement that the church is
the "body" of Christ and His "fullness," but that He Himself is "the head" (Eph
1:22f.), "from whom the whole body is joined together, and one member clings to
another through all the joints … so that the body may grow" (Eph 4:16). Or
the other, that our "bodies are members of Christ" (1Cor 6:15). We understand
that this cannot happen in any other way than by Him being wholly, spiritually
and corporally united to us. But this indissolubly close fellowship, in which we
are joined to Christ’s flesh, the apostle glorified with still more delicious
praise, saying, "We are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones"
(Eph 5:30). And finally, to testify that this thing is greater than all
conceivable words, he concludes his discourse with the exclamation, "The mystery
is great" (Eph 5:32). It would, therefore, testify to extreme folly not to
acknowledge a communion of believers with the flesh and blood of the Lord, when
the apostle declares that it is so great that he would rather admire it than set
it forth.
IV,17,10 To sum up, our souls are not nourished with the
flesh and blood of Christ in any other way than as bread and wine sustain and
promote bodily life. For the correspondence that exists with the sign (in its
relation to the thing) would not fit if souls did not find their nourishment in
Christ. And this cannot happen unless Christ grows into one with us in truth and
refreshes us by the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood. It may
seem incredible, however, that Christ’s flesh can penetrate to us at so great a
distance to become food for us; but let us consider how far the hidden power of
the Holy Spirit reaches beyond all our senses, and how foolish it would be to
try to measure its immensity by our measure. Therefore, what our intellect does
not comprehend, faith should comprehend: what is spatially separated is united
in truth by the Holy Spirit. This holy participation in his flesh and blood, in
which Christ lets his life flow over us, as if it were pressing into our marrow
and bones, – this he also testifies to and seals in the Lord’s Supper, not by
holding up a vain and empty sign, but by bringing to light the active power of
his Spirit, so that with it what he promises can be fulfilled. And it is
doubtless that he presents and sets before the eyes of all who sit down to that
spiritual banquet the thing which is therein illustrated as in a sign, although
it is received with fruit by the faithful alone who accept such great kindness
in true faith and with hearty gratitude. In this sense, the apostle said that
"the bread which we break" is "the communion of the body of Christ," and "the
cup which we bless" with word and prayer is "the communion of the blood of
Christ" (1Cor 10:16). Nor is there any reason for anyone to object that this is a
figurative way of speaking, in which the name of the thing illustrated in the
sign is transferred to the sign itself. I admit, however, that the breaking of
the bread is a sign and not the thing itself. But if we note this, we may yet
rightly conclude from the fact that the sign is presented to us that the thing
is also granted to us. For if one does not want to call God mendacious, he will
never, ever dare to make the claim that a vain mark is held out to us by him.
If, then, by the breaking of the bread, the Lord illustrates in truth the
partaking of his body, it must not be doubted at all that he also grants and
offers this to us in truth. And all believers must observe the rule that
whenever they see the signs which the Lord has set up, they should certainly
believe and be convinced that the truth of the thing represented in the sign is
also present in it. Why does the Lord give you the sign of his body other than
to assure you of your true participation in him? Now if it is true that the
visible sign is presented to us to seal the gift of the invisible thing, then
when we have received the mark of Christ’s body, we should have the firm
confidence that no less will the body itself be given to us.
IV,17,11 So I maintain – and this is how it has always
been accepted in the church, just as all who are of the right opinion teach it
today – that the holy mystery (sacrament) of the Lord’s Supper consists of two
things: of bodily signs, which are set before us and illustrate invisible things
to us according to the capacity of our weakness, and of spiritual truth, which
is both pictured and presented by the signs themselves. Now, if I want to show
in an easy way of what kind this truth is, I use to set up three things: the
meaning (significatio), the underlying cause (materia) that depends on it, and
the force or effect that results from both. The "meaning" lies in the promises
that are, as it were, wrapped up in the sign. By the underlying cause or
"substance" I refer to Christ with His death and resurrection. But by the effect
I mean redemption, righteousness, sanctification, eternal life and all the other
benefits that Christ creates for us. And further: all this, however, refers to
faith; but nevertheless I give no room to blasphemy, as if by saying that Christ
is apprehended in faith I meant that he is apprehended merely by the intellect
or imagination. For when the promises offer Him, it is not in order that we may
be caught up in looking at Him or in a mere knowledge, but that we may enjoy a
true participation in Him. And I really do not see why anyone would want to have
the confidence of having redemption and righteousness in Christ’s cross, and
life in his death, without first of all placing his trust in true fellowship
with Christ himself. For all these goods would not come to us if Christ did not
first make Himself our own. I maintain, then, that in the mystery (sacrament) of
the Lord’s Supper, by the marks of bread and wine, Christ is presented to us in
truth, and with it his body and blood, in which he has fulfilled all obedience
to purchase righteousness for us. And this takes place so that, first, we may
grow together with Him into one body, and second, having become partakers of His
substance, we may also experience His power by partaking of all His goods.
IV,17,12 Now I pass on to the exaggerated conflations
which superstition has brought up. For here Satan has played his game with
astonishing guile to draw men’s minds away from heaven and fill them with the
twisted error as if Christ were bound to the element of bread. First of all, we
must not dream up the presence of Christ in the sacrament in any way as the art
masters of the Roman court dreamed it up, as if Christ’s body were placed in
spatial presence so that we might feel it with our hands, crush it with our
teeth, and swallow it with our mouths. For this is the content of the formula of
recantation that Pope Nicholas (II.) dictated to Berengar (of Tours) so that it
served as a witness of his penitence; and this was done with such outrageous
words that the author of the marginal notes (to the Decretum Gratiani) exclaims
that there is a danger that the readers, if they are not careful on their guard,
will take from it a worse heresy than that of Berengar (Decretum Gratiani
III,2,42; gloss to the Decretum Gratiani on the same passage). And Petrus
Lombardus, while taking great pains to gloss over this absurdity, nevertheless
leans more toward a dissenting view. For now, on the one hand, we are firmly
convinced that the body of Christ is limited after the permanent manner of the
human body, and is enclosed by heaven (cf. Acts 3:21), into which it is once
received until it comes again to pass judgment; and therefore, on the other
hand, we consider it quite unlawful to draw it down again under these perishable
elements, or to imagine that it is everywhere present. But this is not necessary
in order that we may enjoy a share in him: for the Lord grants us through his
Spirit the benefit of becoming one with him in body, mind and soul. The bond of
this union, then, is the Spirit of Christ: he is the link by which we are joined
to him, and he is, as it were, a channel through which all that Christ himself
is and has is conducted to us (Chrysostom in a sermon on the Holy Spirit).
Indeed, if we see how the sun shines upon the earth with its rays, and, as it
were, in order to beget, nourish, and quicken its offspring, causes its
substance to pass upon them-why should the rays of Christ’s Spirit be of less
capacity to bring to us communion with his flesh and blood? Hence it comes to
pass that the Scriptures, where they speak of our partaking of Christ, trace all
its power to the Holy Spirit. Instead of many passages, it may suffice to
mention one. Paul, in the eighth chapter of his letter to the Romans, says that
Christ dwells in us only through his Spirit (Rom 8,9); but he does not abolish
the fellowship with the flesh and blood of Christ that is mentioned here, but he
teaches that it is through the Spirit alone that we possess the whole Christ and
have him as the one who abides in us.
