I have got the permission to bring the translation of the CA Graeca into English - made by Dr. Wayne James Jorgenson as an APPENDIX to his dissertation:

The Augustana Graeca and the correspondence
between the Tübingen Lutherans and patriarch Jeremias:
 Scripture and tradition in theological methodology

(Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Boston University, 1979)

© Dr. Wayne James Jorgenson

(The pagination follows the ASThW)

THE GREEK VERSION OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION1

(Words which are found only in the Greek text have a blue colour; words which involve a noteworthy variation between the Greek text and the Latin variatissima text have a red colour. The pagination of the ASThW text is indicated in the left margin.)

p. 5

CONFESSION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, that is, of the Christian teaching, presented to Charles, the most invin­cible emperor of the Romans, in the city of Germany derived from the name of the emperor, in the year 1530 from the birth of Christ, translated by Paul Dolscius of Plauen. Chapters or articles chosen from the sound and saving faith.

The churches among us, being of the same mind, teach that the decree of the Synod of Nicea about the unity of the divine essence and of the three hypostases or persons is true, and that it is to be believed without any doubt that there is clearly one divine essence, which is called and is God eternal, bodiless, undivided, having created and pre­serving all things, both seen and unseen, by immeasurable strength, wisdom, and goodness. Yet there are three persons, of the same essence and of the same power, and coeternal, that is to say, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. They use the name of person in that meaning according to which the ecclesiastical writers have also used it in the same method, lest it signify a part or a quality lying in another, but that the distinctive character and unique substance may be apparent.

              They condemn all heresies which blasphemed this article of the Orthodox Faith: such as that of the Manichaeans, who fabricate two principles, the one good and the other evil: and that of the Valentinians, of the Arians, of the Eunomians, and of the Mahometans, and, briefly speaking, all the heresies of the others similar to these; moreover, the heresy of those relating to Paul of Samosata, both the old and the new, who contend that there

p. 6

is only one person of the Word and of the Holy Spirit and who treacherously and impiously pro­ claim and contrive that the persons are not distinguished, but that the Word signifies the Word uttered vocally and that the Spirit signifies a certain movement created in things.

II.

They also teach that, after the transgression of Adam­ the first-formed, all men from father and mother are born sinners by nature, that is, without fear of God, without trust in Him, but with concupiscence and disorder, and that they are clothed in innate worthlessness and wretchedness. In consent and in accordance with the opinion and teaching of the holy Fathers and all the orthodox and pious in the Church, they state that the innate worthlessness and wretchedness of­ ­­human nature is the liability and subjection to eternal damnation for all men, through the transgression of the first-formed, in which every man by nature is born a child of the wrath of God, subject to and under the power of eternal death; moreover, they teach that the corruption of human nature is implanted in everyone from Adam, and it comprises the deprivation or the deficiency of original justice, and of integrity or of obedience, and concupiscence.

This deficiency is a terrible blindness, and ignorance of God, an obscuring or overshadowing of divine illumination and knowledge of God, which would have radiated in human nature were it still undamaged and unstumbled, and it is a distortion of rectitude: that is, a corruption of the unchangeable and uninterrupted obedience, and of the undis­guised and unmixed and unsurpassed love of God, and of things similar to these impressed by God on the untarnished human nature before the fall. They say that this affliction or wickedness of the corrupted human nature is truly sin, sentencing to eternal death all men up to the present who have not been born again through baptism and the Holy Spirit.

              Thinking and teaching in this way, they condemn the so-called Pelagians and the others, moreover, who, to the

p. 7

dishonour of the redemption and the good works of Christ, deny that wretchedness and worthlessness from birth is sin, and they contend and say that man by his own powers of the soul can fulfil the law of God and be justified before Him.

III.

        In addition to what has been said,  one of the things -­ taught among us is this, that the Word, that is to say, the Son of God, assumed human nature in the womb of the blessed ever-virgin Mary, so that two natures, namely the divine and the human, are inseparately joined in the hypostatic union and they continue forever. So then one Christ, truly God and truly man, born of the ever-virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried, in order to reconcile the Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for the ancient transgression and the calling to account of the human race, but also for all things whichsoever are worthy of condemnation which are done by man in transgressing the law. The same also descended to Hades and truly rose on the third day, and then He ascended to heaven, sitting at the right hand of the Father, ceaselessly and endlessly reigning and ruling every creature, and sanctifying those who believe in Him, sending into their hearts the Holy Spirit, who sets aright, consoles! and vivifies them, who also shields them against the devil and the power of sin. The same Christ is going to return manifestly and gloriously to judge the living and the dead, according to the Apostles' Creed. Herein are condemned, as in the previous chapters, the heresies which attack this article of faith.

 IIII.

In order that we might attain to the good deeds of Christ, that is, the remission of sins and justification and eternal life, Christ instituted the preaching of the Gospel, through which the munificences of the Redeemer are applied to us. As it is written in the gospel narrative according

p. 8

to Luke, in the last chapter, that repentance and the remission of sins for all nations should be preached in His name. Since all men, as it has been fore­ ordained, have clothed themselves with the unhealthy and unclean nature, and they became sinners from their father and mother, and they transgressed the divine law, and they are able neither to keep His commandments nor to love God with their whole heart, now the Gospel has argued sins, and it shows us the Mediator and Redeemer Christ, and it teaches us about the remission of transgressions.

Since sins are searched out and discovered by the Gospel, it is necessary that the terrified and heart-stricken rely on the promises and believe without ambiguity and without doubt that we attain to the remission of all sins and are justified before God freely through Christ, who has become a sacrifice for us and has propitiated the Father for us. If therefore the Gospel demands repentance, still that the re­mission of sins might be certain, it teaches us that it is brought to us freely and as a gift, that is, not through the worthiness of our good deed nor through our previous or subsequent right actions. The remission of sins becomes pre­carious and uncertain if it would be esteemed that we attain to it whenever we merit it for previous good deeds, or when­ ever the repentance happens to be worthy enough for the remission of sins.

Since the anguished and distressed conscience can find no work which might stand against the wrath of God, for this cause God offered to us His Son, that He alone may be a propitiator. Wherefore it is necessary that this honor and glory of propitiation due and fitting to Christ alone be ­assigned in no way to our works. Thus Paul wrote to the Ephesians: "By grace you are saved through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is a gift of God not from works, lest anyone should boast" [Eph. 2:8-9]. And to the Romans.

P. 9

 ­Wherefore this is from, faith, that ac­cording to grace the promise be certain. Then,when the conscience hears about the belief in the remission of sins, it steadfastly and immovably holds that this does      not depend upon our worthiness, but that it is a charism and a gift of God, given to us through Christ. This consolation is firm and it is necessary for those who are exceedingly sorrowful and afflicted at soul on account of sins; and it agrees with the teachings of the holy Fathers. Thus Ambrose says: "This is arranged by God, that he who believes in Christ might be saved, who without work by faith alone attains to the remission of sins."

This way of speaking about faith shows not only his­torical knowledge, but it also signifies trust and assent, assigning to us the promise about the remission of sins, and justification and eternal life, and this promise belongs to  those who learn by inquiry about Christ. Wherefore in the Apostles' Creed this article is joined to the historical narrative "I believe in the remission of sins," which is the chief point of all the others. One would not fail of the truth in saying that this grace is the end and goal of the entire historical narrative. Christ suffered and rose on account of this, so that through Him the remission of sins and eternal life might be given to us.  

V

Thus Christ instituted the ministry of the Gospel, which proclaims repentance and the remission of sins. The universal preaching is both: for it has argued all sins of all men, and it promises their remission to all who believe, lest it be precarious and lest anyone suspect it to be doubtful or uncertain, but in ordor that all the distressed and heart-broken should know by the full knowledge of sins that it is to be believed that they are set free by grace through Christ, and not through their own satisfaction or worthiness. Thus consoling ourselves by the promises of the Gospel, and being roused by faith, we undoubtedly attain to the remission of sins, and at the same time God grants us the Holy Spirit.

 p. 10

          Thus through the word of God, and the Sacraments, the Holy Spirit is present to men and works within those who hearken to and care for the Gospel teaching and who use the fellowship of the Sacraments and who encourage themselves by faith. Of a truth Paul says in the third [chapter] of the Epistle to the Galatians: "that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" [Gal. 3: 22]. The same writing to the Corinthians calls the Gospel the ministry of the Spirit [2 Cor. 3:8]. Writing to the Romans he says: "faith is from hearing, and hearing is by the word of God" [Rom. 10:17]. Wherefore being encouraged by faith and being set free from the troubles and travails of sin by the Holy Spirit, who is begotten and introduced in our hearts along with the other virtues, truly  we know the compassionate and philanthropic [God] and the mercy of God, and we love and fear Him, producing by the spirit trust, eager expectance of the help of God, invoca­tion of Him alone, and other [virtues] similar to these.       

          So teach our theologians, and they condemn all those who do not teach this faith which alone clearly lays hold of the remission of sins but who bid consciences to doubt and to be uncertain, and who say that this doubt about the remission of sins is not sin, and those who teach that men attain to the remission of sins not according to grace but according to one's own worthiness, and who do not say that it is to be believed that they are justified freely through Christ.

          In addition to these, [they condemn} both the Ana­baptists and all others like them who think and teach that men receive the Holy Spirit by their own preparations and good deeds separate from and without the external word and the preaching of the Gospel.

 VI.

Of what has been said, it is held that this faith needs to be not ineffective and fruitless, but especially operative and productive. The believers ought to complete the good works which have been enjoined by God, on account of the will and command or God; but not that by them [good works] they might have confidence that they are deemed worthy or righteousness before God, for the remission of sins

p. 11

and righteousness is apprehended by faith, as even the very voice of Christ witnesses, saying: "When you have done all that is commanded you, say 'we are unprofitable servants'" [Lk. 17:l0}. The human conscience is not able to set itself pure from sin and unreproached and guiltless against the just judgment of God, just as Psalm 142 says: "Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for before thee shall no living man be justified."

285

And John in the first [Epistle] says: “If we say we do not have sin,  we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to take away our sins" [1 Jn. 1:8-9].

 VII.

