Chapter VIII: Of Human Traditions in the Church (Articles XV–XX)

p. 218 Article XV: Of Human Traditions in the Church

In the fifteenth article, they receive the first part, in which we say that such ecclesiastical rites are to be observed as can be observed without sin, and are of profit in the Church for tranquillity and good order. They altogether condemn the second part, in which we say that human traditions instituted to appease God, to merit grace, and make satisfactions for sins are contrary to the Gospel. Although in the Confession itself, when treating of the distinction of meats, we have spoken at sufficient length concerning traditions, yet certain things should be briefly recounted here.

Although we supposed that the adversaries would defend human traditions on other grounds, yet we did not think that this would come to pass, viz. that they would condemn this article: that we do not merit the remission of sins or grace by the observance of human traditions. Since, therefore, this article has been condemned, we have an easy and plain case. The adversaries are now openly Judaizing, are openly suppressing the Gospel by the doctrines of demons. For Scripture calls traditions doctrines of demons, when it is taught that religious rites are serviceable to merit the remission of sins and grace. For they are then obscuring the Gospel, the benefit of Christ, and the righteousness of faith. [For they are just as directly contrary to Christ, and to the Gospel, as are fire and water to one another.] The Gospel teaches that by faith we receive freely for Christ’s sake the remission of sins, and are reconciled to God. The adversaries, on the other hand, appoint another mediator, viz. these traditions. On account of these, they wish to acquire remission of sins; on account of these, they wish to appease God’s wrath. But Christ clearly says (Matt. 15:9): “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

We have above discussed at length that men are justified by faith, when they believe that they have God reconciled, not because of our works, but gratuitously for Christ’s sake. It is certain that this is the doctrine of the Gospel, because Paul clearly teaches (Eph. 2:8, 9): “By grace are ye saved through

Parallel passages: Augsburg Confession, Art. xv., vii.: 3; xxvi.; xxviii; § 30 sqq.; Apology, Chap. iv., Art. vii., § 30 sqq.; Smalcald Articles, Art. xv. Formula of Concord, Epitome, Art. x.; Sol. Dec. do. Aug. Conf., xxvi. 1 Tim. 4 sq.

p. 219 faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works.” Now these men say, that men merit the remission of sins by these human observances. What else is this but to appoint another justifier, another mediator in addition to Christ? Paul says to the Galatians (5:4): “Christ has become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law;” i. e. if you hold that by the observance of the Law you merit to be accounted righteous before God, Christ will profit you nothing, because what need of Christ have those who hold that they are righteous by their own observance of the Law? God has set forth Christ with the promise that on account of this Mediator, and not on account of our righteousness, he wishes to be propitious to us. But these men hold that God is reconciled and propitious, because of the traditions, and not because of Christ. Therefore, they take away from Christ the honor of Mediator. Neither, so far as this matter is concerned, is there any difference between our traditions and the ceremonies of Moses. Paul condemns the ceremonies of Moses, just as he condemns traditions, for the reason that they were regarded works which merit righteousness before God. Thus the office of Christ and the righteousness of faith were obscured. Wherefore the Law being removed, and traditions being removed, he contends that the remission of sins has been promised not because of our works, but freely because of Christ, provided that by faith we receive it. For the promise is not received unless by faith. Since, therefore, by faith we receive the remission of sins, since by faith we have God propitious to us for Christ’s sake, it is an error and impiety to think that, because of these observances, we merit the remission of sins. If any one should say here that we do not merit the remission of sins, but that those who have already been justified by these traditions merit grace; Paul here again replies (Gal. 2:17) that Christ would be the minister of sin, if after justification we must hold that we are not even then accounted righteous for Christ’s sake, but we ought first, by other observances, to merit that we be accounted righteous. Likewise (Gal. 3:15): “Though it be but a man’s covenant, no man addeth thereto.” Therefore, neither to God’s covenant who promises that for Christ’s sake he will be propitious to us, ought we to add that we must first through these observances attain such merit as to be accounted accepted and righteous.