IV,17,13 More modestly express themselves such school
theologians, who are caught in the abhorrence of such barbaric godlessness. But
even they do not do anything else than playing their game with subtle
juggleries. They admit that Christ is not contained in the sacrament in the
spatial sense or in a bodily way; but then they devise a train of thought which
they can neither comprehend themselves nor make others comprehend, and which
then nevertheless amounts to seeking Christ in the form (species) of the bread,
as they call it. Why now? They claim that the substance of the bread is
transformed into Christ – do they not thereby bind him to the white color, which
now, according to them, alone remains (of the bread)? But, they say, he is
contained in the sacrament in such a way that he nevertheless remains in heaven
at the same time, and we claim no other presence than that of the sensual
substance. But whatever words they may now take as a pretext for giving a
beautiful appearance to their cause, the aim with all of them is this, that
something which before was bread now becomes Christ through the consecration (consecratio),
so that Christ now continues to be hidden under this color of bread. Nor are
they ashamed to express this opinion explicitly. For the Lombard literally
declares that the body of Christ, which is visible in and of itself, lies hidden
under the form of the bread after the consecration and is covered by it
(Sentences IV,10,2). Thus the image of that bread is nothing else than a larva,
which is to withdraw the sight of the flesh from our eyes. But it does not
require much conjecture for us to find out what kind of deceitful suggestions
they wanted to prepare with these words, because the facts themselves speak
clearly. For it is evident what a great superstition not only the great
multitude of people, but also the leading men, have been in for many centuries,
and indeed are still in today among the papist churches. For they have had
little concern for the true faith, through which alone we come to communion with
Christ and are united to Christ, but in the meantime they think they have Christ
sufficiently present, if only they possess his carnal presence, which they have
contrived for themselves outside the Word. Therefore we see how in this shrewd
sophistry essentially so much has come out that bread is thought to be God!
IV,17,14 From this then has sprung that imaginary
"transubstantiation" (transformation of substance), for which they nowadays
argue more vehemently than for all other main points of their faith. The first
builders of the spatial presence (of Christ in the sacrament) could not get out
of the question why Christ’s body could be mixed with the substance of the bread
without numerous contradictions appearing immediately. It was therefore
necessary to resort to the self-invented information that (during the Lord’s
Supper) there was a transformation ("transubstantiation") of the bread into the
body (of Christ) – not that the bread became the body in the actual sense, but
in such a way that Christ destroyed the form of the bread in order to hide
Himself under the image of it. But it is astonishing that they should have
fallen into such ignorance, nay, stupor, as to have put forward this monstrosity
against the contradiction not only of Scripture, but also of the unanimous
conviction of the early Church. I admit, however, that some of the ancient
church teachers sometimes used the expression "transformation," not because they
intended to abolish the substance in the external signs, but because they wanted
to teach how the bread consecrated for the mystery (sacrament) was far different
from the ordinary and already represented something else. But they all clearly
declare that the Holy Communion consists of two parts, an earthly and a heavenly
one, and by the earthly one they undoubtedly mean bread and wine. Whatever the
Romans may say, however, it is obvious that they lack the support of the early
church, which they often dare to oppose to the clear words of God, when they
affirm this doctrine. Nor was this doctrine devised very long ago; it is in any
case unknown not only to those better times when a purer doctrine of religion
was still in force, but also to those times when this purity was already to some
extent sullied. Among the ancient church teachers there is not one who does not
admit in explicit words that the sacred marks of the Lord’s Supper are bread and
wine, although, as has been said, they sometimes distinguish them by various
(ornamental) epithets in order to extol the dignity of the sacrament. For when
they say that in the consecration a hidden transformation takes place, so that
now there is something other than bread and wine, they do not mean, as I have
already said, that these elements are nullified, but rather that they must now
be regarded differently from ordinary food, which is intended only to nourish
the body, and this because in them the spiritual food and drink of the soul are
offered to us. We do not deny this either. But when a transformation occurs,
they say, one must necessarily arise from the other. If by this they mean that
it becomes something that it was not before, then I say yes. But if they want to
refer it to their phantasmagoria, then they should give me an answer as to what
kind of transformation occurs in their opinion at baptism. For even in this case
the Fathers of the Church state a miraculous transformation, claiming that the
perishable element becomes the spiritual bath of the soul, although no one
denies that the water remains water. But, they say, at baptism we find nothing
of the kind of the word at the Lord’s Supper, "This is my body." As if it were a
question here of those words which have a sufficiently clear sense, and not
rather of the expression "transformation," which must have no greater meaning in
the Lord’s Supper than in baptism. So let them get away with such syllabic
haste, by which they bring to light nothing but their ignorance! Also the
meaning (of the sign) would not fit, if the truth, which is illustrated in bread
and wine, would not find a living expression in the external sign. Christ wanted
to testify with an external sign that his flesh is food; if he now presented us
only a vain spectre of bread, but not real bread – where would then remain that
relationship of correspondence or that similarity, which should lead us from the
visible thing to the invisible one? For in order that everything might fit
together, under such circumstances the meaning would extend no further than that
we were fed by the "form" of Christ’s flesh! It is the same with baptism: if it
were only an image of water, deceiving our eyes, then baptism would not be a
certain pledge of our cleansing, indeed, it would give us cause to waver because
of such deceptive appearances. The essence of the sacrament is thus nullified,
unless the earthly sign corresponds in kind to the sign-like illustration of the
heavenly thing. And therefore, the truth of this mystery is lost if the true
bread does not visualize the true body of Christ. I repeat it again: the Lord’s
Supper is nothing else than the visible testimony of the promise found in the
sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, namely, that Christ is the bread of life which
came down from heaven (John 6:46, 51); therefore, if this spiritual bread is to
be illustrated, visible bread must necessarily intervene, if we do not want to
lose all the fruit which God grants in this piece for the support of our
weakness. Paul says that all of us who are partakers of one bread are one bread
and one body (1Cor 10:17); now in what way could he come to this conclusion if we
were left with only a specter of bread and not rather the natural reality?