 This is also taught, that there is one holy Church, persevering forever. The Church is a certain assembly of the members of Christ, that is, of the saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught, that is, purely and without adul­teration, and the Sacraments are rightly administered according to the arrangement of Christ. It is sufficient for the true union and unity of the Church to be in harmony in the teaching of the Gospel and in the administration of the Sacraments. It is not necessary that there be every­ where the same human traditions or usages, and rites invented by men. Just as Paul says in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians: "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all," etc. [Eph. 4 :4-6].

 VIII.

 While the Church is rightfully the assembly of the saints and true believers, even though in this life many hypocrites and evil ones are joined to it, it is still right to partake of the Sacraments, should they be offered to us even by unholy ministers, according to that saying

of Christ: “The scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses' seat,” etc. [Mt. 23:2]. For in the Gospel and in the Sacraments the ­operation is from the arrangement and command of Christ, even

­p. 12

if they are conveyed to us by evil [ministers].

          Thus our teaching condemns the Donatists and others like them, who falsely teach that it is not right to use the ministry of unholy [ministers] in the Church, and who suppose that it is useless and ineffective.

 IX.

 Concerning baptism they teach that it is necessary for salvation and that the gift of divine grace is assigned to us through it, and that infants ought to be baptized, who through aptism are united to and offered to God and they become partakers of His grace and they receive sonship. According to the saying set forth by Matthew chapter 18: "It is not the will If your Father who is in heaven, that one of  the-se little ones should perish" [Mt. 18:14].

  X.

 Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present and they are distributed to those who eat and drink in this Supper. They censure all who teach otherwise.

XI.

 Concerning the confession or the divulging of sins, they teach that the absolution or remission of them, through the voice of the minister or steward of the Sacraments of Christ, is to be retained for each one according to one’s own relating, but in confession the numeration of each transgression is not necessary. For this is impossible, according  to that [saying] of Psalm 18: "Who will understand [his] transgressions? " [Psalm 18/19:12].

 XII.

 Concerning repentance it is taught that those who fall or sin after baptism attain to the forgiveness of sins, and become once again participants of grace, at whatever time they repent, and to such who return to repentance the Church ought to grant pardon and remission of offences.

p. 13

Repentance, that is, the return of the  impious or sinners to God, consists rightfully of two parts: first is contrition, or the pains and troubles put in the conscience by the full knowledge of sins, through which we perceive the wrath of God and we suffer at heart; we turn away from these sins and we loath them. Just as Joel says in chapter two: "Rend your hearts, and not your garments, and turn to the Lord your God" [Joel 2:13]. The other is faith, which is produced in us by the Gospel or by the abso­lution, which believes that through Christ the sins really and truly are remitted, and which consoles the conscience and frees it once again from griefs and anguishes. Concerning faith, Paul teaches, saying: "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God" [Rom. 5:1]. It is also necessary that good works follow and succeed upon these, bearing fruit by repentance.

Here our [theologians] condemn the Anabaptists, who maintain that those once justified can not fall away or lose the Holy Spirit, and they affirm that some can attain to so great integrity or perfection in this life that it is not possible for them to sin.

     Also[our theologians condemn] the Novatians, heretics who heed the [teachings] of one named Novatus, once a presbyter of the church in Rome, to whom it seemed that, for those who have committed a mortal sin after baptism and do  penance again, concession should not be made about their transgressions.

 [Our theologians condemn] those who teach that we have control over the remission of sins not through faith but through our love and good deed.

Also rejected are those who say that canonical appointed satisfactions are necessary for the deliverance from eternal punishments or from those [the punishments] of the purifying fire.

 XIII.

 Concerning the use of the Sacraments, they teach that they were instituted not only that they might be certain symbols, or characteristics and marks, separating Christians ­and those without, but much more how they might be signs and testimonies of the design and grace of God towards us, for the purpose of rekindling and confirming the

p. 14

faith in those who share in them.  Therefore one must use them in such a way that faith, which embraces the promises manifested and assigned to us through the Sacra­-                                                        ments, might accede.

          Therefore they condemn those who speak falsely about the Sacraments, that rhey justify through the very accom­plishment of the work [ex opere opera to] without faith, and those who do not teach that faith, which believes in the remission of sins, to which we attain not from the work itself, but by faith alone, might be present in the use of the Sacraments.

 XIV.

Concerning ecclesiastical order, they teach that no one should publicly minister the Gospel or administer the Sacraments in the Church, unless they are lawfully called to the service.

  XV.

 Of the ecclesiastical usages, they teach that those should be observed which can be observed without sin, and which are conducive to quiet and good order in the Church, like certain stated ecclesiastical offices and feasts, and things like these. ­Nevertheless, men are advised so that consciences should not be burdened and falsely suppose that such service is necessary for salvation.

          Openly speaking the truth, our [theologians] say that human traditions for the propitiation of God, for the earning of grace and satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the Gospel and to the teaching of grace and faith. Therefore, monastic vows, and traditions about the distinction of foods and the distinguishing of days, and such similar things for the pur­pose of earning grace and making satisfaction for transgres­sions, are in no way useful, rather it is manifest and indisputable that they harm the health of the Gospel and the teaching about salvation.

 XVI.

 Concerning civil [affairs], they teach that all well­ ordered governments and magistracies in the world are certain good dispositions and arrangements, ordained by

p. 15

God; and governing others and rendering just judgments according to imperial laws and other customs is not to be renounced by Christians. It is also allowed to correct  and to punish evildoers and the lawless according to the command of the laws. Moreover, [it is allowed] to wage war, to lead an army, to conduct business, to buy and sell, to hold property, to give oaths, if the magistrates bid, to marry and to be married.

           They  condemn here, as previously, the Anabaptists, who talk folly that none of the things mentioned above befit Christians.

          Moreover, [they condemn] the others who teach that evangelical integrity and perfection lie not in the fear of God and in faith, but in the renunciation of property, in the giving up of children and wives, and, briefly speaking, in doing none of the things just now spoken of.

           For the Gospel does not speak about external and temporal things, but about internal and eternal things, and it proclaims the everlasting righteousness of the heart: and it dissolves neither governmental nor family affairs, but it requires that these be kept and preserved, as things truly appointed by God, and in these it commands that each one according to his proper calling practice love which befits Christians and genuine good works. Wherefore it is proper and necessary that Christians listen to and obey the magistrates and maintain the things lawfully ordained by them, which can be maintained without sin. If one is not able to do the commands of the magistrates without sinning, one must obey God rather than men, according to what is written in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter five.

 XVII.

In addition to what has been said, it is also taught among us that in the consummation of the world Christ will return to judge all men, and He will raise the dead; He will give eternal life and endless joy to the pious and elect of men, and He will condemn the impious and the devils to un­ceasing and unabating punishment and torment in hell.

              Again in this chapter our [theologians] refute the Anabaptists who assume and teach that a certain end of

p. 16

punishments and of condemnation will be set forth for the devils and condemned men, and they censure those who now disseminate certain Jewish opinions, especially legends and fooleries, that, before the resurrection of the dead, the saints and the godly will rule in the world, while the godless will be utterly destroyed.

 XVIII.

 Concerning free will or free power, they think and teach that the human will has a certain free choice, and that it is surely free to achieve civil justice and to choose one rather than another of the things which are subject to human reason. [They teach that] without the help and grace and operation of the Holy Spirit in no way does man become sufficiently acceptable to God, to love Him with the whole ­heart and to fear and to believe in Him, to have power to expell from the heart the innate lawless and disorderly desires but all these things are accomplished by the Holy Spirit who is given to us by the Gospel. For St. Paul says in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter two: "Natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God" [1 Cor. 2:14]. Lest one assume that we are making some innovation in this chapter, we offer for consideration what is said in nearly the same words by St. Augustine in the third [book] of the Hypognosticon. He speaks in this way: "We confess that there is free will in all men, on the one hand choosing according to reason, but on the other hand not adapted either to set to work at or to accomplish anything in regard to God without God, but sufficient only to choose the good and bad of the present life. By good I mean what things are easy by nature, such as to determine to labor in the field, to determine to eat and to drink, to determine to have some friend or clothing, to determine to build a house, to determine to marry, and to determine to feed cattle, to learn the skill of different good things, and thus to determine things of this life. All these things do not subsist without divine governance, from which and by which what is now both continues and began to be. Con­verse1y, I say the evil and the bad, such as to determine to worship idols or to commit murder, and other things just like these."

 p. 17

Of those holding in this way, rejected are the Pe1agians and all others who say that without the              

          Holy Spirit and grace we are able by our natural powers alone to love God above all things and to keep His commandments. For if nature can also accomplish externally apparent works, such as to subdue the hands lest they steal what is another's or murder, yet it is altogether unable to make earnest and blameless the interior impulses and dispositions of the intellect and heart, such as the fear of God, firm and unswerving trust in Him, purity, and forbearance or patience, and the rest.

 XIX.

          Concerning the cause of sin, it is taught that, although God creates and preserves the things of nature, yet the cause of sin is certainly the will of the wicked and the despisers of God, that of the devil and the impious, who, without God assisting him, of his own will turns away from Him. Thus Christ says [in the Gospel] according to John, chapter eight: "When he speaks a lie, he 'speaks of his own" [In. 8:44].

 XX.

 They falsely accuse our [theologians] saying that  they forbid good works. The many writings they produced   about the Decalogue, and the rest like these, bear them witness that they have discoursed and taught usefully and properly about all one's duties in life, setting forth in them whatever works might be acceptable to God, and how in each one's calling, so to speak, anyone might be able to be well-pleasing to Him. Concerning these the preachers in the churches spoke very little in the former time, only spending time with teaching and foolery about certain childish and unnecessary works; such as certain stated feasts, stated fasts, brotherhoods, pilgrimages, service of the saints, the monastic life, and others like these, which our opponents have been advised about and are already un­ learning, and less often than before praising highly such useless works,

 p. 18

they are beginning to make mention of faith, of which they were formerly quite silent.

Although they suppress and do not speak about the doctrine of faith, for the purpose of leaving consciences wavering and doubtful and urging men to earn the remission of sins by their own good deeds, yet they do not teach that by faith alone through Christ we undoubtedly attain the remission of sins.

