Chapter XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Power (Article XXVIII)

p. 295 Article XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power

Here the adversaries vociferate violently concerning the privileges and immunities of the ecclesiastical estate, and they add the peroration: “All things are vain which we presented in the present article against the immunity of the churches and priests.” This is mere calumny; for in this article we have disputed concerning other things. Besides we have frequently testified that we do not find fault with political ordinances, and the gifts and privileges granted by princes.

But would that the adversaries would hear, on the other hand, the complaints of the churches and of godly minds! The adversaries courageously guard their own dignities and wealth; meanwhile, they neglect the condition of the churches; they do not care that the churches be rightly taught, and that the sacraments be rightly administered. (To the priesthood they admit all kinds of persons without distinction. Afterwards they impose intolerable burdens; as though they were delighted with the destruction of others, they demand that their traditions be observed far more accurately than the Gospel.) Now in the most important and difficult controversies, concerning which the people urgently desire to be taught, in order that p. 296 they may have something certain which they may follow, they do not release the minds which doubt most severely tortures; they only call to arms. Besides in manifest subjects they present decrees written in blood, which threaten horrible punishments to men unless they act clearly contrary to God’s command. Here, on the other hand, you ought to see the tears of the poor, and hear the pitiable complaints of many good men, which God undoubtedly considers and regards, to whom at the same time you will render an account for your stewardship.

Parallel passages: Augsburg Confession, Art. xxviii.; Apology, Art. xvi.; Smalcald Articles, Appendix, Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope; Small Catechism, Preface; Formula of Concord, Epitome, x.:7; Sol. Dec. x.:9.

But although in the Confession we have on this article embraced various topics, the adversaries make no reply, except that the bishops have the power of rule and coercive correction, in order to direct their subjects to the goal of eternal blessedness; and that, for the power of ruling, there is required the power to judge, to define, to distinguish and fix those things which are serviceable or conduce to the end that has been before mentioned. These are the words of the Confutation, in which the adversaries teach us that the bishops have the authority to frame laws [without the authority of the Gospel] useful for obtaining eternal life. The controversy is concerning this article.

But we must retain in the Church this doctrine, viz. that we receive the remission of sins freely for Christ’s sake by faith. We must also retain this doctrine, viz. that human traditions are useless services, and therefore neither sin nor righteousness should be placed in meat, drink, clothing and like things, the use of which Christ wished to be left free, since he says (Matt. 15:11): “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man,” and Paul (Rom. 14:17): “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink.” Therefore the bishops have no right to frame traditions in addition to the Gospel, that they may merit the remission of sins, that they may be services for God to approve as righteousness, and which burden consciences, as though it were a sin to omit them. All this is taught especially by a passage in Acts (15: sqq.), where the apostles say [Peter says] that hearts are purified by faith. And then they prohibit the imposing of a yoke, and show how great the danger is, and enlarge upon the sin of those who burden the Church. “Why tempt ye God?” they say. By this thunderbolt our adversaries are in no way terrified, who defend by violence traditions and godless opinions.

For above they have also condemned Article XV., in which we have stated that traditions do not merit the remission of sins, and they here say that traditions conduce to eternal life. Do they merit the remission of sins? Are they services which God approves as righteousness? do they quicken hearts? Paul p. 297 to the Colossians (2: sqq.) says that traditions do not profit with respect to eternal righteousness and eternal life; for the reason that food, drink, clothing and the like are things “that perish with the using.” But eternal life is wrought in the heart by eternal things, i. e. by the Word of God and the Holy Ghost. Therefore let the adversaries explain how traditions conduce to eternal life.

Since, however, the Gospel clearly testifies that traditions ought not to be imposed upon the Church in order to merit the remission of sins; in order to be services which God shall approve as righteousness; in order to burden consciences, so that it may be judged that to omit them is a sin, the adversaries will never be able to show that the bishops have the power to institute such services.

Besides, we have declared in the Confession¹ what power the Gospel ascribes to bishops. Those who are now bishops do not perform the duties of bishops according to the Gospel; although indeed they may be bishops according to canonical polity, which we do not censure. But we are speaking of a bishop according to the Gospel. And the ancient division of power into “power of the order” and “power of jurisdiction” is pleasing to us. Therefore the bishop has the power of the order, i. e. the ministry of the Word and sacraments; he has also the power of jurisdiction, i. e. the authority to excommunicate those guilty of open crimes, and again to absolve them if they are converted and seek absolution. Nor indeed have they power tyrannical, i. e. without law; or regal, i. e. above law; but they have a fixed command and a fixed Word of God, according to which they ought to teach, and according to which they ought to exercise their jurisdiction. Wherefore, even though they should have some jurisdiction, it does not follow that they are able to institute new services. For services pertain in no way to jurisdiction. And they have the Word, they have the command, how far they ought to exercise jurisdiction, viz. if any one would do anything contrary to that Word which they have received from Christ.

¹ Augsburg Confession, xxviii. 5-12.