IV,17,15 Now they would never have been so miserably led
on by the juggleries of Satan, if they had not already (before) been enchanted
by that error, that the body of Christ is enclosed in the bread and is then
conveyed into the body with the bodily mouth. The reason for this gross conceit
was that the consecration meant as much to them as a magic incantation. But they
were unaware of the principle that bread is a sacrament only for those to whom
the word is addressed, just as the water of baptism does not change in itself,
but as soon as the promise is joined to it, it begins to be something for us
that it was not before. I will take a similar sacrament as an example; then the
matter will become clearer. The water that flowed out of the rock in the
wilderness (Ex 17:6) was for the fathers the identifying mark and sign of the
same thing that the wine in the Lord’s Supper illustrates for us. For Paul
teaches that they "drank the same spiritual drink" (1Cor 10:4). But this water
was also drunk together with the people, their beasts of burden and their
cattle. From this it is easy to see that the earthly elements, when applied to
spiritual use, do not undergo any other transformation than with respect to the
people, inasmuch as these elements are for them seals of the promises. And
furthermore, if it is God’s intention, as I have said several times, to lift us
up to Himself by appropriate means, then the people who call us to Christ, but
to Him who is supposed to lie invisibly hidden under the bread, ungodly nullify
this with their stubbornness. It cannot happen (so they thought) that the spirit
of man frees itself from the immense spatial distance and penetrates beyond the
heavens to Christ. And what nature failed them, they then tried to improve with
an even more harmful medicine, so that we remain on earth and (yet) do not miss
the nearness of the heavenly Christ. One can see: this is the necessity that
forced them to let the body of Christ change in its substance! At the time of
Bernard, a rather hard way of speaking had already been established, but
transubstantiation was not yet recognized. And in all the centuries before, the
parable was on everybody’s lips, that in this sacrament the spiritual thing was
connected with bread and wine. As for the words (bread and wine) (which, after
all, speak against such transubstantiation), they give, indeed, according to
their opinion, sagacious answers; but they do not thereby bring forward anything
that fits the matter under trial here. Thus they say: the staff of Moses, which
was changed into a serpent, gets the name "serpent", but it nevertheless keeps
the former name and is called "staff" (Ex 4,3; 7,10). Thus, according to their
opinion, it is to be acknowledged to the same extent if the bread, although it
passes into a new substance, is still called in an inauthentic sense, but still
not without sense, what it is before the eyes and in appearance (namely,
precisely as bread). But what resemblance or kinship do they find between that
miracle, which after all is known, and their contrived imposture, to which not a
single eye on earth is witness? (The thing was rather in such a way:) The
magicians drove with juggleries their game, in order to teach the Egyptians the
conviction, they feien equipped with divine strength, in order to transform the
creatures beyond the order of the nature. Then Moses stood up and destroyed all
their deceptions and showed that the insurmountable power of God was on his
side, because his staff alone swallowed all the rest (Ex 7,12). But because
this transformation was visible to the eyes, it has, as said, nothing to do with
our matter here, also the staff returned to its form in a visible way a short
time later (Ex 7,15). In addition, one does not know whether this temporary
transformation was also a transformation of the substance. It must also be noted
that Moses (by retaining the name "staff") alludes to the staffs of the
magicians; for the prophet did not wish to call these staffs "serpents," lest he
should seem to imply a transformation which was not one; for these jesters had
done nothing but cast darkness into the eyes of the spectators. Now what
similarity is there between this process and the words about the Lord’s Supper?
I mention, for example, "The bread that we break …" (1Cor 10:16), or "As often
as you eat of this bread …" (1Cor 11:26), or "They had fellowship in the
breaking of bread …" (Acts 2:42; inaccurate) – or similar words. Surely it is
certain that by the conjuration of the magicians merely the eyes were deceived.
As for Moses, the matter is not so clear: it was just as easy for God to make a
serpent out of a staff and a serpent out of a staff by his hand, as to put
fleshly bodies on the angels and take them off again. If it were the same or
similar with this sacrament, then the solution of these people would have some
appearance for itself. (But this is not the case.) It must therefore remain
certain: in the Lord’s Supper we are only given the promise in truth and in
accordance with the facts, that Christ’s flesh will truly become our food, if
the real substance of the outward sign corresponds to this promise. But one
error always arises from another, and so one passage in Jeremiah has been so
absurdly twisted in order to prove transubstantiation that I am annoyed to
report it. The prophet complains that they have put wood in his bread (Jer
11:19; according to the Latin translation, the Vulgate), and thus he indicates
that his bread has become full of bitterness because of the raging of his
enemies. This is just as David, using the same image, complains that they have
spoiled his food with gall and his drink with vinegar (Ps 69:22). Our
opponents, however, give the passage (in Jeremiah) an allegorical interpretation
in such a way that here it would be said that Christ’s body was pinned to the
wood of the cross (and then, according to this passage, placed in the bread).
But, they probably retort, some of the ancients also thought this way! As if it
were not better to credit them with their ignorance and cover their shame than
to add another impertinence, so that the ancients are now forced to clash
hostilely with the original meaning of the prophet’s word.
IV,17,16 There are others who see that one cannot destroy
the correspondence of sign and signified thing without thereby collapsing the
truth of the sacrament, and who therefore admit that the bread in the Lord’s
Supper is in truth the substance of an earthly and perishable element, and
undergoes no transformation in itself, but (and this is the decisive point) has
the body of Christ "under" (enclosed in) it. Now it could be that they
interpreted their opinion in this way: when the bread is presented in the
sacrament, the presentation of the body of Christ is directly connected with it,
because the sign has inseparably with it the truth represented in it. If it were
so, I would raise no substantial dispute. In fact, however, they think of the
body itself as being spatially present in the bread and thereby impute to it an
omnipresence that is in contradiction with its nature; they also add the little
words "under the bread" and thus want to show that the body lies hidden under
the bread. Since this is the way it is, it is necessary to pull such deviousness
a little out of its nooks and crannies. Now I do not have in mind here to treat
this whole matter as an actual subject, but I only want to lay the foundations
for the argument that will soon follow in the place intended for it. So they
want the body of Christ to be invisible and immeasurable (i.e., inconceivable),
so that it may be hidden under the bread; for they believe that they cannot have
fellowship with it in any other way than when it descends into the bread. But
they do not understand the way of such descent, by which he lifts us up to
himself. They use all kinds of illusory colors as a pretext; but when they have
said everything, it becomes sufficiently evident that they insist on a spatial
presence of Christ. Where does this come from? They cannot imagine any other
participation in His flesh and blood than that which consists in spatial
connection and contact or in some gross enclosure (of the body of Christ in the
bread).