Since the doctrine about faith, which must always be pre-eminent in the Church, has been neglected until this time, so that no one might deny that nothing at all was said about righteousness by faith in ecclesiastical sermons, and since only the false teaching about works prevailed in the churches, our [theologians] therefore have taught about faith in this way:

That through it we attain to the remission of sins, earning this by neither previous nor subsequent works, but receiving it by the grace and mercy of God through Christ, -­ and that it is to be believed without any doubt that through Christ we have been justified before God; that ls, we are accounted just, and in no way might we appear especially earnest and without reproach by the worthiness of [our own good deed, and might we accomplish good works, and Christ, the one Mediator and Propitiator, by whom we have become partakers of grace and the Father is reconciled again to us, is set before us by God. Therefore he who trusts that he earns grace by his own right actions is heedless of and overlooks the re­demption and munificence of Christ the Saviour, and it is evident that he seeks some way to God by human works without Christi and this, while the Redeemer says about Himself: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" [Jn. 14:6].

              This doctrine about faith is revealed and observed everywhere in the writings of Paul; such as in (chapter) two of [the Epistle] to the Ephesians: "For by grace you are saved by faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift

p. 19

of God, not of works, lest any man should boast" [Eph. 2:8-9]. And in the fourth [chapter] of the Epistle to the Romans: "therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end that the promise might be sure" [Rom. 4: 16] . If we need to be deemed worthy of the re-­ mission of sins through our own good deeds, in no way might the conscience be able to be sure and certain about it. ­Since we always find something lacking in our works, it is necessary to doubt about the remission of transgressions, and therefore

 

the promises would be useless, having been founded upon our noble and good deeds.

          Lest there be anyone to accuse us that we contrive some new unfamiliar interpretation, foreign to the thought of Paul, let him know that this treatment is not scarce in additional witnesses from the holy Fathers. For in many books Augustine advocates grace and righteousness by faith, defending it against the earning from works. Ambrose is in harmony with these in many ways and in different places, and in the [book] about the calling of the nations he teaches and speaks in this way: "The redemption by the blood of Christ would be set at naught, and the privilege of human works would submit to the mercy of God, if the justification by grace were owed to previous good deeds, so that it would not be a gift of the giver, but a certain earning of the worker."

          If the inexperienced despise this teaching, the pious and crushed consciences perceive that it furnishes as much consolation as possible to those who are tempted, that with­out doubt and without distinction they are reconciled to God by Christ, and they believe that they will be freed from the condemnation of their binding transgressions. They would never be able to be certain and at rest, if it were necessary that we be justified by the things accomplished by us. Wherefore already regenerated and doing good deeds, still it is necessary that we always cleave to the Mediator and Re­deemer, and  believe that God is gracious to us and that we are accounted just by Him, not that we fulfill the law, but we understand that God is propitiated to us through Christ, through Him and this promise. Therefore, in the fifth [chapter] of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul writes: “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace,” and the rest [Rom. 5: 1-2] . All the holy Scripture is full of such very plain words. It is fitting that this whole doctrine be brought back to a struggle and conflict of the confused and frightened conscience, lest it be able to be understood in another way [without this struggle]. Wherefore, profane and inexperienced men incorrectly know what is needful about it, nothing other than Christian righteousness, unless they are dreaming about political or philosophical [righteousness] .

p. 20

Since it would be necessary for the frightened conscience to do something, with God judging it, they who despised the doctrine about faith in Christ are incapable of perceiving the wrath of God and of being in anguish, and so they flee to works as to some place of refuge, to propitiate by their own good deeds God who is angered against them, endeavoring to be deemed worthy of eternal life. Therefore they undertake both the course of monastic life and certain other practices for earning grace and rendering satisfaction for sins. Lacking the ability for the conscience to be calm and firm in these things, they murmured against God, until they entirely despaired of the end. For this reason it was most necessary that this renewed  teaching about faith in Christ be handed over to the people, lest they not know what to do. But the exceeding sorrowful and frightened and broken consciences should discern that by faith they ought to apprehend consolation, grace, and the remission of sins, and righteousness.

          This also is taught, that the expression "faith" signifies not only history, such as might be found in the ­ungodly and in the devil, but in addition to the knowledge of history it also signifies the accomplishment of history, namely this article, the remission of sins, that clearly through Christ we have grace and righteousness, being set free from the condemnation of sins.

          Whoever therefore has trusted that by Christ he is reconciled to God and that He is gracious to him, he truly knows God and he knows that He cares about him; once again he loves and calls upon Him, and, briefly speaking, he does not live without God, as do the heathen. For neither the demons nor godless men believe this article, namely the remission of sins, wherefore they hate God as some enemy and most hos­tile foe, neither calling upon Him nor expecting anything good from Him. According to this way, Augustine also advises the readers about the meaning of faith and teaches that this expression in the holy Scriptures implies not knowledge such as it might be allowed for even the ungodly to have, but trust which consoles and restores the prostrate conscience. This is also one of the things taught by us:

p. 21

that it is necessary for us to do good works, not that we might be confident that, we will earn grace by them, but on account of the will of God. For the remission of sins and peace of conscience is obtained by faith alone. Since the Holy Spirit is given us by faith, hearts are re­newed by Him, and they are disposed to do good, as Ambrose also says that faith is the mother of good free choice and of just action, and Paul says in the [Epistle] to the Romans, chapter eight: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" [Rom 8:14]. For. the Holy Spirit accomplishes within us faith and the full knowledge of sin, so that more and more each day we might fully know how great and how much is the grace promised to us through Christ, and progressing in faith, we might gain eternal life and con-­ solation. The Holy Spirit is working and producing in us the remaining virtues, enjjoined by God in the Decalogue, namely, fear of God as befits His sons, love, thanksgiving, invocation, praise, brotherly love, patience, purity, obedience, and the like. Without the Holy Spirit, human powers are full of godless passions and desires, and alone they fall very short of accomplishing the things good and pleasing to God; but they are subject to the devil, who be­comes master and exercises authority over them, and who drives men taken captive by him to various sins and to false opinions about God, and to manifest lawless and evil deeds, as it is possible to observe for one who wishes in the lives of the philosophers, who in all earnestness devoted themselves to decent and noble living, yet they fell far short, defiled by many manifest and most shameful sins. For such is the weakness of men who lack faith and the Holy Spirit and who govern themselves by their own human powers alone. From these things it is thus clear and manifest to all that this doctrine must not be accused of forbidding the doing of good works, but it must be deemed worthy of the greatest approval since it shows and discloses how one might do such things. For without faith human nature can in no way do the works either of the first or of the second commandments of the Decalogue. Without faith no one calls upon God, no one expects anything from Him, no one patiently carries the cross, but he seeks aid and help from men and he trusts in them. So therefore in the absence of faith and trust in

 p. 22

God, all fleshly desires and human considerations reign in the heart. Wherefore Christ Himself says in the Gospel according to John, chapter 15: "Without me you can do nothing" [In 15:5]. In the church hymns there is also this: "Without your divine power and support, nothing is in man, nothing harmless in human nature." With that having been said, this is also expressly taught by us: How things well done might be acceptable to God, not in our fulfilling the law (for except for Christ no man ever did this), but rather through doing good works man is reconciled to God, and he is accounted just by Him through Christ, through whom that which is wretched and defective, which still abides in all the saints, is locsed from us. ­ Therefore let no one suppose, al­beit he was regenerated, that he is just through his own purity or in the fulfilling of the law: but let him always stand close to God through Christ, as Mediator and Redeemer, trusting that on account of Him God is gracious and favorable to him, and let him know that the things earnestly done by us lack mercy, and in no way are they sufficient and worthy tor God to accept them as perfect and non-defective righteousness. To owe us eternal life as to render payment equivalent to them, but in this they please God, that He is affectionately and kindly dis­posed to the man doing good works, becoming gentle and propi­tious to him through Christ, each one might assign something to himself by faith alone. Good works therefore become acceptable to God only in the believers, according to the teaching of Paul: "Everything that is not of faith is sin" [Rom 14:23]. For the heart doubts and is at a loss whether God is propi­tious, whether He hears those who invoke [Him], and in the meantime it is hostile and most angry at God, which on the ex­terior and in appearance is most noble and worthy of the greatest honor by the man so disposed and thinking, yet it is abominable to  God, they are sins through the rotten and impure of  heart. Therefore without faith good.works would not be pleasing to God, but the heart should have peace towards God before, having trusted and considering that God assists us and is gracious to us, and accounts us just, not because of the worthiness of the things done by us, but because of grace through Christ. This then is befitting Christians, and it echoes in our churches - the teaching about good works.

 XXI.

 Concerning the cult of saints, it is taught that it is useful to make remembrance of the saints in order to establish and make firm our faith, considering how they attained to grace and help through faith from God, so that we also might imitate the things done properly and needfully, ­each one according to his own calling, such as, the emperor should [imitate] David in marching after the Turks. For both are king, to whom defense is a duty. But the Scripture does not enjoin that the saints be invoked, or to seek some help from them, but it places before us one Reconciler and Medi­ator,

p. 23

even the Propitiator Jesus Christ, as  is written in the second [chapter] of the first [Epistle] to Timothy [1 Tim 2:5]. He is the only Savior and  high priest and intercedes for us, according to what is written in the Epistle to the Romans, chapter eight [Rom 8:34]. He alone is to be invoked who alone promised that He wills to hear our entreatings. This would be the chosen and supreme divine worship, according to the Scripture, in all circum­stances and afflictious to seek and entreat Jesus Christ with the whole heart, according to the saying in the first of the Epistles of John, chapter two: "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" [l Jn 2: l] .