Although what need is there of a long discussion? No tradition was instituted by the holy Fathers with the design that it should merit the remission of sins or righteousness, but they have been instituted for the sake of good order in the Church and for the sake of tranquillity. And when any one wishes to institute certain works to merit the remission of sins p. 220 or righteousness, how will he know that these works please God, since he has not the testimony of God’s Word? How without God’s Word and command will he render men certain of God’s will? Does he not everywhere in the prophets prohibit men from instituting without his commandment peculiar rites of worship? In Ez. 20:18, 19, it is written: “Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols: I am the Lord our God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them.” If men are allowed to institute religious rites, and through these rites merit grace, the religious rites of all the heathen will have to be approved, and the rites instituted by Jeroboam (1 Kings 12: sq.), and by others, in addition to the Law, will have to be approved. For what difference does it make? If we have been allowed to institute religious rites that are profitable for meriting grace, or righteousness, why was the same not allowed the heathen and the Israelites? But the religious rites of the heathen and the Israelites were rejected for the very reason that they held that by these they merited remission of sins and righteousness, and yet did not know [the highest service of God] the righteousness of faith. Lastly, whence are we rendered certain, that rites, instituted by men without God’s command, justify, inasmuch as nothing can be affirmed of God’s will without God’s Word? What if God does not approve these services? How, therefore, do the adversaries affirm that they justify? Without God’s Word and testimony, this cannot be affirmed. And Paul says (Rom. 14:23): “Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.” But as these services have no testimony of God’s Word, conscience must doubt as to whether they please God.

And what need is there of words on a subject so manifest? If the adversaries defend these human services as meriting justification, grace and the remission of sins, they absolutely establish the kingdom of Antichrist. For the kingdom of Antichrist is a new service of God, devised by human authority rejecting Christ, just as the kingdom of Mahomet has services, and works through which it wishes to be justified before God, nor does it hold that men are gratuitously justified before God by faith for Christ’s sake. (Thus the Papacy also will be a part of the kingdom of Antichrist, if it thus defends human services as justifying.) For honor is taken away from Christ when they teach that we are not justified gratuitously by faith for Christ’s sake, but by such services; especially when they teach that such services are not only useful for justification, but are also necessary, as they hold above in Art. vii. where they condemn us for saying, that, to the true unity of the Church, it is not necessary that rites instituted by men p. 221 should be everywhere alike. Daniel (11:38) indicates that new human services will be the very form and constitution of the kingdom of Antichrist. For he says thus: “But in his estate shall he honor the god of forces; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold and silver and precious stones.” Here he describes new services, because he says that such a god shall be worshipped as the fathers were ignorant of. For although the holy Fathers themselves had both rites and traditions, yet they did not hold that these matters are useful or necessary for justification; they did not obscure the glory and office of Christ, but taught that we are justified by faith for Christ’s sake, and not for the sake of these human services. But they observed human rites for the sake of bodily advantage, so that the people might know at what time they should assemble; so that, for the sake of example, all things in the churches might be done in order and becomingly. For the distinctions of times and the variety of rites are of service in a lmonishing the common people. The Fathers had these reasons for maintaining the rites,¹ and for these reasons we also p. 222 judge that it is right that traditions [good customs] be maintained. And we are greatly surprised that the adversaries [against the entire Scriptures of the Apostles, against the Old and New Testaments] contend for another design of traditions, viz. that they may merit the remission of sins, grace or justification. What else is this than to honor God “with gold and silver and precious stones?” [as Daniel says], i. e. to hold that God becomes reconciled by a variety in clothing, ornaments and by similar rites [many kinds of church decorations, banners, tapers], as are infinite in human traditions.