Although in the Confession² we also have added how far it is lawful for them to frame traditions, viz. not as necessary services, but so that there may be order in the Church, for the sake of tranquillity. And these traditions ought not to cast snares upon consciences, as though to enjoin necessary services; as Paul teaches when he says (Gal. 5:1): “Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” The use of such ordinances ought therefore to be left free; provided that p. 298 scandals be avoided; and that they be not judged to be necessary services; just as the apostles themselves ordained [for the sake of good discipline] very many things which have been changed with time. Neither did they hand them down in such a way that it would not be permitted to change them. For they did not dissent from their own writings, in which they greatly labor, lest the opinion that human rites are necessary services may destroy the Church.

² Ibid., xxviii.: § 8.

This is the simple mode of interpreting traditions, viz. that we understand them not as necessary services, and nevertheless, for the sake of avoiding scandals, we should observe them in proper place. And thus many learned and great men in the Church have held. Nor do we see what can be opposed to this. For it is certain that the expression (Luke 10:16): “He that heareth you, heareth me,” does not speak of traditions, but is most effective against traditions. For it is not a mandatum cum libera (a bestowal of unlimited authority), as they call it, but it is a cautio de rato (the giving of security for a trust) with respect to a particular charge [not a free, unlimited order and power, but a limited order, viz. not to preach their own word, but God’s Word and the Gospel], i. e. the approval given to the apostles, that we believe them concerning the word of another, and not concerning their own word. For Christ wishes to assure us as to how necessary it would be to know that the Word, delivered by men, is efficacious, and that no other word from heaven ought to be sought. “He that heareth you, heareth me,” cannot be received of traditions. For Christ requires that they teach in such a way that he himself be heard, because he says: “He heareth me.” Therefore he wishes his own voice, his own Word, to be heard, not human traditions. Thus a saying which is most especially in our favor, and contains the most important consolation and doctrine, these stupid men pervert to the most trifling matters, the distinctions of food, vestments and the like.

They quote also Heb. 13:17: “Obey them that have the rule over you.” This passage requires obedience to the Gospel. For it does not establish a dominion for the bishops apart from the Gospel. Neither should the bishops frame traditions contrary to the Gospel, or interpret their traditions contrary to the Gospel. And when they do this, obedience is prohibited, according to Gal. 1:9: “If any man preach any other gospel, let him be accursed.”

We make the same reply to Matt. 23:3: “Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe,” because evidently a universal command is not given that we should receive all things [even contrary to God’s command and Word], since Scripture elsewhere (Acts 5:29) bids us obey God rather than p. 299 men. When, therefore, they teach wicked things, they are not to be heard. But these are wicked things, viz. that human traditions are services of God, that they are necessary services, that they merit the remission of sins and eternal life.

They present, as an objection, the public scandals and commotions which have arisen from the pretext of our doctrine. To these we briefly reply. If all¹ the scandals be brought together, still the one article concerning the remission of sins, that for Christ’s sake through faith we freely obtain the remission of sins, brings so much good as to hide all evils. And this, in the beginning, gained for Luther not only our favor, but that also of many who are now contending against us.

¹ Var. and Germ., which have greatly amplified the remaining sections (although they do not agree in the order of the sentences), continue thus: “In the first place, it is evident that by the blessing of God our princes have an obedient people in their dominions. And this very kind of doctrine which we follow increases respect for them, because it honors the authority of magistrates with the most ample praises. This matter also is of very great service in preserving tranquillity. Secondly, if all the scandals be brought together” [Germ.: And although it may not be otherwise than that, as is customary in the world, offences have happened through wicked and imprudent people; for the devil causes such offences, in order to disgrace the Gospel], “yet the two articles, viz. the one that we obtain the remission of sins freely for Christ’s sake through faith, and that we are accounted righteous for Christ’s sake by faith, and the other, that the laws of the magistrate and the entire government are divine ordinances which the Christian ought to use in a holy way, have so much good connected with them that they hide all inconveniences.” Then Var. alone: “For alarmed consciences can have no firm consolation against God’s wrath unless the former article be known. The latter article greatly protects the tranquillity of states. Besides, with what pernicious opinions both kinds of doctrine were suppressed previous to this time no one is ignorant, and the books of the adversaries testify, who nowhere make mention of faith when they speak of the remission of sins, nowhere teach of the worth of civil matters, nowhere teach how the Gospel communicates eternal righteousness, and in the mean time wishes us in our bodily life to use political laws and customs. The declaration of these matters in the beginning gained favor for Luther, not only with us, but also with many who now most atrociously,” etc.