          This is nearly the principal content of the things taught by us, to the exhortation of consciences desiring it and to the edification of the Church, and to the common benefit of the believers, just as none of us would choose to risk to lose his soul by the misuse of the name and word of God, or would wish to entrust to his children and successors any other religion beside that which accords with the pure and unmixed Word of God, and the Christ-reverencing truth. Since this doctrine has been founded upon the Holy Scriptures and  it has nothing discordant with the orthodoxy of the catholic­ Church of Christians, and it is even in harmony with the Roman Church, in so far as it is known to us from the ecclesiastical writers, we do not suppose that it is fitting or seemly for our opponents to strive against us in the chapters which have been recounted. Therefore, unfairly and unworthily of Chris­tian continuous love and harmony, some wish to call those from among our churches protestant heretics and to reject them from the catholic Church, commonly reporting them on impiety about divine things. The dissension is about certain abuses which without the authority of the Church slipped into it, albeit in these things there is some dissimilarity, yet it was fitting for the bishops, on account of the confession of the orthodox doctrine which we divulged beforehand, to bear our [theologians] tolerably and philanthropically, since the canons are not so strict that they harshly and exactly demand the same usages everywhere, and they were never completely similar in all the churches. Moreover, the old usages are for the most part preserved by us. For it is a false slander that all the ceremonies and all the old things in the churches are abolished by us. Since all are discontent in public and they deem unhappy the things of the Church because the abuses are despicable and not slight in the customs of the usages, it was necessary that there be some correction of those which could not be kept without loss and harm to the conscience.

p. 24

Articles in which are recounted the alterations of the abuses.

 

          ­Since the churches arnong us in all articles of the orthodox and saving faith agree with the catholic [Church], and since they innovate nothing and leave behind only certain small abuses, received in time contrary to the canons, we beg the emperor's majesty to listen kindly to what has been changed: why the people are not forced to observe those abuses contrary to conscience: and that in no way he believe those who disparage us and spread calumnies among the people against us so that they inflame the dislike of men and popular hatred against us. In this way and from the beginning some good men were provoked, and they gave occasion to this dissension, and now using this same skill they are determined to heighten and to increase contentions with the greatest haste. The em­peror's majesty will clearly see how much more bearable are the teachings and more becoming are the rites and ceremonies among us, than according to the description of those who bear us ill-will and hate us. No one should affirm that the truth can be known from the words of the people or from the calumny and endless talking of enemies. It is most understandable that there is nothing more useful and contributive for the preservation of the dignity of ecclesiastical ceremonies and of reverence among the people than that they be done in a be­coming way and with order in the churches: the things which have been related will show that this is of the utmost concern   to us.

 

Concerning both kinds of Communion, that is, the entirety of the Lord's Supper.

 

To the laity, as they are customarily called, both kinds, so to speak, that is the Body and the Blood, are given in the Lord's Supper. For Christ Himself instituted mmunion in this way, and He announced to all Christians that this is the way to use it, saying according to Matthew, chapter 26: "Drink of it, all of you" [Mt 26 :27]. In this saying He expressly speaks about the cup, bidding that all drink of it. Yet lest there be someone to contrive and to impose on this saying, insisting that this was

p. 25

only declared for priests, Paul testifies in the eleventh [chapter] of the first Epistle to the Corinthians that the whole church in Corinth used both kinds. Even the ecclesiastical writers narrate that for a long time this custom was maintained in the Church, and so it is unknown and unestablished by whom this was ever changed. In different places Cyprian says that both kinds were given to the people. St. Jerome also affirms ­the same thing, where he writes that the priests administer the Eucharist and distribute the Blood of Christ to the people. Besides these, even Gelasius, who a very long time ago was archbishop in Rome, forbade this mystical Supper to be divided, in distinction two about the consecration, in the chapter having the Latin heading comperimus." Not one canon -­ may be found enjoining that only one kind be used, and so yesterday and the day before (they say) this custom had entered upon the Church unnoticed.         It is not to be contra­dieted that every custom opposed to the commands of God ought to be set aside and rejected, according to the testimony of the same canons, in distinctiion 81, chapter "veritate" and thereafter. Since this usage, concerning which is is present consideration, agrees with neither Holy Scripture nor with the ancient canons nor with the precedent of the Church, it did not seem good to us that those wishing to use the Lord's Supper according to the institution of Christ should be forced to do otherwise: contrary to the instruction of Christ and harmful. to their own conscience.

          Because the division of the Lord's Supper is contrary to the ordinance of Christ, the procession which was the custom before no longer occurs among us.

 Concerning the marriage of priests.

 No one is unaware of the licentiousness of priests, by common consent objecting to all their ways of incontinence and lewd conduct.  Wherefore even pope Pius is said to have announced: there are some reasons for hindering priests from marrying, but there are much greater and more remarkable reasons for conceding to them to marry, according to what was written by Platina. Therefore the priests among us wishing to guard themselves against these public scandals have married. They teach that this is lawful for them,

p. 26

first that Paul says in writing to the Corin­thians: "To avoid fornication, let each one have his own wife" [1 Cor 7: 2], and then" it is better to marry than to burn" [1 Cor 7: 9] .  Moreover, when Christ Himself says "All men can not receive this saying" [Mt 19:11], He shows that not all are suited for the unmarried life, because God created man and woman for the generating and begetting of children, as it is written in the first chapter of Genesis. No one should say that it is the business of any man to change the creation of God without some special God-given gift of continence. Wherefore for those who are unsuited for preserving virginity it is marry, since no human law and no vow should be able to abolish what has been ordained by God. Thus relying on these reasons, they among us who have been entrusted with the diaconate and priesthood of the Gospel teach that it is

possible for them to marry. We know that in the ancient Church the priests have been married. Wherefore Paul also en­joins that a bishop be appointed who is a husband. In Germany four hundred years ago the priests for the first time were excluded by force from marriage: thus discontented against this command, as the archbishop of Mainz endeavored to make public the decree of the Roman archbishop about celibacy he scarecely missed being killed by priests who were excessively hostile to him in a certain uproar and crowd formed by them. This action was accomplished with such unfairness that not only marrying in the future was forbidden to priests, but also earlier and present unions were dissolved --against all divine and human laws, and against the very canons which had been made not only by the archbishops (popes], but also by the universally praised synods.

          Of the things said, this also is held, being not the least of the reasons for marrying: that, as the world grows old, human nature daily becomes more weak and inclines to the worthless, one must apply the mind and be on guard in every way lest a greater number of evils enter our fatherland Germany and escape our notice. For the more the things of nature slip into the more weak and languid, so much the more they are wont to abound in the knavish and pleasure-seeking.

          God has ordained marriage as a certain treatment and remedy for human weakness. The canons themselves enjoin that the former strict compliance ought now and then in later time to be relaxed on account of the weakness of men -- the very

p. 27

thing which should be most prayed for and desired in this present affair. It appears that the things of the Church will be unshepherded and after a short time there will be insufficient teachers, unless marriage is­ conceded to the priests.

              Since therefore the commandment of God is exposed and it is evident what was accustomed very long ago in the Church, and since the licentious life of those living in the unmarried state engenders most numerous scandals, adultery I say and other obscenities worthy of retribution by the magistrates, it should not appear unreasunably amazing to anyone that those who prevent marriage use such harshness against nothing else as against the marriage of priests. God ordains that marriage be honored, and the laws in all nations keep it in the greatest honor. Now those who are priests, who among the first should be spared, are punished against the canons with oppressive retributions because of nothing else than that [they are] not against marriage. Paul calls the forbidding to marry the teaching of demons, in the fourth [chapter] of the first [Epistle] to Timothy. This is most easy to under­ stand, when the forbidding of marriage is protected with such punishments and honors.

               Just as no human law can abolish what has been com­ manded by God, so neither should vows be able to do this. Wherefore Cyprian also advises women to marry who are not exercising control and being chaste according to [their] promise. For thus it is written by him in book one, letter eleven: "If they are neither able nor willing to persevere, it is better that they marry than that they fall into fire through their pleasures: let them in no way scandalize their brothers or sisters." The canons themselves practice a certain leniency towards those who made their vows before a proper age -- the very thing which was the custom to occur until the present.

 

Concerning the Mass.

 

          They falsely accuse our [theologians], saying that they have abolished the Mass. Yet among us the Mass occurs with much more devotion and piety than among our opponents, and the people frequently are advised about Communion: why and by whom it was instituted, and how one ought to use it. Namely, for the encouragement of the despondent conscience, and nearly all the customary ceremonies are

p. 28

preserved, except where certain German hymns are added to the Latin responses, so that they contribute to teaching in order that the people learn instruction about Christianity. For this is the true purpose of ceremonies, to teach the more simple men, and through the study of the divine word to arouse some of those present either to the fear of God or to faith and invocation. Not only Paul en­ joins the use of a language known and understood by the people, but so it is ordered also by humaa law. Among us the people are accustomed to use Communion in assembly, there being some prepared to partake of it. This very [participation] by those who are united is for the increase of piety and of reverence for ceremonies. For our [theologians] admit no one who is not first examined, and men are instructed about the dignity and use of the Lord's Supper, how much encouragement it clearly brings to crushed and dis­quieted consciences, in order to teach them to believe in God, and to look for and to seek all good things from Him alone. This is the service acceptable to God, and such use of Communion nourishes piety towards God.

 

          This also is especially manifest, that all religious men were extremely discontent and publicly objected to the profanation and perversion of the Mass for profit. For it is not hidden to what extent the misuse of the Mass reaches in all prayer houses, and what manner of men they are who officiate the Sacrament, only for the sake of some profit, and how much of those doing this is against the canons.  Paul clearly threatens those who administer the Eucharist un­worthily, saying in the eleventh [chapter] of the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink [this] cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord" [1 Cor 11:27]. Therefore advised about this sin, our priests ceased from private Masses, nearly all of them done for no other reason than for profit. The bishops were not unaware of these abuses; if they had made them known and in time corrected them, there would now have been less disagreement. Pretending that they did not see these things, they allowed many evils and errors to

p. 29

enter the Church secretly, after a long time now, they are beginning to be discontent, to inveigh bitterly,  and to deem unhappy the things of the Church because of the uproars made in it, which took occasion from no other place than from these abuses, which are so very manifest that they are unbearable and no longer. tolerable. Wherefore some of the greatest disagreements arose over the Mass, and the world, heavy laden with so great! burden of misfortunes and sufferings, seems to suffer punishment for the profanation of Masses, which we know prevailed in the Church for so long a time against the disposition of Christ, while they were silent and quiet towards this -- those  bound to correct and to cure were the ones who turned aside and were not sound. For­ it is written in the Decaloque: "The Lord will not acquit him that takes His name in vain" [Ex 20:7]. Certainly from the beginning of the world no divine thing appears to be so per­verted for profit as the Mass.