¹ In the Var. Melanchthon adds the testimony of Epiphanius (cf. Apology, Art. xxiii., § 45), and continues: “As Epiphanius [Hær. 46], clearly testifies that it was a class like our monks. For they were fraternities that imposed upon themselves certain traditions; they also abstained from wine even in the Lord’s Supper; they ate no flesh, not even of fish, and in this respect far surpassed the brethren of the Dominican order. They also indeed in the greatest degree were averse to marriage, although they were not averse to intercourse with women. For Epiphanius presents this charge against them, as they had crowds of women following the same kind of life, just as at the present time the monks have almost everywhere neighboring monasteries of women. And they imagined that these observances were a worship of God, and righteousness on account of which they were accepted of God, and whereby they appeased God’s wrath. This opinion Epiphanius disapproves, and shows that there are other designs of traditions, and says that such traditions are to be approved as have been made διὰ τὴν ἐγκράτειαν, ἢ διὰ τὴν πολιτείαν, i. e. either for restraining the flesh on account of discipline of the rude, or on account of political order. And we judge that it may be right to observe traditions, for the following reasons, viz. that a sober people may participate in the sacred [rites], just as Jehoshaphat and the king of Nineveh proclaimed fasts (2 Chron. 20:3; Jonah 3:7 sq.); and also that the order and polity of the Church may instruct the ignorant what has been done at any time. Hence Christmas, Easter, Pentecost and the like. That is, as Epiphanius says, that traditions have been instituted for the sake of the polity, viz. for the sake of order, and that this order should teach men concerning the history and benefits of Christ. For the marks of things painted as it were upon the customs and rites teach much more effectually than letters. It was of profit to present and set forth these designs to the people. But

Paul writes to the Colossians (2:23) that traditions have “a show of wisdom.” And they indeed have. For this good order is very becoming in the Church, and for this reason is necessary.

But human reason, because it does not understand the righteousness of faith, naturally imagines that such works justify men because they reconcile God, etc. Thus the common people among the Israelites thought, and by this opinion increased such ceremonies, just as among us they have grown in the monasteries [as in our time, one altar after another and one church after another is founded]. Thus human reason judges also of bodily exercises, of fasts; although the end of these is to restrain the flesh, reason imagines the end to be, that they may be services which justify. As Thomas writes: “Fasting avails for the extinguishing and the prevention of guilt.” These are the words of Thomas. Thus the semblance of wisdom and righteousness in such works deceives men. And the examples of the saints are added [when they say: St. Francis wore a cap, etc.]; while they desire to imitate these men, they imitate for the most part the outward exercises; their faith they do not imitate.

After this semblance of wisdom and righteousness has deceived men, then infinite evils follow; the Gospel concerning the righteousness of faith in Christ is obscured, and vain confidence in such works succeeds. Then the commandments of God are obscured; these works arrogate to themselves the title of a perfect and spiritual life, and are far preferred to the works of God’s commandment [the true, holy, good works], as the works of one’s own calling, the administration of the

to these designs the adversaries with a pharisaic persuasion, add another, viz. that such observances merit the remission of sins, that they are services necessary for justification, that on account of them men are accounted just before God. This is plainly to honor God “with gold and silver and precious stones,” that is, to hold that God becomes reconciled by a variety in clothing, ornaments and by similar things, as are infinite in human traditions, or that the worship of God consists of such things as distinctions in times, meats, vessels, clothing.

p. 223 state, the management of a family, married life, the bringing up of children. Compared with these ceremonies the former are judged to be profane, so that they are exercised by many with some doubts of conscience. For it is evident that many, the administration of the state and marriage being abandoned, have embraced these observances as better and holier [have gone into cloisters in order to become holy and spiritual].

Nor is this enough. When the persuasion has taken possession of minds that such observances are necessary to justification, consciences are in miserable anxiety because they cannot exactly fulfil all observances. For how many are there who could enumerate all these observances? There are immense books, yea whole libraries, containing not a syllable concerning Christ, concerning faith in Christ, concerning the good works of one’s own calling, but which only collect the traditions and interpretations by which they are sometimes augmented and sometimes relaxed. [They write of such precepts, as of fasting for forty days, the four canonical hours for prayer, etc.] How that most excellent man, Gerson, is tortured while he searches for the grades and extent of the precepts! Nevertheless, he is not able to fix, ἐπιείχεια [alleviation, equity] in any grade [and yet cannot find any sure grade where he could confidently promise the heart assurance and peace]. Meanwhile, he sometimes deplores the dangers of godly consciences, which this rigid interpretation of tradition produces.

Against this semblance of wisdom and righteousness in human rites, which deceives men, let us therefore fortify ourselves by the Word of God, and be assured that these neither merit before God the remission of sins or justification, nor are necessary for justification. We have above cited some testimonies. And Paul is full. To the Colossians (2:16, 17) he clearly says: “Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” But this embraces at the same time both the Law of Moses and human traditions, in order that the adversaries may not elude these testimonies, according to their custom, upon the ground that Paul is speaking only of the Law of Moses. He indeed testifies here clearly that he is speaking of human traditions. Although the adversaries do not see what they are saying; if the Gospel says that the ceremonies of Moses, which were divinely instituted, do not justify, how much less do human traditions justify!