IV,17,17 In order to stubbornly defend such an error,
which they once thoughtlessly raised, some of them have no hesitation in
asserting that Christ’s flesh never had any other dimensions than so far and
wide heaven and earth extend. But that he was born as a child from the womb of
his mother, that he grew, was stretched out on the cross, and was closed in the
tomb, this, according to them, happened by virtue of a kind of dispensational
order, so that he fulfilled the task of being born, dying, and taking upon
himself other human duties. That he was seen in the usual bodily form after his
resurrection, taken up into heaven and finally appeared to Stephen and Paul
after his ascension (Acts 1:3, 9; 7:55; 9:3), this goes back, they further
claim, to the same dispensational order, so that it would be accessible to the
sight of men that he was appointed as king in heaven. What does this mean but to
pull Marcion out of hell? For no one can doubt that Christ’s body, if it was in
such a state, was a simulacrum or an illusory body! Some also draw out of the
matter a little more sophistically: they say that this body, which is given in
the sacrament, is a glorified and immortal body, and therefore there is no
contradiction in it, if it is contained in many places, without any place
(without any spatial bondage) and without any form, under the sacrament. But I
ask: In what form did Christ give his body to the disciples on the day before he
was to suffer? Are not the words that he gave them that very mortal body which
was to be given away shortly afterwards? But, they say, He had already given His
glory to three disciples on the mountain (of transfiguration) to see (Mt
17,2)! This is indeed true; but with this transfigured glory he wanted to grant
them a taste of immortality for one hour. However, they will not find a twofold
body, but just the one Christ bore, adorned with new glory! But when he
distributed his body in the first supper, the hour was already approaching in
which he would lie there "beaten" and humbled by God, without adornment and
afflicted with leprosy (Isa 53:4). So little can it be said that in this meal he
would have wanted to bring to light the glory of the resurrection. Moreover,
what a large window is opened for Marcion, if Christ’s body was seen as mortal
and lowly in one place, but immortal and glorious in another! If the opinion of
these people is to be valid, this happens day after day in the same way, because
they have to admit that the body of Christ, which is visible in itself, is
invisibly hidden under the sign of the bread. And yet the people who utter such
monstrosities are so purely unashamed of their disgrace that they themselves
berate us with wild invectives because we do not subscribe to their opinion.
IV,17,18 Well then, if one wants to bind the body and
blood of the Lord to the bread and wine, one must necessarily tear them apart.
For as the bread is served separately from the cup, so also the body, which is
served with the bread, must necessarily be separated from the blood, which is
included in the cup. If they claim that the body of Christ is in the bread and
his blood in the cup, and if furthermore bread and wine are separated from each
other by a spatial distance, then they cannot escape the conclusion with any
evasion that then also the body of Christ must be separated from his blood.
Here, however, they usually make a pretext: by virtue of the "mutual being
together" (concomitantia), as they invent it, the blood is in the body and the
body in turn in the blood. But this is indeed too frivolous a thing, since the
signs in which body and blood are enclosed are distinguished in this way. If, on
the other hand, we are led up to heaven with our eyes and hearts to seek Christ
there in the glory of his kingdom, then it will happen that, just as the marks
invite us to him in his wholeness, we will in the same way also be fed by his
body under the mark of the bread and be specially watered by his blood under the
mark of the wine, in order finally to enjoy him ourselves in his entirety. For
although he has taken away his flesh from us and has gone to heaven with his
body, he now sits at the right hand of the Father, that is, he reigns in the
power, majesty and glory of the Father. This kingdom of his is not limited by
any spatial expanse, is not enclosed by any dimensions; No, Christ lets his
power work wherever it pleases him, in heaven and on earth, he makes himself
known in power and strength as the present one, he always looks to the side of
his own, breathes his life into them, lives in them, supports them, strengthens
them, animates them and keeps them intact, not differently than if he were
present with his body, he finally feeds them with his own body, whose fellowship
he lets pass over to them through the power of his spirit. In this sense, the
body and blood of Christ are offered to us in the sacrament.
IV,17,19 We must, on the other hand, establish such a
presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper as does not bind Him to the element of
bread, nor enclose Him in the bread, nor in any way spatially confine Him (on
earth) – for it is obvious that all this detracts from His heavenly glory.
Furthermore, we must not imagine Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper as
taking away his greatness, or as making him be in many places at once, or as
imputing to him an immeasurable vastness scattered over heaven and earth – for
this is clearly contrary to the genuineness of his human nature. There are
therefore two restrictive requirements here, which we never, ever want to be
taken away from us. On the one hand, no entry must be made to the heavenly glory
of Christ, as happens when he is brought again among the perishable elements of
this world or when he is bound to any earthly creatures. On the other hand,
nothing must be imputed to his body that does not correspond to human nature:
this happens when one claims that he is unlimited, or when one lets him be in
many places at the same time. For the rest, after these absurdities have been
removed, I willingly accept everything that can serve to express the true and
essential participation in the body and blood of the Lord, which are offered to
the faithful under the sacred signs of the Lord’s Supper. And this is to be done
in such a way that it is not understood as if the believers grasped Christ’s
body and blood merely in their imagination or with the comprehension of their
intellect, but rather in such a way that they actually enjoy them as food for
eternal life. That this (my) opinion is so abhorrent to the world and that its
defense is made impossible from the outset by the unreasonable judgments of many
people, is due only to the fact that Satan has beguiled the senses of such
people with terrible sorcery. In any case, what we teach is in perfect harmony
with the Scriptures in all respects; it contains nothing absurd, nothing dark,
and nothing ambiguous; it is not contrary to true piety and well-founded
edification; and, finally, it does not contain anything irritating or arousing;
it is just that for several centuries, when the ignorance and lack of education
of the clever led the way in the church, such clear light and such obvious truth
were miserably suppressed. But since Satan, even today, endeavors to besmirch
this truth with all kinds of vituperation and reproach through restless spirits,
and since he is bent on nothing else with greater effort, it is appropriate to
protect and defend it more vigorously.
IV,17,20 Now, before proceeding further, we must treat
the endowment itself as Christ accomplished it; especially since the favorite
accusation of our adversaries is that we are departing from the words of Christ.
Now, in order to free ourselves from the false calumny with which they charge
us, we will most skillfully begin by interpreting the (endowment) words.
According to the account of three evangelists and that of Paul, Christ took the
bread, broke it after a thanksgiving, gave it to his disciples, and said, "Take
and eat, this is my body which is given – or: broken – for you." Of the cup,
Matthew and Mark report the words, "This cup is the blood of the New Testament,
which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (version somewhat
inaccurate according to Mt 26:28). Paul and Luke, on the other hand, report,
"This cup is the New Testament in my blood …" (Version according to 1Cor 11:25;
to the whole: Mt 26,26-28; Mar 14:22-24; Lk 22:17, 19 s.; 1Cor 11:24f.).