          Also this impiety was brought about by those who end­ lessly increased private Masses, that by His passion Christ made satisfaction for the ancient mutilation, that is, for the sin derived from the first-formed who had already fallen and transgressed the command of God which is implanted in and transmitted to all men: He instituted the Mass so that by it there might be offering for our daily transgressions, mortal and pardonable [venial]. From this false opinion as if from some root that supposition also is begotten, that the Mass and ceremony is some work, which through itself having be8n accomplished [ex opere operato] takes away the sins ot the living and the dead. Taking occasion from this, some began to wonder whether une Mass done for all has the same power as those done singularly. This dispute engendered ths inex­pressible and boundless number of Masses.

 

           Concerning such opinions, our [theologians] advised those being instructed in Christian orthodoxy, saying that these are not in harmony with the holy God-inspired Scrip­ tures, rather they mutilate the glory of tne suffering of Christ. For the suffering of Christ was offering and satisfaction not only for the ancient debt, that is, the wickedness which is from father and mother, but also for all remaining

 p. 30

sins. So it is written in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter ten: "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" [Heb 10:10]. And a little later: "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified" [Heb 10:14]. Still, Scripture teaches that we are sanctified before God by faith in Christ, believing namely that sins are taken away for us through Christ alone. If the Mass takes away the sins of the living and the dead, because the work itself is  accomplished (ex opere operato], it is necessary for us to attain to justification, through the same work of the Mass, and not by faith -- the very thing which is most hostile to the Scripture.

           Yet Christ bids to do this in His remembrance. Where­fore Communion was instituted, so that faith be remembered in those communing of this Sacrament, of which good deeds it partakes through Christ, and so that it might arouse and en­ courage the prostrate and exceedingly sorrowful conscience. For to remember Christ is nothing other than to have in memory His munificences and good works, and to think that they are truly applied and presented to us who receive [them] through faith. For the remembrance or history is not sufficient, of which it is possible that Jews and the impious be learned and mindful. The Mass should therefore be held for this reason, that the Sacrament might be given to those who have need of encouragement, just as St. Ambrose said: "Since I always sin, I always ought to take medicine. "

           Since the Mass is such a communion of the Sacrament, one common Mass is said among us, on each of the feast days, and on other [days], if there are some who wish to make use of Communion, the Sacrament is given to those requesting it. No one should accuse us of an innovation because of this custom. For the ancient writers in the Church, who flourished before Gregory, make no mention of there being a private Mass, speaking very often about the common [Massl.

          Chrysostom says that every day the priest stood at the altar, calling some to Communion and preventing others.

 p. 31

It is apparent from the ancient canons that some one person officiated, from whom the remaining presbyters and deacons received the Body of the Lord. The canon according to Nicea holds in this way: "Let the deacons receive Holy Communion in order after the presbyters, either from the bishop or from the presbyter." Paul himself, writing about Communion, bids that they expect one another, so that there be a cornmon reception and participation.

Once the Mass has been established among us on the example and usage of the Church, by the Scripture and by the holy Fathers or ecclesiastical writers, we have been persuaded that this can in no way be rejected, especially since the ceremonies and usages in usage among us are in public, as kept similar in general to those used of old; except the number of Masses, which we lessened bacause of the greatest and manifest abuses of those who derive profit therefrom. Daily Masses were not held of old in the most populated churches, as the history called Ecclesiastical Tripartite shows in book nine, chapter 38, saying again, in Alexandria on the fourth and  sixth day the Scriptures are read, and the teachers interpret them, and everything happens except the accustomed offering.

 Concerning Confession.

 Confession or the divulging of sins is not abolished  in our churches. For it is not the custom to give the Body of the Lord to any others except those first examined and released from sins; and the people are instructed most  care­fully to need to grasp the faith of the pardon of sins, nearly entirely kept secret in former times. Men are also taught this, that it is of the greatest [importance] that to each one the release or pardon of sins needs to be made announced by the mouth of the minister of Christ and of the steward of His Sacraments, for the voice is of God Himself, pronounced by His command. The power of the keys is honoured and made quite manifest, how much encouragement it

 p. 32

should bring to frightened and distressed consciences; and [the people are taught] that God demands faith, so that we might believe this absolution, just as a certain voice from heaven heard in our ears, and that this faith which is in Christ verily attains to the pardon and remission of sins. For beforehand satisfactions immoderately were extolled with praises and commended, and no mention was made of faith and of the good work of Christ and of right­- eousness by faith. Wherefore about this part our churches should in no way be blamed; for our opponents ought not deny that repentance was treated and explained altogether care­ fully by our [theologians].

           Concerning confession or the exposing of sins, they teach that the recounting, as an enumeration of each one of ­ the faults, is not necessary, nor should consciences be burdened with the care of narrating and of speaking from memory all offences, since he ivulging of all sins is im­possible, according to that [saying] of the psalm: "Who knew his sins?" [Ps 19:12]; and Jeremiah says: "The human heart is evil and unsearchable"  [Jer 17: 9] .

          For if no other sins are forgiven except those which are confessed, in no way should the conscience possibly be without confusion and free from care, for the greatest number of sins can be neither seen nor remembered. The ancient writers also testify that the narrating of sins is not necessary. For in the Decretals Chrysostom is summoned as a witness, where he says: "I do not tell you to betray yourself publicly, nor to accuse yourself before others, but I wish that you obey the prophet who says make your way known before God' [ps 36/37:5]. Confess therefore that you have sinned before God, who judges truly, with prayer: and divulge your offences not with your tongue, but with the remembrance of your conscience, etc." The mar­ginal note about repentance, distinction five, where the chapter reading is "let him consider [consideret] ," admits that confession is something human, which is preserved by us for the sake of both the greatest good deed of the release of sins and also certain other advantages of consciences.

Concerning the distinction of foods.

p. 33

 It seemed not only to the people, but also to other leaders of the churches, that the distinction of foods,  and other such like human traditions, were certain works useful for pardoning our liability to eternal judgment and our punishments.  That the world also held this opinion is evident from the fact that daily some new ceremonies, new orders, new feasts and fasts were contrived. While the teachers in the temples demanded these works, as some service necessary for earning justification, and while with fearful threats they frightened and terrified consciences, if they omitted anything, many greatly damaging things resulted with­in the Church by this opinion about traditions.

First, the teaching about grace and righteousness by faith has been obscured, being the part chosen from the Gospel which is uppermost and ought especially to practiced in the Church, so that the munificence of Christ might be fully known, and so hat faith, which believes that sins are re­mitted unto us through Christ, and not through our good and noble deeds whichsoever, might be by far preferred in honour to works. Wherefore even Paul is as especially earnest as possible about this main point of the teaching, separating the law and the traditions from it, in order to show that Christian righteousness is something other than such kind of works: namely faith, which believes that sins are freely re­mitted unto us through Christ. This teaching of Paul was almost entirely hidden, and was forgotten, by the prevailing false teaching of human precepts, the impiety of which holds that we need the distinction of foods and other such services to be worthy of the pardon and forgiveness of sins and to attain justification. In repentance entirely nothing is said about faith, but only about enfeebled works of satisfaction, in which all of repentance seems to lie and to subsist. Moreover, these traditions obscured the commandments of God, having been made of more consequence than the precepts of God, so that all of Christianity seems to be nothing other than some observance of stated feasts, ceremonies,

p. 34,

fasts and clothing. These observances were honored with most glorious titles, being named the spiritual life, the perfect life, in the meantime leading into dishonor the things commanded by God. That the husband rears children, that the wife bears them, and that the magestrate governs, are considered to be something worldly and imperfect and very much less than those brilliant and illustrious works of perfection. This error especially rendered pious and devout consciences very sad, indescribably sorrowful and dis­contented by the leading of an imperfect life, such as in marriages, in political and other such civil appointments, and admiring those men who lead the monastic and eremitic  life, namely the monks, and others like them, falsely supposing their observances to be an acquiring of the for­giveness of sins and of righteousness before God. In addition to these things which have been said, traditions add great dangers to consciences. For it was im­possible that they all be observed, and yet men supposed that they were some necessary service. Gerson narrates that many fell into despair, some slew themselves, perceiving that they could not sufficiently keep all the traditions, and having heard no consolations about righteousness from faith or about grace.

           Formerly we saw theologians, and those called summists­ in the Roman fashion, collect the traditions and seek some mitigations [έπιεικείας] for the relief of consciences, but still they did not free them sufficiently from these snares, and at times they even entrapped [them] all the more. We know these teachings about the gathering of traditions, and the ecclesiastical sermons were busied in this way, and they could not put their hands to the occupation of the holy and God-inspired Scripture and to the seeking of some more profitable teaching, about faith, about care of the cross and of patience, about hope, about the dignity of civil affairs, about the consolation of consciences in most ter­-

p. 35

rible temptations; wherefore Gerson and some other theologians are very much annoyed, en-­ tangled by these quarrels over traditions, that they can not go towards some better kind of teaching. Augustine also forbids burdening consciences with such kind of observances, and he prudently warns Januarius that he should know that they are to .be observed indifferently.

          Let no one assume that our [theologians] have put their hands  of these affairs rashly, or out of hatred for bishops, as some falsely suspicious men, for it was entirely necessary to advise the churches about such impieties, of which the causes were traditions not correctly understood. For the Gospel compels us to urge the doctrine about grace and righteousness from faith, neither of which someone may be able to understand if he trusts that the remission of sins ­ is attained through self-chosen observances.

          They have therefore taught that no one is freed of ­­his offences and justified before God through the observance ­of human usages. Wherefore it is binding on no one burdened

by deceit to think that such kind of observances are some necessary service.

          Our [theologians] believe and fortify the things said above, placing beside them testimonies from the holy Scriptures. According to Mattew, chapter 15, Christ defends His disciples the apostles, who were not keeping the tradi­tion being in usage among the  Jews, albeit it seems to be not about an unlawful, but some midnle and indifferent matter, appearing to be akin to the baptismal things enjoined in the law. For He says: "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" [f4t 15: 9] . From which it is clear that it is a useless and vain service, that in no way He demands, nor can it be necessary.