Neither have the bishops the power to institute services, as though they justify, or are necessary for justification. Yea the apostles (Acts 15:10) say: “Why tempt ye God to put a yoke,” etc., where Peter declares this purpose to burden the p. 224 Church a great sin. And Paul forbids the Galatians (5:1) to “be entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” The apostles wish therefore that this liberty remain in the Church, that no services of the Law or of traditions may be judged to be necessary (just as in the Law ceremonies were for a time necessary), lest the righteousness of faith may be obscured, if men judge that these services merit justification, or are necessary for justification. Many seek in traditions various ἐπιεικείας [alleviations] in order to heal consciences; and yet they do not find any sure grades by which to free consciences from these chains. But just as Alexander once loosened the Gordian knot by cutting it with his sword when he could not disentangle it, so the apostles once for all free consciences from traditions, especially if they are taught for meriting justification. The apostles compel us to oppose this doctrine by teaching and examples. They compel us to teach that traditions do not justify; that they are not necessary for justification; that no one ought to frame or receive traditions with the opinion that they merit justification. Then even though any one should observe them, let him observe them without superstition as civil customs, just as without superstition soldiers are clothed in one way, and scholars in another. [As I regard my wearing of a German costume among the Germans, and a French costume among the French, as an observance of the usage of the land, and not for the purpose thereby of being saved.] The apostles violate traditions and are excused by Christ.¹ For the example was to be shown the Pharisees that these services are unprofitable. And if our people neglect some traditions that are of little advantage, they are now sufficiently excused, when these are required as though they merit justification. For such an opinion with regard to traditions is impious [an error not to be endured].

¹ See Matt. 12:1-8.

But we cheerfully maintain the old traditions [as the three high festivals, the observance of Sunday and the like] made in the Church for the sake of usefulness and tranquillity; and we interpret them in a more moderate way, to the exclusion of the opinion which holds that they justify. And our enemies falsely accuse us of abolishing good ordinances and Church discipline. For we can truly declare that the public form of the churches is more becoming with us than with the adversaries [that the true worship of God is observed in our churches in a more Christian, honorable way]. And if any one will consider it aright, we conform to the canons more truly than do the adversaries. With the adversaries, unwilling celebrants, and p. 225 those hired for pay, and very frequently only for pay, celebrate the Masses. They sing psalms, not that they may learn or pray [for the greater part do not understand a verse in the psalms], but for the sake of the service, as though this work were a service, or at least a cause of reward. With us many use the Lord’s Supper [willingly and without constraint] every Lord’s Day, but after having been first instructed, examined and absolved. The children sing psalms in order that they may learn [become familiar with passages of Scripture];¹ the people also sing, in order that they may either learn or pray. With the adversaries there is no catechisation of the children whatever, concerning which even the canons give instructions.² With us the pastors and ministers of the churches are compelled publicly [and privately] to instruct and hear the youth; and this ceremony produces the best fruits. [And the Catechism is not a mere childish thing, as is the bearing of banners and tapers, but instruction that will always be profitable.] Among the adversaries, in many regions [as in Italy and Spain] during the entire year no sermons are delivered, except in Lent. But the chief service of God is to teach the Gospel. And when the adversaries do preach, they speak of numan traditions, of the worship of saints [of consecrated water] and similar trifles, which the people justly loath; therefore, they are deserted immediately in the beginning, after the text of the Gospel has been recited. A few better ones begin now to speak of good works, but of the righteousness of faith, of faith in Christ, of the consolation of consciences, they say nothing; yea this most wholesome part of the Gospel they rail at with their reproaches. [This blessed doctrine, the precious holy Gospel, they call Lutheran.] On the contrary, in our churches all the sermons are occupied with such topics as these: of repentance, of the fear of God, of faith in Christ, of the righteousness of faith, of the consolation of consciences by faith, of the exercises of faith, of prayer, what its nature should be, and that we should be fully confident that it is efficacious, that it is heard, of the cross, of the authority of magistrates and all civil ordinances [likewise how each one in his station should live in a Christian way, and, out of obedience to the command of the Lord God, should conduct himself in reference to every worldly ordinance and law], of the distinction between the kingdom of Christ, or the spiritual kingdom, and political affairs, of marriage, of the education and instruction of children, of chastity, of all the offices of love. From this condition of the churches, it can be judged that we diligently p. 226 maintain Church discipline and godly ceremonies and good Church customs.