“For former favor ceases, and mortals are forgetful,”

says Pindar. Nevertheless² we neither desire to desert truth p. 300 that is necessary to the Church, nor can we assent to the adversaries in condemning it. “For we ought to obey God rather than men.” Those who in the beginning condemned manifest truth, and are now persecuting it with the greatest cruelty, will give an account for the schism that has been occasioned. Then,¹

² In Ed. Var. these words follow: “If any tumults have already arisen, the guilt can justly be charged upon the adversaries, who first excited a schism and scattered the churches by the unjust condemnation of Luther. And now they exercise wonderful cruelty towards good men, and those

¹ Var. (and Germ., but the latter less copiously): “But although the comparison does not delight us, nevertheless because the adversaries burden us with this charge, the vices of their own men are not to be dissembled [Germ.: If we were to narrate also the offences of the opponents, . . . it would be a very terrible list]. How much evil there is with the adversaries in the sacrilegious profanation of the masses! how much disgrace is connected with their celibacy! The worship of the saints is with them full of manifest idolatry. Is there no offence in the ambition of the popes, who for more than four hundred years have been waging war with our emperors, mostly in Italy, sometimes even in Germany, where they have arrayed against one another, son and father, kindred and citizens? But if the causes for these wars be sought, nothing will be found worthy of the popes: for we will speak very moderately.” [Germ. plainly: How the popes strove only how they might themselves become emperors, and subdue all Italy to themselves!] “How great an evil it is that in ordaining priests they do not choose such as are fit! What evil in the sale of benefits!

teaching godly things. They excite the minds of men also in other ways, which we are not disposed to recount here. Nor are we so hard-hearted, and so without feeling, that public offences in no way disturb us. But we remember that it has been said by Christ: ‘Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me’ (Matt. 11:6). For the devil tries both to suppress and to mar the Gospel in infinite ways. In some places he inflames tyrants against those who confess the Gospel, in other places he excites wars, in other places seditions, in other places heresies, in order to render this kind of doctrine hateful, because it seems to afford occasion for such movements. And indeed it is easier for prudent men to pay no attention to their own dangers than to these scandals of public commotions. But it is necessary for the Christian’s mind to be fortified against these also, lest on account of them he may cast away the Word of God.” Germ. has treated this passage thus: “But as to the want of unity and the dissension in the Church, it is well known how these matters first happened, and who have given occasion for the separation; namely, the venders of indulgences, who without shame preached intolerable lies, and afterwards condemned Luther for not justifying these lies, and in addition continued to excite more controversies, so that Luther was induced to attack many other errors. But inasmuch as our opponents would not suffer the truth, and besides attempted to promote manifest errors by force, it is easy to judge who is guilty of the schism. Indeed all the world, all wisdom and all power, should yield to Christ and his holy Word. But the devil is the enemy of God, and he therefore arrays all his power against Christ, to extinguish and suppress the Gospel. Therefore the devil with his members, who sets himself against God’s Word, is the cause of the dissension and want of unity.”

p. 301 too, are there no scandals among the adversaries? How much evil is there in the sacrilegious profanation of the Mass applied to gain! how great disgrace in celibacy! But let us omit a comparison. According to the circumstances we have made this reply to the Confutation. Now¹ we leave it to the

¹ Var continues: “And we leave to all godly men the decision as to

Again, is there no fault in their dangerous dispensations? But even these faults could be forgiven them if they nevertheless would preserve pure doctrine in the churches. But how this is contaminated by impious opinions and traditions the writings of the canonists attest, as also the books of the theologians, full of profane discussions which in part are useless to piety, and in part even dissent from the Gospel. Again, they trifle in the interpretation of Scripture and fabricate whatever they please. This confusion of doctrine is the chief offence, and is especially dangerous, concerning which particularly John complains in the Apocalypse when he describes the realm of the Pope. When we come to the superstitions of the monks, which were infinite, what shall we say? How many pernicious offences are there! What sort of application of merits was it when a hood was put upon a corpse, etc.? Moreover is there no offence in their endeavor at the present time to suppress the manifest truth of the Gospel, in their cruel slaughter of good men who teach what is godly, in their forbidding doubting consciences to be healed when their circumstances have been made known, in their exhorting kings to cruel robbery? Verily these are to be judged not as offences, but as truly κατορθώματα [right actions] of the Pope! Nor indeed do we care about amplifying anything in proportion to the magnitude of the subjects involved, lest some one may think that we are delighted by this relation which the writers of the Confutation have forced from us against our will. For this cause ought to be judged not from the character of men, or from fortune, but from the Word of God, which we earnestly desire that all who would consult pronounce judgment in these controversies. But here we must say again what we have already said frequently: We are very desirous of public harmony and peace, which it is certainly becoming that Christians should cherish among one another to as great an extent as possible. Again we unwillingly differ with the Emperor, whom we revere not only on account of the exalted rank of government, but also on account of the truly heroic virtues with which we have known him to be endowed” [Germ. omits what is said concerning the Emperor]. “But the adversaries do not permit us to unite harmoniously unless with the condition that we assent to those condemning the truth of the Gospel that is manifest and is necessary to the Church. This we cannot do. For ‘we ought to obey God, rather than men.’ Wherefore the adversaries, who by a new and unusual cruelty are scattering the churches, will render to God an account of the schism. Nor is there any doubt that this cruelty will produce some change in public affairs. According to the circumstances we have made this reply,” etc (§ 26).

p. 302 judgment of all the godly whether the adversaries have been right in boasting that they have actually refuted our Confession from the Scriptures.

which of the two parties believes aright. And we offer to declare more fully our opinion concerning each topic, in case it be anywhere desired.”

1880 by the of the and