           Not 1ong afterwards, He says: "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man" [Mt 15:11]. In the fourteenth [chapter] of the [Epistle] to the Romans, Paul says: "For the Kingdom of God is not food and drink [Rom 14:17]. In the second [chapter] of the [Epistle] to the Colossians: "Let no man therefore judge you in food, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days" [Col 2:16].

          And again: "Therefore if you died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world, are you subject to ordinances: touch not, taste not, handl not?" [Col 2:20,21].

p. 36

And in the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15: "Why do you tempt God," says Peter, "by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which meither our fathers nor we were able to bear, but we believe that by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved,  even as they" [Acts 15: 10,11] . In this passage Peter forbids burdening consciences with many rites, whether of Moses or by any others.

          In the first [Epistle] to Timothy chapter four, Paul calls the prohibition of foods a doctrine of demons. The passage goes in this way: "The Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall depart seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their consciences seared, forbidding to marry, (and commending) to abstain from foods, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" [1 Tim 4:1-3]. For either to enjoin or to do such works, so that through them we might be deemed worthy of the remission of sins and of justification, and (to believe] that no one is able to be a Christian without  this service, lies thoroughly opposite to the staunch teaching of the Gospel.

          In this way our opponents venture to accuse our teachers of the prohibition of discipline and of mortifi­cation of the flesh, as Jovinian did. But the writings and books given out by our (theologians] will make manifest the opposite. For in these it will be found that they always taught about the care of the cross, saving that Christians ought to persevere in afflictions. (The true and unfeigned and undisguised mortification of the flesh is that one who is crushed and beaten by various afflictions and difficulties is chastened and crucified with Christ.)

          Also (they teach] that each one so working hard needs to practice with discipline for the body and with certain bodily exercises as to contract the emptiness of passion and desires, lest by satiety and laziness he be provoked to sin, but in no way that by these excercises might he be loosed from the condemnation of sins and of eternal death. It is    necessary that this bodily discipline be exercised, not only on certain few and stated days, but always. According  to that precept of Christ: "Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness" [Lk 21: 34] . And elsewhere He says: “This kind can not be    

p. 37

cast out, except in prayer and fasting” [11k 9:29]. And in the ninth [chapter] of the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians Paul says: "I afflict and subdue my body" [1 Car 9:27]. Distinctly showing through these that the affliction of the body in no way is the acquiring of the remission of sins, it is profitable for this, that the body might be attentive and well-disposed to spiritual things and to the things which are one's duty by his calling. Thus these fasts are not condemned in them­selves, but rather the laws enjoining certain stated days and stated foods precariously to conscience, as if such works are necessary for the true and God-pleasing religion.

           Yet many traditions are preserved affiong us, which are clearly conducive to everything being in order in the Church: such as, the order of readings in the Mass, and chosen feasts. The people are taught that such service should  justify no one before God, and that one who neglects them without scandal does not sin. The holy Fathers were not unaware of this freedom from fear in human rites. For many of the churches in the East have been accustomed to celebrate the day of pascha not at the same time as in Roma, and while the Romans accused the Easterners of schism, others advised them that it is not necessary that these customs be the same and be in accord at all times. Even Irenaeus said: "Discord of fasting does not dissolve accord of faith." As also in distinction twelve pope Gregory points out that such dissimilarity inflicts no harm or damage on the unity of the Church. The ecclesiastical Tripartite History, in book nine, gathers many examples of dissimilar rites, and declaring this most useful maxim it says: "The mind of the apostles was not to establish feast days, but to proclaim good con­ version and piety."

 Concerning the vows of monks.

 One would better understand what is taught by us about the vows of monks if he remembers the state of monas­teries during the previous time and the things which daily happened in them against what is fitting and in

p. 38

opposition to the canons. In the time of Augustine, certain associations and ways of life were free: then after the corruption of excellent discipline vows were devised, so that the restoration of it [discipline] and the correction of customs would occur as if by some prison of confined monastic life. With the passage of time a great quantity of some other human precepts were slowly added to the vows, and against the canons such fetters were lain on not a few who had not yet attained to the full measure of age. By some error many also fell into this monastic and anchoretic and world-departing life, who although they had maturity still did not know their weakness. So entrapped at the neck they were compelled to remain in the monastic life which renounces the association of men, even though they were able to be freed from it according to the leniency of the canons. Wherefore it happened more in monasteries of virgins than in those of monks, [though it would have been] proper especially to spare the female gender as more feeble by nature. This rigor and harshness scarcely pleased many good and upright men in early times, seeing girls and boys, only they say on account of subsistence, that is, on account of means of support, shut up  within cenobitic solitudes and still this design did not prosper. For the most shameful scandals blossomed therefrom, and consciences were en­ tangled  with indissoluble knots. Wherefore, while they clearly endured it with much  difficulty, those who exercise authority over monastic retreat with so little leniency  advanced too much in cruelty and tyranny, so that in a most precarious matter not only were they thoughtless of the Gospel but also they neglected the authority of the canons.

           So then the perverse opinion about vows increased the already mentioned evils, and it was clear beforehand that it (the perverse opinionj was not pleasing to the more sensible monks: (the teaching that) monastic vows are clearly equal to baptism, and that through the monastic and ascetic and patient life the monks are deemed worthy of the remission of sins and of righteousness before God. They were not  ashamed to attribute to monastic discipline not only that it is a justification before God and its reward and payment, but also certain other things more, that it closely guards not only those things enjoined by God in the law but also those things counseled in the Gospel. Thus speaking falsely in this way they misled the people that the leading of monastic life is something more authorized; that it much surpasses baptism itself, that it is worthy of greater reward than political, ecclesiastical, and domestic (life], and briefly speaking, than

p. 39

all men whosoever remain and serve in their ­calling according to the disposition of God without some self-chosen service. The monks are able to deny none of these things, which are exposed in the books and consti­tutions written by them.

          After these things were said, what happened in cenobitic dwellings? Let us see. Of old they were schools of the holy writings and of other sciences useful to the Church, and (monasteries] supplied pastors and bishops for the churches, but now no one is unaware that in no way is there harmony with these things in them [monasteries], so that it is superfluous to speak at length about things well­known to everyone. of old they gathered to learn, now this course of life is altered to service of God and acquiring remission of sins and righteouness, commonly re­ported to be a certain order and institution of perfect work and perfection, and preferred in honour to all other ways of life.

          We related these things, exaggerating nothing hatefully, so that our instructions should be better under­ stood. First about those who do not remain in the monastic­ mode of life, but who marry, it is taught among us in this way.  Marriage is allowed for all those who are unsuited for the keeping of virginity. For vows are not able to dissolve­ and set aside what has been appointed and enjoined by God. One of God's commandments is this: On account of immorality, let each one have his own wife [1 Cor 7:2]. Not only the precept, but also this arrangement and creation of God compels all of the unyoked [state] to choose the marital yoke, who have not received from God a certain chosen gift of living chastely, according to that saying: “The Lord God said 'it is not good that man be alone'” [Gen 2:18]. There­fore they do not sin, who listen to this command and order of God and marry.

          What should someone have to speak against these things? Let whoever wishes defend vows, and let him extol their authority with all his might; still vows can not cancel and set aside what has been ordained by God.

p. 40

 Since the canons themselves prescribe that in every vow the law of the higher is to be

chosen, command of God in vows. Wherefore in no way are the vows binding which are against the previous proclamation of the divine precepts. Yet if the knot of vows were entirely indissoluble, it could not nave been allowed for the archbishops in Rome to dissolve it. For it is not allowable for any man who­soever to abolish the things of divine law. Since God enjoined nothing about monastic vows, they who conceded to their dispensation judged not unreasonably and entirely ­sensibly and prudently that such things need leniency, which was imparted not seldom to those who asked: we recognize and find these things written of old. ­ For the story about the king of Aragon is known to everyone: while he was once a monk, then he was released from the monastic rule and way of life: and moreover about some others born later, during our times.

                    In addition to theee, why do our adversaries magnify  so much with words and increase the knot, that is, the obligation and debt of those who made vows, as an effect of the  vow, while keeping the nature of it secret, that the vow must clearly be possible, voluntary, self-chosen, and delib­erate? Who should say whether perpetual chastity throughout all the life is possible for man? How great now is the number of those who made vows of their own will and from deliberation? For they were both misled and compelled when it was the custom for girls and boys to make vows when they did not yet know beforehand what was possible in their life.­ life. Therefore it is less proper for our adversaries to contend obstinately about the knot of vows, since it is not to be contradicted that  very thing not promised readily and deliberately is opposed to the nature of vows.

           The greatest number of canons annuls vows which are made by those who have not yet advanced to the fifteenth year of age. For one who is younger than this age does not seem to be resolved on anything about himself and to be able to choose some direction of his whole life. Another canon is ­brought which grants more to human weakness and concedes a greater age to monks. It forbids the making of vows before the eighteenth year. But if we follow either this or the aforesaid canon, the greatest number of those who have left

 p. 42

 the anchoretic life, the monasteries, I say, are without reproach; they will have made their vows generally before the stated appointed times. Finally even if the  violation of vows should appear worthy of some reproach, still it would not necessarily follow immediately that the marriage of such persons ought to be dissolved. For Augustine, who bears the greatest dignity, does not agree with this opinion.  On the contrary, he is disposed towards the marital yoke of those who have made vows, and he teaches that it is to be left unbroken, in question 27 of the first chapter of his Nuptiarum, and the rest. Even if it seemed otherwise to some of those afterwards.

          But if the divine commandment about rnarriage is able to release and free nearly all from their vows, not less still because of another reason the [theologians] among us make manifest the uselessness and invalidity of vows: namely, that every service, intended and undertaken by men apart from and without the ordinance of God, for earning the remission of sins and justification, is impious; our Savior Christ Himself said: "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the precepts or men" (Mt 15:9]. Paul teaches each time and continues: one is not to seek righteousness from our observances or services invented by human reasoning, but that we attain [to it] by faith, believing that we are reconciled again to God by Christ, and that He is gracious to us through Him, and not through our noble and good deeds whichsoever.