¹ Cf. Aug. Conf., xxvi.: 3.

² Decrees of Gratian, Part III., dist. 4, c. 54-60.

And of the mortification of the flesh, and discipline of the body, we thus teach, just as the Confession states,¹ that a true and not a feigned mortification occurs through the cross, and afflictions by which God exercises us [when God breaks our will, inflicts the cross and trouble]. In these we must obey God’s will, as Paul says (Rom. 12:1): “Present your bodies a living sacrifice.” And these are the spiritual exercises of fear and faith. But in addition to this mortification which occurs through the cross [which does not depend upon our will] there is also a voluntary kind of exercise necessary, of which Christ says (Luke 21:34): “Take heed to yourselves lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting.” And Paul (1 Cor. 9:27): “I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection,” etc. And these exercises are to be undertaken not because they are services that justify, but in order to curb the flesh, lest fulness may overpower us, and render us secure and indifferent, the result of which is that men indulge and obey the dispositions of the flesh. This diligence ought to be perpetual, because it has the perpetual command of God. And this prescribed form of certain meats and times does nothing [as experience shows] towards curbing the flesh. For it is more luxurious and sumptuous than other feasts [for they practised greater gluttony with fish and various lenten meats than when the fasts were not observed], and not even the adversaries observe the forr¹ given in the canons.

¹ Augsburg Confession, xxvi.: § 30 sqq.

¹ Augsburg Confession, xxvi.: § 30 sqq.

This topic concerning traditions contains many and difficult questions of controversy, and we have actually experienced that traditions are truly snares of consciences. When they are expected as necessary, they torture in wonderful ways the conscience omitting any observance [as godly hearts indeed experience when in canonical hours they have omitted a compline or offended against them in a similar way]. Again their abrogation has its own evils, and its own questions. [On the other hand, to teach absolute freedom has also its considerations and questions, according as the common people need outward discipline and instruction.] But we have an easy and plain case, because the adversaries condemn us for teaching that human traditions do not merit the remission of sins. Likewise they require universal traditions, as they thus call them, as necessary for justification [and place them in Christ’s stead]. Here we have Paul as a constant champion, who everywhere contends that these observances neither justify, nor are necessary in addition to the righteousness of faith. And nevertheless we teach that, p. 227 in these matters the use of liberty is to be so controlled, that the inexperienced may not be offended, and, on account of the abuse of liberty, may not become more hostile to the true doctrine of the Gospel, or that without a reasonable cause nothing in customary rites be changed, but that in order to cherish harmony such old customs be observed which can be observed without sin or without great inconvenience. And in this very assembly we have shown sufficiently that for love’s sake we do not refuse to observe adiaphora with others, even though they should have some disadvantage, but we have judged that such public harmony as could indeed be produced without offence to consciences ought to be preferred to all other advantages [all other less important matters]. But concerning this entire subject we will speak afterwards, when we will treat of vows and ecclesiastical power.¹

¹ Apology, Arts. xxvii., xxviii.