The defenders of transubstantiation are now of the opinion that by the little
word "that" the "form" of the bread is indicated; for (according to their view)
the "consecration" (consecration) is accomplished by the whole context of the
words, and there is no "substance" present to which reference could be made. But
if they allow themselves to be held by the pious reverence for the words,
because Christ testified that what he gave into the hands of his disciples was
his body, – in any case their fantasy, according to which what was bread before
is now supposed to be (Christ’s) body, has not the least to do with the actual
meaning of these words. What Christ takes in his hand and presents to his
apostles is, he declares, his body. But he had taken bread in his hand – and who
does not understand, therefore, that it was also bread which he showed them, and
that therefore there is nothing more absurd than when one transfers what is said
of the bread to the "form"? Others understand the little word "is" as if it were
put for "to be transformed" (thus implying the process of transubstantiation),
and thus take their recourse to an even more forced and forcibly twisted
interpretation. They have, therefore, no reason to use the pretext that they are
moved by the reverence of the words. For in no nation and in no language has
anything ever been heard of the little word "is" being used in this sense, that
is, in the sense of "being changed into something else." Now, as for those who
leave the bread in the Lord’s Supper (that is, do not speak of a "figure" or the
like) and then claim that it is the body of Christ, there is great diversity
among them. Some express themselves quite modestly; they lay sharp emphasis on
the letter: "This is my body", but afterwards they let go of their sharpness and
say that these words mean as much as that Christ’s body is "with the bread, in
the bread and under the bread". Of the matter they assert we have already given
some brief intimations, and it must soon be spoken of in more detail. Now the
discussion is concerned solely with the words by which, according to their
assertion, they are compelled not to admit the view that the bread is therefore
called "body" because it is the sign of the body. But if they now avoid every
figurative mode of speech (tropus), why do they leap from the simple reference
of Christ to their modes of speech so essentially different? Because it is
something essentially different, whether one says that the bread is the body,
or: the body is "with" the bread! But they have just seen how it is impossible
to maintain the statement: "the bread is the body" in its simple literal sense,
and therefore they have tried to escape with such forms of speech as if by
crooked detours. Others, however, are bolder, and they assert without hesitation
that the bread is the body in its proper sense – and in this way they prove that
they really obey the letter! If one opposes them, then the bread is Christ and
God, then they will deny this, because it is not expressly found in the words of
Christ. But they will achieve nothing with their denial, for there is general
agreement that in the Lord’s Supper the whole Christ is offered to us! But it is
an intolerable blasphemy to declare without a picture of a frail and perishable
element that it is Christ. I mention two statements, one: "Christ is the Son of
God", and the other: "the bread is the body of Christ" – and now I ask them if
they mean the same thing. If they concede that they are, however, different –
and to this concession they can be forced against their will – let them answer
me the question whence such difference comes. They will, I think, adduce no
other cause than that the very bread is called "body" in the manner of the
sacrament. From this then it follows that Christ’s words are not subject to the
general rule, and must not be judged by grammar. And then: Luke and Paul call
the cup "the (New) Testament in blood …" (Lk 22:20; 1Cor 11:25); now I ask
all these people, who insist so hard and strictly on the letter, whether Luke
and Paul do not express with these words the same as in the first statement
link, where it says: "This is my body." At any rate, there was the same holy
reverence in the one part of the sacrament as in the second, and since brevity
does not give a clear sense, the longer speech makes the sense stand out
clearly. Every time, therefore, when they assert, on the basis of one word, that
the bread is the body of Christ, I put forward, on the basis of a greater number
of words, the well-fitting interpretation that the bread is "the testament in
his body." Why then can one seek a more faithful and certain interpreter than
Luke and Paul? Now I have no intention of in any way weakening the communion
with the body of Christ which I have confessed; my intention is only to repel
the foolish obstinacy with which they argue so hostilely about words. With Paul
and Luke as warrantors, I understand it to mean that the bread is the body of
Christ, and that because it is the covenant in his body. If they contend against
it, they have not to contend with me, but with the Spirit of God. And even if
they complain vehemently that they are prevented by reverence for the words of
Christ from daring to understand what is openly said, this is not a sufficiently
just excuse to reject all the reasons we put forward against it. However, as I
have already pointed out, we must know what it means when it is said that in the
body and blood of Christ is the testament (the covenant); for the covenant,
which was confirmed by the sacrifice of his death, would be of no use to us if
that hidden fellowship were not added, by virtue of which we grow into one with
Christ.
IV,17,21 It remains, then, for us to admit that, for the
sake of the resemblance which the things illustrated in the sign (res signatae)
have to their signs, the very name of the thing has also been attached to the
sign; and this has been done in a figurative manner (figurate), but not without
a most appropriate relation of correspondence (analogia). I leave symbolic
interpretations and similes aside, so that nobody claims that I seek evasions or
go beyond the matter that is presently under discussion. I maintain that it is a
question here of a transferring way of speaking (metonymicus sermo), which is
used again and again in the Scriptures, where it concerns the mysteries
(sacraments). For when it is said that circumcision was the "covenant" (Gen
17:13), the lamb was the "passing over" (Passover; Ex 12:11), the sacrifices
under the law were atonements (Lev 17:11; Hebr 9:22), and finally the rock from
which water flowed forth in the wilderness was Christ (Ex 17:6; 1Cor 10:4),
this can only be understood if one assumes that it is said in a figurative
sense. But not only is the name transferred from the superior to the inferior,
but on the contrary, the name of the visible sign is also attached to the thing
illustrated in the sign; thus, when it is said that God appeared to Moses in the
thorn bush (Ex 3:2), or when the ark of the covenant is called "God" or "God’s
face" (Ps 84:8; 42:3), or when the dove is called the Holy Spirit (Mt
3:16). For the sign is different in its nature from the thing represented in the
sign, because the latter is spiritual and heavenly, whereas the sign is
corporeal and visible; but it not only represents the thing for the
representation of which it is sanctified like a naked and empty sign, but it
also offers it in truth – and why then should the name of this thing not rightly
belong to it? If, after all, the signs devised by men, which are rather pictures
of absent things than signs of present ones, and in addition very frequently
falsely indicate such things, are nevertheless sometimes adorned with the name
of these things, the signs instituted by God borrow with much stronger
justification the names of things, Whose certain and absolutely unmistakable
meaning they always carry about them, and whose truth they have with them in
firm connection; the resemblance and affinity of the one to the other is thus so
great that they easily pass into each other reciprocally. Therefore, let our
adversaries desist from heaping foolish gibes against us by calling us "tropists"
(followers of figurative interpretation) when we interpret the mode of speech
applied to the sacraments according to the common (linguistic) usage of
Scripture. For as the sacraments agree with each other in many things, so also
in this transferring manner of speaking (metonymia) there is something common
between them. Thus, as the apostle teaches that the rock from which a spiritual
drink gushed forth to the Israelites was Christ (1Cor 10:4), and that because
it was to be a visible mark under which that spiritual drink was received in
truth, but not conspicuously – so also today the bread is called the body of
Christ, because it is a mark in which the Lord offers us the true enjoyment of
his body. Nor did Augustine judge otherwise, nor speak – lest anyone despise this
view as a new-thought thing! "If the sacraments," he says, "did not have some
resemblance to the things of which they are sacraments (signs), they would not
be sacraments. By virtue of this resemblance they receive, above all, the names
of the things themselves. Therefore, as in a certain sense the sacrament of the
body of Christ is the body of Christ, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ
is the blood of Christ, so the sacrament of faith is faith" (Letter 98; to
Bonifacius). There are many other similar passages in his writings, but it would
be superfluous to enumerate them, since that one is sufficient; only I must call
the reader’s attention to the fact that the holy man advocates the same doctrine
in his letter to Evodius (Letter 169,2.9). A frivolous evasion, however, is the
assertion that if Augustine teaches that the transference of the mysteries
(sacraments) is common and usual, he did not mention the Lord’s Supper. If one
wanted to accept this opinion, then one could not conclude from the general to
the particular, and the conclusion would be invalid: all animals have the
ability to move, therefore also ox and horse have the ability to move! However,
a longer argument is made superfluous by words of the same holy man elsewhere:
namely, he claims against the Manichaean Adimantus that when Christ had
distributed the sign of his body, he would have called it his body without
hesitation (Against Adimantus 12,3). And again in another place, namely in the
explanation of the third Psalm, he says: "Wonderful is the longsuffering of
Christ, that he called Judas to the supper, in which he commanded and gave the
image (figura) of his body and blood to the disciples" (to Ps 3:1).