          It is known and manifest to all that monks taught that the recompense of self-chosen services is the remission of offences and justification and that they render satisfaction for transgressions. What else might we say that such a false teaching is, if not the overshadowing and the covering with mud of the glory of Christ, and the denial of righteousness by faith? So then the usages of vows are impious, as it follows upon what has been said, of necessity they were made void; for an impious vow, contrary to the commandments of God, has no power. It is not fitting, certain of the canons said, that a vow be a fetter of iniquity.

p. 42

 Paul explicitly says, writing to the Galatians: "You are severed from Christ, whosoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen away from grace" [Gal 5:4]. That is, those who  assume to earn the remission of sins through their doing noble and good deeds, and to be well-pleasing to God through the ful­fillment of the law and complete obedience, and who do not trust that through Christ they receive by faith it [remission of sins] freely given from the merciful God and that through Christ they are acceptable to God, they lose Christ, transferring the trust in Him and the promises to their good deeds, opposing to the wrath of God not the Redeemer and Propitiator Christ, but their own right actions, and assigning the honor due to Christ to their own good needs. Let no one deny that the monks have taught that their observances earn the remission of sins and that God is propitiated to them through those [observances]. Where­ fore they urged the people to trust in their own observances and good deeds, and not in the redemption and propitiation of Christ. This trust, being impious, fights against the Gospel, and it will be detected to be vain and useless at the just judgment of God. For our right actions, whatever they are, should not endure the wrath of God and His judgment which is without respecto of persons; but only without works, which we have done, He who was indescribably angry becomes again gracious and favorable through Christ to us who receive in faith the promised grace and mercy of God. They therefore rob themselves of Christ, and they cast out grace, as many as apply their trust not to Christ, but to their own just deeds. This also was one of the things taught falsely and impiously by the monks, that their ascetical: life of piety is a state of perfection, namely that they keep not only the commandments of the law, but also the evangelical maxims and counsels. This error is most terrible and especially hostile to the Gospel, and through it they de­ceive themselves and others; they testify for themselves so much integrity and perfection that they are able not only to

p. 43

keep all the things commanded by God in the law but also to do more than these. From this ­ deceit something else new, ill-named, and still more horrible took occasion, about the fellowship and sharing from the abundance of monastic good deeds [opera supereroga­- tionis] . For the monks seem to themselves to have more than enough of good works, and not to need [them] for buying of eternal life; they applied to others the things above measure  ­ superfluous as certain satisfactions for another's sins. These and so many other things similar to them, if one at enmity wished to disparage with words, he would have numberless things to recount, of which even the monks them­ selves are now ashamed to hear.

          One must not suppose that it is a contemptible to deliver to the Church a certain service of God, contrived by men, without and apart from divine command, and to teach that such an observance should justify him who seeks after it. For righteousness of faith in Christ, which ought especially to be made quite manifest ­ and to shine in the Church, is altogether suppressed, when eyes are obscured by these wondrous observances of angels, and by specious pretenses of begging, and of poverty, humility, and chastity.

           Besides these things, the commands and the true service of God are made dim when men hear that the monastic ­practice alone is the perfecting of Christian piety.  ­For Christian perfection is really this: the undisguised fear of God, and full conviction of faith, and trust because of Christ who has appeased the Father for us, and calling upon ­God, and expectation of help from Him, in all things which will be accomplished according to each one's calling in life, with care and eagerness to complete good works, and with patient industry to serve in [one's] calling without hesitation. In these then is Christianity perfected, and the true service of God well-pleasing to Him is encompassed, not by chastity or begging, and by some dirty clothing. There are very many and very hurtful infamies in tho3e who hear those solemn speeches about monastic perfection which flow entirely around the truth. For when the people hear celibacy praised excessively, not without scandal of con­science do they endure the marriage in which they have been bound. When they hear that only mendicants have perfect piety, the conscience is wounded that they keep possessions and conduct business. Hearing that not to avenge is one of the evangelical suggestions, and maxims they go astray by the maxim and are induced  by this error: either

p. 44

as a private person they avenge, as if vengeance has not been renounced by command, but only counseled in the evangelical teaching to abstain from it, or the conduct of government and deeds befitting a magistrate are deemed un­ worthy of the deliberately chosen Christian living.

          Some narrated about those who left [their] spouses and civil administrations and who have shut themselves up in monastic cages, and this they called solitude, departure from home, going out of the world, and the seeking of some life better and more pleasing to God; [but] they do not realize that one is to serve God in the things He enjoins, and not in certain observances contrived by men. For the good and perfect life is really when one lives according to what God has enjoined. It is especially necessary to advise men about this. Before us in former times even Gerson found fault with the monks about the false opinion concerning perfection, showing that this new and unaccus­tomed title is found first at this particular time, [namely] that this monastic pursuit or discipline is a state of perfection.

           Therefore the greatest number of impious and distorted opinions is associated with the vows of monks, namely, the earning of the remission of sins and of justification, the perfection of Christianity, the keeping not only of the precepts of the law but also of the evan­gelical counsels, and what is more, the communication and sharing of the good deeds of abundance -- all of which are surely false and foolish, and they make vows void and useless.

 Concerning ecclesiastical power.

 One of the things debated and much contested in the churches for a long time was also the question about the power of bishops, in which some have very unreasonably and hurtfully mixed the ecclesiastical power and that of the sword, from which blending very many terrible wars, rivalries, and factions have emerged. While the bishops relied on the power of the keys, they not only appointed certain new services and oppressed consciences by the reservation of transgressions and by the mighty excommunications from ecclesiastical communion, but they have also endeavored to

p. 45

give the kingdoms of the world to somc and to take them from others, and to overcome these emperors in war and to eject them from sovereignty. Some in the Church who excelled in piety and learning exposed these injustices which flowed on for many years. Thus, for the consolation of oppressed consciences, our [theologians] have been compelled to make clear and to make quite manifest the distinction of the ecclesiastical power and of the political sovereignty, teaching that, on account of the command of God, it is necessary to assign what is due of respect and honor to each, as the [two] topmost of the beneficences and munificences of God on earth.

          They think in this way: the power of the keys, or the power of the bishops, is, according to the Gospel, a power or ordinance of God, of preaching the Gospel about Christ, of remitting and retaining sins, and of managing the Sacraments. For in this way our Lord Jesus Christ enjoined and sends His disciples, saying according to John, chapter 20: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" [Jn  20:21]. And a little later: "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you retain, they are retained" [In 20:22,23]. And in those [words] according to Mark in the final chapter: "Going forth­ into all the world, preach the Gospel to every creature," etc. [Mk 16:15].

          This power is practiced only by teaching, or by pro­ claiming the Gospel, and distributing the Sacraments, either to many or to each one, according to [one's] calling. For not bodily and temporal, but spiritual and eternal things are entrusted to those who have received it [power] from Christ: namely, everlasting righteousness, the Holy Spirit, eternal life, and things resembling these, to which no one should be able to attain, unless through the ministry of the Word of God, and of the Sacraments. As Paul says writing to the Romans: "The Gospel is the power or God for salvation to everyone who believes" [Rom 1:16]. Therefore ecclesiastical power is only of heavenly and everlasting things, and it is practiced by the ministry of the divine Word; it does not impede the political power, just as music does not impede any other art or skill.     For neither the ecclesiastical nor the

p. 46

political power should pursue the same things. He who conducts civil affairs lays claim not to souls, but to bodies, and to those things with relation to them, being disposed to and guarding them, shutting out violence and force, and correcting with the sword and bodily punishments those who are disobedient and not persuaded by laws, so that civil justice and peace are preserved.

          In no way, therefore, ought there to be a blending and commixture of the civil and ecclesiastical power. The ecclesiastical has its own command, to teach the Gospel and to minister the Sacraments. Therefore let it not give itself up to meddling [in the affairs] of others. Let it neither give to one nor take from another kingdoms in the world. Let it not set aside what has been ordained by law by magistrates; let it not abolish lawful obedience; let it not disturb law suits of the things which have been arranged according to the state, of whatever things, or of contracts. Let it not make laws for those who conduct civil affairs, how they ought to conduct civil affairs. Just as Christ said: "My kingdom is not of this world" [Jn 18:36]. And again: "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?" [Lk 12:14]. And Paul in the third [chapter] of the [Epistle] to the Philippians says: "For our citizenship is in heaven"  [Phil 3:20]. And in the second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter ten: "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the destruction of strongholds, destroying arguments" [2 Cor 10:4]. Our [theologians] there­fore distinguish the manner proper to each power, urging to hold each in honer and  to recognize these gifts of God to be of the greatest good deeds.

           If the bishops have any power of the sword, they do not  have this in so far as they attain to it as bishops, that is to say, from evangelical injunction, but by some human law given to them by kings or. errors, for the civil management of their goods. This management is something other than the ministry of the Gospel.

           When there is therefore an inquiry about the juris­diction of bishops, it is necessary to mark off the civil dominion or jurisdiction from the ecclesiastical power. For

p. 47

according to the Gospel no civil jurisdiction belongs to the bishops, as bishops, that is to those who have been entrusted with the ministry of the Word of God and of the Sacraments. It has been committed to them only to forgive sins and to examine teachings, and to reject and to set aside teaching not in accord with the Gospel, and to exclude the profane and impious, whose impiety is manifest, from ecclesiastical communion, not by human force, but by word. In these things necessarily and by reason of divine command the churches ought to obey them. according to that saying disclosed by Luke: "He who hears you, hears me" [Lk 10:16].

          When the bishops teach or enjoin anything against the Gospel, the churches have the divine command to renounce obeying them. For it is written according to Matthew seven: "Beware of false prophets" [Nt 7:15]. And in the [Epistle] to the Galatians chapter one: "But even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed" [Gal 1:8]. And again in the second [Epistle} to the Corinthians chapter 13: "For we can not do anything against the truth, but for the truth" [2 Cor 13:8]. And a little later: "The Lord has given me power to edification, and not to destruction" [2 Cor 13 :10] . Thus even the canons enjoins in [part] two, question seven, chapter "Priests [Sacerdotes]," and the rest. And in the chapter "Sheep [Oves]," etc. Also Augustine says against the letter of Petilian that even the catholic bishops should not be submitted to, if anywhere they fail from the truth and fall or if they counsel something against the canonical writings of God.