p. 227 Article XVI: Of Political Order

The sixteenth article the adversaries receive without any exception, in which we have confessed that it is lawful for the Christian to bear civil office, sit in judgment, determine matters by the imperial laws, and other laws in present force, appoint just punishments, engage in just wars, act as a soldier, make legal contracts, hold property, take an oath when magistrates require it, contract marriage; finally, that legitimate civil ordinances are good creatures of God and divine ordinances, which a Christian can use with safety.. This entire topic concerning the distinction between the kingdom of Christ and a political kingdom has been explained to advantage [to the remarkably great consolation of many consciences] in the literature of our writers, [viz.] that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, to wit, that it is in the heart the knowledge of God, and fear and faith in God, beginning eternal righteousness and eternal life; meanwhile it permits us outwardly to use legitimate political ordinances of every nation in which we live, just as it permits us to use medicine or the art of building, or food, drink, air. Neither does the Gospel bring new laws concerning the civil state, but commands that we obey present laws, whether they have been framed by heathen or by others, and that in this obedience we should exercise love. For Carlstadt was insane in imposing upon us the judicial laws of Moses. Concerning p. 228 these subjects, our theologians have written more fully, because the monks diffused many pernicious opinions in the Church. They called a community of property the polity of the Gospel; they gave the advice not to hold property, not to vindicate one’s self at law [not to have wife and child]. These opinions greatly obscure the Gospel and the spiritual kingdom, and are dangerous to the commonwealth. For the Gospel does not destroy the Church or the family [buying, selling and other civil regulations], but much rather approves them, and bids us obey them as a divine ordinance, not only on account of punishment, but also on account of conscience.

Parallel passages: Augsburg Confession, Arts. xvi.; xxiii.; xxvii.; Apology, Art. xxvii.: 36 sq.; Formula of Concord, Epitome, xii.: 12 sqq.; Sol. Decl., xii.: 17 sqq.

Julian the apostate, Celsus and very many others made the objection to Christians, that the Gospel would rend asunder states, because it prohibited legal redress, and taught certain other things not at all suited to political association. And these questions wonderfully exercised Origen, Nazianzen and others, although indeed they can be most readily explained, if we keep in mind the fact that the Gospel does not introduce laws concerning the civil state, but is the remission of sins, and the beginning of a new life in the hearts of believers; besides that it not only approves outward governments, but subjects us to them (Rom. 13:1), just as we have been necessarily placed under the laws of seasons, the changes of winter and summer, as divine ordinances. The Gospel forbids private redress, and Christ inculcates this so frequently with the design that the apostles should not think that they ought to seize the governments from those who held otherwise, just as the Jews dreamed concerning the kingdom of the Messiah, but that they might know that they ought to teach concerning the spiritual kingdom that it does not change the civil state. Therefore private redress is prohibited not by advice, but by a command (Matt. 5:; Rom. 12:19). Public redress, which is made through the office of the magistrate, is not advised against, but is commanded, and is a work of God, according to Paul (Rom. 13: sqq.). Now the different kinds of public redress are legal decisions, capital punishment, wars, military service. Concerning these matters, how incorrectly many writers have judged is manifest from the fact that they have been in the error that the Gospel is an external, new and monastic form of government, and that they have not seen that the Gospel brings eternal righteousness to hearts, while it outwardly approves the civil state.

It is also a most vain delusion that it is Christian perfection not to hold property. For Christian perfection consists not in the contempt of civil ordinances, but in dispositions of the heart, in great fear of God, in great faith, just as Abraham, David, Daniel, even in great wealth and while exercising civil p. 229 power, were no less perfect than any hermits. But the monks have extended this outward hypocrisy before the eyes of men, so that it could not be seen in what things true perfection exists. With what praises have they brought forward this communion of property, as though it were evangelical! But these praises have the greatest danger, especially since they differ much from the Scriptures. For Scripture does not command that property be common, but the Law of the Decalogue, when it says (Ex. 20:15): “Thou shalt not steal,” distinguishes rights of ownership, and commands each one to hold what is his own. Wickliffe manifestly was out of his mind when he said that priests were not allowed to hold property. There are infinite discussions concerning contracts, in reference to which good consciences can never be satisfied unless they know the rule that it is lawful for a Christian to make use of civil ordinances and laws. This rule protects consciences when it teaches that contracts are lawful before God just to the extent that the magistrates or laws approve them.

This entire topic concerning civil affairs has been so clearly set forth by our theologians, that very many good men occupied in the state and in business have declared that they have been greatly benefited, who before, troubled by the opinion of the monks, were in doubt as to whether the Gospel allowed these civil offices and business. Accordingly we have recounted these things in order that those without also may understand, that by the kind of doctrine which we follow, the influence of magistrates and the authority of all civil ordinances are not undermined, but are much the more strengthened [and that it is only this doctrine which gives true instruction, as to how eminently glorious an office, full of good Christian works, the office of ruling is]. The importance of these matters was greatly obscured before by those silly monastic opinions, which far preferred the hypocrisy of poverty and humility to the state and the family, although these have God’s command, while this Satanic communion [monasticism] has not God’s command.

p. 229 Article XVII: Of Christ’s Return to Judgment

[THE seventeenth article the adversaries receive without ex-66 ception, in which we confess that in the consummation of the world Christ shall appear and shall raise up all the dead, and shall give to the godly eternal life and eternal joys, but shall condemn the ungodly to be punished with the devil without end.