IV,17,22 If, nevertheless, a stubborn person, blind to
everything else, insists only on this one little word: "This is …", as if by
this word the Lord’s Supper were divorced from all other mysteries (sacraments),
it is easy to answer him. It is said that the word ("is") pointing to the
substance is so sharply emphasized that it does not admit of any figurative
explanation. If we concede this to the representatives of this view, we can also
read this word expressing the substance in the words of Paul, namely, where he
calls the bread "the fellowship of the body of Christ" (1Cor 10:16). But the
"fellowship" is something other than the body itself. Yes, almost everywhere
where the sacraments are spoken of, we encounter the same word of activity.
"This will be for you the covenant with me", it says (Gen 17,13; not Luther
text). Or: "This lamb will be the Passover for you" (Ex 12,11; not Luther
text). And, not to mention more passages: if Paul says that the rock has been
Christ – why do those people find the substance-expressing little word ("has
been") less emphasized in this passage than in the words of Christ? They should
also answer me, what then the substance-expressing activity word in the words of
John means: "The Holy Spirit was not yet (there), because Jesus was not yet
transfigured" (John 7,39). if they cling to their rule here, the eternal essence
of the Holy Spirit must be nullified, as if the Spirit had taken its beginning
only with the ascension of Christ! And finally, let them answer me what is the
meaning of Paul’s word, according to which baptism is "the bath of regeneration
and renewal" (Tit 3:5), while it is certain that for many it is without
benefit! There is nothing more powerful to refute this than Paul’s word that the
church is Christ (1Cor 12:12). He cites the parable of the human body and then
continues: "So also Christ", and there he does not mean the only begotten Son of
God in Himself, but in His members. With these remarks I hope to have already
reached the point that with men of sound senses and pure natures the blasphemies
of our enemies are stinking, when they scatter the assertion that we refuse to
believe the words of Christ – while we nevertheless accept them no less
obediently than they do themselves and consider them with greater reverence.
Yes, their comfortable security is proof that they do not care much about what
Christ willed – if it only provides them with a shield for their stubbornness!
And likewise, our thorough investigation must bear witness to how high Christ’s
authority is to us. They spitefully claim that human sensibilities stand in our
way, so that we do not believe what Christ has spoken with his holy mouth; but
how insolent it is that they inflict this disgrace on us, I have already made
clear to a great extent, and it will come out still more clearly hereafter.
Nothing, then, prevents us from believing Christ in his words and, as soon as he
has given one thing or another to be understood, from relying on them. It is
only a question of whether it is sacrilege to search for the original meaning
(of his words).
IV,17,23 In order to appear as well-educated men, these
excellent teachers forbid to deviate even in the least from the letter. With me,
however, it is like this: the scripture calls God a "man of war" (Ex 15:3);
because I now see that this, if it is not meant figuratively, is too harsh an
expression, I do not doubt that it is a comparison taken from men. And indeed,
when the "anthropomorphites" used to afflict the orthodox fathers, the pretext
under which they did so was none other than this: they used such words as: "The
eyes of the Lord see" (Deut 11:12; 1Ki 8:29; Job 7:8), or: "It has come up
before his ears" (2Sam 22:7; 2Sam 22:7; 2Sam 22:8). Sam. 22:7; 2Ki 19:28 etc.),
or: "His hand is stretched out" (Isa 5:25; 23:11; Jer 1:9; 6:12
etc.), or: "The earth is His footstool" (Isa 66,1; Mt 5,35; Acts 7,49), and
these words they then wildly snatched and shouted that they were robbing God of
the body that the Scriptures attached to Him. If this law is allowed to stand, a
monstrous barbarity will darken the whole light of faith! For what monstrosities
of absurdity will the enthusiasts be allowed to prove (from the Scriptures), if
they are permitted to cite every single letter in confirmation of their
opinions! Our opponents make the objection that it is not probable that Christ,
when after all he prepared for the apostles a singular consolation in
adversities, spoke allegorically or indistinctly. But this is speaking in our
favor! For if it had not occurred to the apostles that the bread was called
Christ’s body in a figurative sense, because it was the very sign of that body,
they would no doubt have been thrown into confusion by so monstrous a thing. As
John reports, at almost the same moment they were also caught up in the least
difficulty. They argue with each other about why Christ would go to the Father,
they raise the question why he should go out of the world, they do not
understand anything about the words that are said to them concerning the
heavenly Father before they have seen him (John 14:5.8; 16:17). How then should
the same disciples, behaving in this way, have been able with ease to believe
something that all reason rejects, namely that Christ was sitting at the table
before their eyes and yet at the same time was decided invisibly under the
bread? But now they eat the bread without hesitation, and thus testify to their
unanimous understanding; from this it is clear, therefore, that they understood
the words of Christ in the same sense as we do; it just occurred to them, which
must not seem impossible in the case of the mysteries (sacraments), that the
name of the thing illustrated in the sign should be attached to the sign! The
consolation was therefore certain and clear for the disciples, as it is for us,
and not wrapped in any mystery. And if some people do not want to have anything
to do with our interpretation, there is no other reason for it than that the
devil’s enchantment has blinded them, so that they imagine the dark shadows of
riddles, when the interpretation of the rounded image is on the way. Moreover,
if they are so keen on the words, Christ would have to have said something
different about the bread by itself than about the cup. He calls the bread his
body, the wine he calls his blood; this would then be either a confused talk or
a dichotomy, which separated the body from the blood! Yes, it would (then) be
just as truthful if it were said of the cup, "This is my body," as if that had
been said of the bread itself, and again it could have been said that the bread
was the blood! If they reply that one must pay attention to the purpose and use
to which the marks are put, I admit that; but in the meantime they can by no
means wriggle out of the fact that their error entails the absurd assertion that
the bread is the blood of Christ and the wine His body! Now I do not know what
it means that they admit that the bread and the body are different things, but
then claim that one is said of the other (i.e. the bread is the body …) in the
proper sense and without image. This is exactly as if someone said that a
garment is different from man and yet is said to be man in the proper sense.
Meanwhile, they claim that one accuses Christ of lying if one inquires into the
interpretation of his words – just as if for them victory consisted in obstinacy
and in scolding reproaches! Now the readers will easily be able to judge what an
unjust dishonor these syllabic hashers do to us, by teaching simple people the
opinion that we withdraw faith from the words of Christ, while these words, as
we have proved, are nonsensically twisted and confused by them, but faithfully
and correctly interpreted by us.
IV,17,24 But the stain of this lying assertion cannot be
completely eradicated unless the other accusation is refuted: namely, they claim
that we are so attached to human reason that we attribute nothing more to the
power of God than the order of nature would bear and common sense would admit.