Even if the bishops have some other power or juris­diction, of giving judgment in matters concerning marriage, or tithes, or some other things similar to these, they have it by human law, not by these things having been conferred upon the episcopate by Christ. Therefore, when the bishops receive this power from men, and do not use it properly, necessity is set upon the princes and magistrates, even if they should not wish, to administer justice for their subjects so that peace might be preserved.

p. 48

 There is also this matter of dispute, whether it is in the power of bishops and pastors to legislate some new things in the churches, and what is more to ordain by law about foods, about feasts, about different ranks, as if degrees in the ministers of the churches, and about related things. Those who concede this power to bishops, use s a witness that saying which is disclosed by John chapter 16: "I have yet many things to ~ay to you, but you can not bear them now: when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth" [In 16:12,13]. Moreover, they cite the example of the apostles, ordering to abstain from what is strangled and from blood, as is written in the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15: what is more, [they cite] the transposition of the Sabbath into what is called the Lord's Day, having ocurred in opposition to the Decalogue, as it appears, the most convenient example for them, and much talked of, to point out to those who put [them] to the test, that it is in the power of bishops to alter the things of the Decalogue.

           Concerning this question, our theologians teach that the bishops in no way have power to arrange or to decree something not in accord with the Gospel, as in the things which have been pointed out above. Indeed the canons also teach this, in distinction nine. It is not in accord with the Scripture to arrange or to demand certain traditions, so that through their observance men might be deemed worthy of the remission of sins, and make satisfaction for offences~ for the good deed of Christ which saves and redeems all men ­ is depreciated and is dishonored, and His glory is covered with mud, when we endeavor to the earning of the remission of transgressions and of righteousness through such observances. It is not unknown that through this estimation and false teaching traditions have increased boundlessly in the Church, while in the meantime the teaching about faith and righteousness from it has been hidden. For the number of feasts and fasts was multiplied daily, new ceremonies  were invented, certain new honors of the saints were devised, because it appears to those who contrived such things that they are deemed worthy of the remission of sins,  and having trusted that these things have foreordained righteousness, duly and long ago have the canons about re­pentance become full, the vestiges of which we still perceive in satisfactions.

 p.  49

Many ecclesiastical writers reason falsely and assume that in the New Testament there should be some service resembling the Levitical [service], and that the  arrangement of it was entrusted by God to the apostles and bishops. It seems that they were utterly deceived by the example of the Mosaic Law, and they entirely strayed from the truth, as if righteousness  according to the New Testament is some external observance, of certain stated rites, just as righteousness in the law was some external observance of certain stated rites. As  therefore in the law to eat pork meat was a sin, just so in the New Testament they place the sinning in foods, in feasts, in garments, ~nd in other such kind of things, assuming that these things are necessarily yoked with the righteousness of the New Testament, so that there is no longer able to be [righteousness] separated from these things.  Whence those burdens of the souls, that defilements of the consciences  are certain foods, that it is a mortal sin to omit one of   the canonical hours. That the faster through fasting attains to the remission of sins, and that fasts are necessary for the righteousness or the New Testament, and that the re­served sin can not be forgiven, unless the authority of he one who reserves it assents; and this, while the canons themselves speak only about the reservation of account­ ability.

           Who gave this power to the bishops, who bade them to burden consciences and to impose these traditions on the churches? There are very manifest and incontestable testimonies forbidding the establishing of such observances, whether for earning the remission of sins, or as being necessary for the righteousness of the New Testament and ­for salvation.

           Paul in the second [chapter] of the [Epistle] to the Colossians says: "Therefore let no one judge you in food, or in drink, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon or of a Sabbath" [Col 2:16] And again: "If therefore you died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as living in the world are you subject to ordinances: handle not, taste not, touch not, which are all to perish with the using, according to the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have a pretense of wisdom" [Co12:20-23}. Just as in the first [chapter) of the Epistle to Titus he expressly forbids

p. 50

human traditions, saying in this way: "Not giving heed to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn from the truth" [Tit 1:14]. And Christ Himself in Matthew chapter 15 speaks about such service: "Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up" (Mt 15:13]. And about those demanding traditions as necessary for salvation, thereupon [He says]: "Let them alone; they are blind leaders of the blind" [Mt 15:14].

           If it is in the power of bishops to burden the churches with innumerable traditions, and to ensnare con­sciences, why does Scripture so often forbid that any tradition be invented or obeyed? Why does it name them the doctrine of demons? Is it that the Holy Spirit interprets and warns us about these things in vain? Therefore it is clear that, since the assertion that the injunctions of men as necessary for true and God-pleasing service or as certain payments appointed for the remission of sins lies dia­metrically opposed to the Gospel, it is not in the power of bishops to enjoin such things: for it is necessary in the Church to guard the pure teaching about freedom of Christians and always to know that bondage to the law is not necessary for righteousness. According to what is written to the Galathians, chapter five: "Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" [Gal 5:1]. This also is necessary: that that foremost before others and chief point taken out of the Gospel, the article of the saving and staunch faith, be retained, [namely] that we receive the remission of sins and righteousness freely by faith in Christ, not through some stated observances or services established by men. What ought [we] to understand about the Lord's Day and other similar rites accustomed in the temples? To these things our [theologians] reply that it is in the power of bishops and pastors to regulate them, so that everything in the Church should be in good order, but not that by them we might be deemed worthy of the remission of transgressions, or we might render satisfaction for sins. Or that certain ­snares might be added to consciences to seem that these are necessary services, or that they sin who transgress them without scandal to others. So Paul ordains that women

p. 51

cover [their] heads in the assembly and that the interpreters be heard in order.

           It is proper to keep such traditions in the Church, for the sake of love and peace, until no one gives scandal to no one, so that everything occur becomingly and undis­turbedly in the churches, in this way still, lest consciences be burdened, being led [to believe] that these are necessary for salvation, and that the transgression of them without others being scandalized is sin. Just as no one would say that a woman sins through, without scandalizing men, going into the temple with head uncovered.

           Such a one is the observance of the Lord's Day, and of Pascha, and of Pentecost, and of the remaining feasts and rites. For they err who esteem that the observance of the Lord's Day in place of the Sabbath was instituted as nec­essary by the absolute sway of the Church, since the Scripture agrees that the observation of the day of the Sabbath is of indifferent and neutral things, and teaches that Mosaic ceremonies, after the revelation of the Gospel  ought not be kept of necessity. Because it was necessary to choose some stated day so that the people might know when it should be necessary to assemble, it is fitting that the Church chose the Lord's Day for this necessity, and because  of this to choose in addition the remaining days, that there might be a proof to men of Christian freedom; and that they might know that the observation neither of the [day] of the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary.

           Certain marvelous disputes are exposed about the transformation of the law, about ceremonies of the new law, about the transposition of the Sabbath, all budding from that false opinion that there ought to be some service in the Church like the Levitical [service], and that it was entrusted by Christ to the apostles and bishops to discover certain ceremonies necessary for salvation. These faults entered secretly into the Church, when the righteousness from faith was not taught clearly as it should. Some affirm confidently that the observance of the Lord's Day is not of the divine law, but still most near to it, and as of the­ divine law, and they prescribe about feasts how much it should be permitted to work. What else should someone say chat these foolish talks are, if not traps and

p. 52

snares of consciences? For even if they under­ take to mitigate certain traditions, still nothing equitable should ever be found, while the false idea about necessity remains, that it remains necessary, while the righteousness by faith and the freedom of Christians is not known.

           The apostles bade to abstain from what is strangled and from blood. But who now observes this tradition?         -­ Yet one says says that those who do not observe it do not sin, because the apostles themselves did no t wish to burden consciences with such bondage, but they forbade for a time, because of scandal to the Jews still weak in faith. For it is necessary that the mind of the apostles and the things taught elsewhere by hem be compared with this prohibition. Nearly no one of the canons is kept carefully and strictly, and many day by day become obsolete and forgotten, even by those who are exceedingly fond of tra­ditions, and it is impossible to counsel consciences, unless this equity is maintained, so that men know that they are kept without necessity, and that the abolition of traditions inflicts no damage on the conscience.

           It might not  be difficult for the bishops to retain the obedience due to them from their subjects if they do not compel them to keep those traditions, which it is impracticable and impossible to keep without damage of conscience. Now they enjoin unmarried living on the minis­ters of the churches, and they entrust the ministry to no one except those who swear not to teach the pure and unmixed doctrine of the Gospel. The churches do not seek that the bishops restore the bond of concord by being fined of their honor and dignity, which still was binding that good and Christ-reverencing pastors do, but only that they might lighten the unjust burdens, which are new, and against the accepted custom of the catholic Church. Perhaps some of the arrangements at first were intended because of certain mentionable reasons, but not adapted for later times: and it is clear that not a few of them were received which were then led into error.     

p. 53

Therefore it is fitting for the leniency of the archbishop in Rome to temper them, since such a change in no way relaxes the unity of the Church, since even the canons themselves show that many traditions have been changed in time.  If the bishops do not wish to agree to slacken those observances, which no one is able to keep without sin, necessity is lain upon our [theologians] to follow the apostolic canon which says: one ought to obey God rather than men. Peter forbids the bishops to have dominion over the clergy: now this is not to be sought, that sovereignty ought to be taken away from the bishops. But that only, that they agree, that the Gospel be taught unmixedly and purely, and to relax some few traditions, wn~ch they who C~ not wish to sin are unable to keep. If they wish to agree to nothing altogether, let them consider, what reason they are going to give at some time to God, exciting schisms by their stubbornness and hardness of heart.

 Epilogue.

 These are the chief points or articles chosen from  our teaching. For if we should have been able to speak about more abuses, yet we avoided speaking at length and we gathered these preëminent ones, signifying our orthodoxy in them, from which the rest can be readily judged. Nothing at all is said for dishonor or insult, but only the necessary things have been recounted in a few words, so that it might be evident, that neither in our doctrine, nor in our usages, is there anything hostile to the holy and God-inspired Scripture or to the catholic Church. For it is clear that we have been cautious, and have been on our guard with all zest lest some new or impious dogmas enter secretly into our churches.

 

The end.