Parallel passages: ART. XVII.; The Apostles’ Creed; Augsburg Confession, Art. xvii.; Small Catechism, Creed, Art. ii.; Large Catechism, Creed, Art. ii.; Lord’s Prayer, Petition ii.

p. 230 Article XVIII: Of Free Will

The eighteenth article Of Free Will the adversaries receive; 6; although they add some testimonies not at all adapted to this case. They add also a declaration that neither with the Pelagians is too much be granted to the free will, nor with the Manicheans is all freedom to be denied it. Very well; but what difference is there between the Pelagians and our adversaries, since both hold that, without the Holy Ghost, men can love God and perform God’s commandments with respect to the substance of the acts, and can merit grace and justification by works which reason performs by itself without the Holy Ghost? How many absurdities follow from these Pelagian opinions, which are taught with great authority in the schools! These Augustine, following Paul, refutes with great emphasis, whose judgment we have recounted above in the article Of Justification. Nor indeed do we deny liberty to the human will. The human will has liberty in the choice of works and things which reason comprehends by itself. It can to a certain extent render civil righteousness or the righteousness of works, it can speak of God, offer to God a certain service in outward works, obey magistrates, parents; by a choice in outward works can restrain the hands from murder, from adultery, from theft. Since there is left in human nature reason and judgment concerning objects subjected to the senses, choice between these things, and the liberty and power to render civil righteousness, are also left. For Scripture calls that righteousness of the flesh¹ which the carnal nature, i. e. reason by itself without the Holy Ghost, renders. Although the power of concupiscence is such that men more frequently obey evil dispositions than sound judgment. And the devil, who is efficacious in the godless, as Paul says (Eph. 2:2), does not cease to incite this feeble nature to various offences. These are the reasons why even civil righteousness is rare among men, as we see that not even the philosophers themselves, who seem to have aspired after this righteousness, attained it. But it is false that the man does not sin, who performs the works of the commandments without grace. And they add further that such works merit de congruo² the remission of sins and justification. For human p. 231 hearts without the Holy Ghost are without the fear of God; without trust toward God, they do not believe that they are hearkened to, forgiven, benefited, and preserved by God. Therefore they are godless. For “neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matt. 7:18). And “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6).

¹ Heb. 9:10.

² Apology, c. ii., Art. iv. Of Justification, § 19 sqq., p. 90; c. iii., Of Love and Fulfilling, etc., § 200 sqq., p. 14)

Parallel passages: ART. XVIII.: Augsburg Confession, Art. xviii.; xx. 31–34; Apology, Art. iv.: 9 sq.; iv. (III.) “Of Love and the Fulfilling,” § 17 sq.; § 169 sq.; Smalcald Articles, Part iii., Art. i.; Formula of Concord, Epitome and Sol. Dec., ii., Of Free Will.

Therefore, although we concede to free will the liberty and power to perform the outward works of the Law, yet to the free will we do not ascribe these spiritual matters, viz. truly to fear God, truly to believe God, truly to be confident and hold that God regards us, hearkens to us, forgives us, etc. These are the true works of the First Table, which the heart cannot render without the Holy Ghost, as Paul says (1 Cor. 2:14): “The natural man,” i. e. man using only natural strength, “receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.” And this can be decided if men consider how hearts are disposed toward God’s will, whether they are truly confident that they are regarded and hearkened to by God. Even for saints to retain this faith is difficult, so far is it from existing in the godless. But it is conceived, as we have said above, when terrified hearts hear the Gospel and receive consolation [when we are born anew of the Holy Ghost, as is said above].