In the face of such unjust vituperation, I refer to the doctrine itself; it
shows clearly enough that I do not measure this mystery according to human
reason or subject it to the laws of nature. I would like to know: have we
learned from the naturalists that Christ nourishes our souls from heaven with
his flesh just as our bodies are nourished with bread and wine? Where then does
this power come from the flesh, that it gives life to souls? Everyone will say
that this does not come about naturally! Nor will it appeal to human reason that
Christ’s flesh comes to us to serve us for nourishment. In short, whoever has
tasted of our teaching will be carried away to the admiration of the hidden
power of God. But those excellent zealots for this power of God make a miracle
for themselves, with the removal of which God and his power are destroyed. With
this I would like to exhort the readers once more to consider thoroughly what
our doctrine means: whether it depends on common sense – or whether it leaves
the world beneath it on the wings of faith and penetrates into heaven! We say
that Christ descends to us both in the outward sign and in His Spirit, to make
our souls alive in truth with the substance of His flesh and blood. Whoever does
not feel that in these few words numerous miracles are decided, is more than
insensible. For nothing is more contrary to nature than that souls should borrow
spiritual, heavenly life from a flesh which took its origin from the earth and
has been subject to death; nothing is more incredible than that things so far
apart and separated as heaven and earth, at such great distance, should not only
be united, but made one, so that souls receive nourishment from the flesh of
Christ! Foolish men, then, should refrain from making us odious with stinking
vituperation, as if we were somehow petty in limiting God’s immense power. For
it is so, that they either err foolishly at all – or lie brazenly. For the
question here is not what God was able to do, but what he wanted to do. But we
claim that exactly that happened, what was pleasing to him. But it pleased him
that Christ should "become like his brethren in all things," "yet without sin"
(Hebr 2:17; 4:15). Of what kind then is our flesh? Isa it not that it has its
definite measurement, is spatially enclosed, is touched and seen? But you ask:
And why should God not manage that the same flesh fills numerous different
places at the same time, that it is not enclosed by any space and has neither
measure nor shape? You foolish man, why do you demand from God’s power that it
should work so that this flesh is at the same time flesh and yet also not flesh?
That is just as if you insist that it should bring it about that the light is
light and darkness at the same time! No, she wants the light to be light, the
darkness to be darkness and the flesh to be flesh! She will, of course, if she
wills, change darkness into light and light into darkness; but if you demand
that light and darkness be without distinction, what are you doing but
perverting the order of God’s wisdom? So the flesh must be flesh and the spirit
must be spirit, each according to the law and with the purpose as it was created
by God. But the destiny of the flesh is that it should have one, and that it
should have a definite space, that it should have its measurement and its form.
Under this destiny Christ assumed the flesh, and, as Augustine testifies, while
he gave it incorruption and glory, he did not take away its nature and truth
(Letter 187,3,10; to Dardanus).
IV,17,25 On the other hand, they claim to have the word
in which God’s will is made manifest. Yes, of course, if they are allowed to
remove from the church the gift of interpretation that gives light to the word!
I admit that they have the word – but as the Anthropomorphites had it in former
times, when they made themselves a corporeal God, or as Marcion and the
Manichaeans had it, when they thought of Christ’s body as a heavenly or an
illusory body. For these people also cited scriptural testimonies; for example,
"The first Adam is of the earth and earthy, the second Adam is of heaven and
heavenly" (1Cor 15:47; inaccurate). Or likewise, "Christ emptied Himself and took
on the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of a man" (Phil 2:7;
inaccurate). But these coarse eaters think that there is no power of God, if the
whole order of nature is not turned upside down by the monstrosity they have
made up in their brains – and that means rather to "set limits to God" (as they
reproach me!), if we try to find out what he is able to do by our own fancies.
For from what word have they taken it that the body of Christ is visible in
heaven, but on earth it is invisibly hidden under innumerable pieces of bread?
They will say that the necessity of Christ’s body being distributed in the
Lord’s Supper requires this. It is just so: because it pleased them to deduce
from the words of Christ the carnal eating (of his body), they have now been
carried away by their own preconceived judgment, and have thought it necessary
to devise this sophistry, to which the whole Scripture objects. But the
assertion that we somehow diminish God’s power is so perverse that His praise is
glorified in a special way by our teaching. But because they constantly suspect
us of robbing God of His glory by rejecting what is difficult to believe
according to common sense, even if Christ had promised it with His own mouth – I
again give the answer, as above, that we do not consult common sense in the
mysteries of faith, but accept the teaching that comes from heaven in peaceful
scholarship and in the spirit of "meekness" that James commands us (Jam 1:21).
However, I do not conceal that where they go perniciously astray, we exercise a
beneficial moderation. When they hear the words of Christ, "This is my body,"
they imagine a miracle that is very far from what he meant. But as soon as evil
absurdities arise from this fantasy, they sink into the abyss of God’s
omnipotence, because they have already entangled themselves in ropes in their
hasty haste, in order to extinguish the light of truth in this way. Hence then
comes this puffed-up obstinacy (that they say): We do not want to know in what
way Christ is hidden under the bread, but are content with his own word: "This
is my body." But we strive, as with all Scripture, to gain the sound
understanding of this passage with as much obedience as diligence, and we do not
snatch up in perverse impetuosity, without reflection and without selection,
whatever first suggests itself to our senses, but let diligent consideration
enter in, and accept the sense which the Spirit of God gives us; in Him we put
our trust – and then we look down from on high on all that opposes itself in
earthly wisdom. Yes, we hold our mind captive so that it does not contradict a
single word, and we humble it so that it does not dare to rebel against it. From
this has arisen the interpretation of the words of Christ, of which all who are
only somewhat experienced in it know well that it is common to the sacraments on
account of the constant usages of Scripture. But we do not think that it is
forbidden for us to inquire, after the example of the Blessed Virgin, in a
matter that is difficult to understand, "How is this to be done?" (Lk 1:34).
IV,17,26 In order to strengthen the faith of the pious,
however, nothing will be of greater importance than if they learn that the
doctrine we have established is taken from the pure Word of God and is based on
its authority. I will therefore also make this clear, as briefly as I am able.
That the body of Christ is finite after His resurrection and will be enclosed by
heaven until the Last Day is taught – not by Aristotle, but by the Holy Spirit
(cf. Acts 3:21)! It is also well known to me that our adversaries carelessly
avoid the passages that are cited in this regard. In the passages where Christ
says that he will leave the world and go away (John 14,12.28), they claim that
this going away is nothing else than a change of his mortal state. But under
such circumstances Christ would not have put the Holy Spirit in his place to
fill, as they say, the lack of his absence; for then he does not take his place
at all; then Christ does not descend again from the heavenly glory to assume the
state of mortal life. Undoubtedly the coming of the Holy Spirit and the
ascension of Christ are opposed to each other, and therefore it cannot happen
that Christ dwells with us in the same way according to the flesh as he sends us
his Spirit. In addition, He expressly says that He will "not always" be with His
disciples in the world (Mt 26,11; John 12,8). Our opponents also believe to
invalidate this word by pretending that Christ said that he would not always be
poor and miserable and subject to the hardships of this frail life. But the
context of the passage manifestly objects to this; for it is not a question here
of poverty and want, or of the wretched condition of Christ’s earthly life, but
of worship and honor. The disciples did not like the anointing, because they
thought it was a superfluous, useless, and almost wasteful expenditure, and
therefore they would have preferred that this money, which they thought was
badly wasted, had been used for the poor. Christ answered that he would not
always be with them to receive such honorable service (Mt 26,8-11).
Augustine did not interpret it differently; he expresses himself completely
unambiguously in the following way: "When Christ said, ’You do not have me with
you always,’ he was speaking of the presence of his body. For according to his
majesty, according to his providence, and according to his ineffable, invisible
grace, what he said is fulfilled: ’Behold, I am with you always, even to the end
of the world’ (Mt 28:20). But after the flesh that received the word, after
that he was born of the virgin, after that he was seized by the Jews, that he
was pinned to the wood, that he was taken down from the cross, that he was
wrapped in linen, laid in the tomb, and made manifest in the resurrection -it is
said of him, ’Me you do not have with you always.’ Why? Because just after the
presence of his body, he walked with his disciples for forty days and then went
to heaven, and they accompanied him with their looks, but not with their
following. He is not here; for He sits there ’at the right hand of the Father’
(Mark 16:19). And yet He is here; for the presence of His majesty has not
departed (Hebr 1:3). In another way, according to the presence of his majesty,
we have Christ always; but according to the presence of his flesh it is rightly
said, ’But me ye have not always.’ For the Church, according to the presence of
his flesh, had him for a few days; now she has him with her in faith, but with
eyes she does not see him" (Homilies on the Gospel of John 50:13). There
Augustine explains – to briefly note this as well – that Christ is present with
us in a threefold way: in his majesty, providence and inexpressible grace; by
this grace I understand that miraculous communion with his body and blood,
provided we only understand that this happens through the power of the Holy
Spirit, but not through that imaginary closing of his body under the element.
Our Lord testified that He has flesh and bones that can be touched and seen
(John 20:27). Nor does "depart" and "ascend" mean to give the appearance of performing
and departing, but in truth to do what the words say. Shall we then, someone
will say, ascribe a certain realm of heaven to Christ? No, I answer with
Augustine, that this is a most rash and superfluous question, if we only believe
that he is in heaven (Of Faith and Symbol 6:13).
IV,17,27 Why then-does not the expression "ascension," so
often repeated, mean a moving from one place to another? Our adversaries deny
this, because under the "height," according to them, is merely implied the
majesty of Christ’s lordship. But what does the way in which Christ ascended
mean? Does he not ascend before the eyes of his disciples? Do not the
evangelists clearly report that he was taken up into the heavens (Acts 1:9; Mark
16:19; Luke 24:51)? Those sophistiastics, on the other hand, claim that he was
withdrawn from view by a cloud so that the faithful would learn that he would
henceforth no longer be visible in the world. As if, in order to awaken in us
the belief in his invisible presence, he would not rather have had to disappear
in a single moment, or as if the cloud would not then have had to seize him
before he moved a foot! But in fact he is lifted up into the air, and teaches us
by the cloud that passes under him that he is no longer to be looked for on
earth: from this we conclude with certainty that his dwelling-place is now in
heaven; so also Paul declares, and he commands us to expect him from there
(Phil 3:20). For this reason the angels point out to his disciples that they
are looking in vain for heaven; for Jesus, who is taken up into heaven, will
come just as they have seen him ascend. Here, too, the opponents of the sound
doctrine find their way out by what they consider to be a clever evasion:
namely, they say that he will then come visibly, whereas, however, he never
departed from earth, but remained invisibly with his own. As if the angels at
this point imposed a double presence of Christ and did not simply make the
disciples eyewitnesses of his ascension, so that no doubt would remain! It is as
if they said: "Before your eyes he has been taken up into heaven and has
appropriated for himself the heavenly kingdom; now this remains, that you wait
patiently until he comes again as the judge of the world; for if he has now
entered heaven, this has not happened so that he might have possession of it
alone, but so that he might unite you and all the pious to himself!
IV,17,28 But since the defenders of this false doctrine are not afraid to embellish it with approving testimonies of the ancient church teachers and especially of Augustine, I will explain in a few words how wrong this undertaking is. Since the testimonies of the ancients have been compiled by learned and pious men, I do not want to discuss a settled matter again – whoever wants to, may take it from their works! Not even from Augustine will I collect everything that contributes to this matter, but I will content myself with showing in a few words that he is indisputably fully on our side. Our opponents, of course, in order to wring him out of our hands, pretend that in his books one repeatedly encounters the phrase that in the Lord’s Supper the flesh and blood of Christ is distributed, namely the sacrifice that was once offered on the cross. But this is a weak pretext, because at the same time he calls the Lord’s Supper a meal of thanksgiving (eucharistia) and the sacrament of the body (of Christ). For the rest, it is not necessary to inquire by a long detour in what sense he uses the expressions "flesh" and "blood"; for he interprets himself by saying that the sacraments receive their name on the ground of likeness to the things they signify, and therefore in a certain way the sacrament of the body is the body (Epistle 98:9; to Bonifacius). In harmony with this is another sufficiently well-known passage: "When the Lord gave the sign (of his Body), he had no hesitation in saying, ’This is my Body’" (Against Adimantus 12). Furthermore, our opponents object that Augustine writes expressly that the body of Christ falls to the earth and enters into the mouth,-this is done (I reply) precisely in the same sense in which he asserts that it is consumed; for he connects the two with each other. Nor is it opposed to this that he says that after the consummation of the mystery (sacrament) the bread is consumed (Of the Trinity III,10,19); for shortly before he had said, "Since this is known to men, because it is consummated by men, it can receive honor as something holy, but not as something miraculous" (ibid. 10,20). There is no other meaning to another word, which our adversaries too carelessly draw to themselves, namely, that Christ carried himself in his hands, as it were, when he presented the bread of the sacrament to his disciples (on Ps 33; 1:10). For Augustine, after all, makes an addition which implies a comparison ("in a manner of speaking"), and thus sufficiently indicates that Christ was not in truth and reality (non vere nec realiter) shut up under the bread (cf. also ibid. 2:2). This is not to be wondered at; for elsewhere he openly asserts that bodies, when the spatial distance from them is taken away, no longer exist anywhere, and because they are nowhere, they are precisely no longer there at all (Letter 187; to Dardanus). The prevarication that it is not about the Lord’s Supper, in which God lets a special power be effective, is without content. For the question had been raised about the flesh of Christ, and there the holy man gave his answer with full deliberation, saying: "Christ has given immortality to his flesh, but has not taken away his nature. It must not be thought that he was scattered everywhere according to this form; for we must be careful not to raise up the divinity of man (Christ) in such a way as to take away from him the truth of his body. And it is not a right conclusion to think that what is in God is everywhere like God" (ibid. 3:10). The r