Therefore such a distribution is of advantage, in which civil righteousness is ascribed to the free will, and spiritual righteousness to the governing of the Holy Ghost in the regenerate. For thus the outward discipline is retained, because all men ought to know equally both that God requires this civil righteousness, and that after a manner we can afford it. And yet a distinction is shown between human and spiritual righteousness, between philosophical doctrine and the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, and it can be understood for what there is need of the Holy Ghost. Nor has this distribution been invented by us, but Scripture most clearly teaches it. Augustine also treats of it, and recently it has been well treated of by William of Paris, but it has been wickedly suppressed by those who have dreamt that men can obey God’s law without the Holy Ghost, but that the Holy Ghost is given in order that respect to that which is meritorious may be added.

p. 231 Article XIX: Of the Cause of Sin

The nineteenth article the adversaries receive, in which we confess that although God only and alone has framed all nature, and preserves all things which exist, yet the cause of sin p. 232 is the will in the devil and men, turning itself away from God, according to the saying of Christ concerning the devil (John 8:44): “When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh it of his own.”

Parallel passages: ART. XIX.: Augsburg Confession, Art. xix.; Formula of Concord, Epitome, i: 22; Sol. Dec., i.: 26 sqq.; xi. 81.

p. 232 Article XX: Of Good Works

In the twentieth article they distinctly lay down these words, viz. that they reject and condemn our statement that men do not merit the remission of sins by good works. This article they clearly declare that they reject and condemn. What is to be said on a subject so manifest? Here the framers of the Confutation openly show by what spirit they are led. For what in the Church is more certain than that the remission of sins occurs freely for Christ’s sake, that Christ and not our works is the propitiation for sins, as Peter says (Acts 10:43): “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth on him shall receive remission of sins”? To this Church of the prophets we would rather assent than to these abandoned writers of the Confutation, who so impudently blaspheme Christ. For although there were writers who held that after the remission of sins men are just before God, not by faith, but by works themselves, yet they did not hold this, viz. that the remission of sins itself occurs on account of our works, and not freely for Christ’s sake.

Therefore the blasphemy of ascribing Christ’s honor to our works is not to be endured. These theologians are now entirely without shame, if they dare to bring such an opinion into the Church. Nor do we doubt that His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty and very many of the princes will not allow this passage of the Confutation to remain, if they be admonished of it. On this topic we could cite infinite testimonies from Scripture and from the Fathers. But above we have quoted a sufficient number on this subject. And there is no need of more testimonies for one who knows why Christ has been given to us, who knows that Christ is the propitiation for our sins. [God-fearing, pious hearts that know well why Christ has been given, who for all the possessions and kingdoms of the world would not be without Christ as our only treasure, our only Mediator and Redeemer, must here be shocked and terrified, that God’s holy word and truth should be so openly despised and condemned by poor men.] Isaiah says (53:6). “The p. 233 Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all.” The adversaries on the other hand teach that God hath laid our iniquities not on Christ, but on our works. Neither are we disposed to mention here the sort of works [rosaries, pilgrimages and the like] which they teach. We see that a horrible decree¹ has been prepared against us, which would terrify us still more if we were contending concerning doubtful or trifling subjects. Now since our consciences understand that by the adversaries the manifest truth is condemned, whose defence is necessary for the Church, and increases the glory of Christ; we easily despise the terrors of the world, and patiently will bear whatever is to be suffered for the glory of Christ and the advantage of the Church. Who would not rejoice to die in the confession of such articles as that we obtain the remission of sins by faith freely for Christ’s sake, that we do not merit the remission of sins by our works? The consciences of the pious will have no sufficiently sure consolation against the terrors of sin and of death, and against the devil soliciting to despair [and who in a moment blows away all our works like dust], if they do not know that they ought to be confident that they have the remission of sins freely for Christ’s sake. This faith sustains and quickens hearts in the most violent conflict with despair [when no creature can help, yea, when we must depart from this entire visible creation into another state and world, and must die].

Parallel passages: ART. XX.: Augsburg Confession, Art. xx Compare Arts. iv., vi., xii.; Apology (Art. iii.); Smalcald Articles, Part III., Art. xiii. Formula of Concord, Epitome, Art iv.; Sol. Dec., Art. iii., § 35 sq.; Sol. Dec. Art. iv.

¹ The “Recess” of November 19th.

Therefore the cause is one which is worthy that for its sake we should refuse no danger. “Do not yield to the wicked, but on the contrary go forward the more boldly,”² whosoever thou art who hast assented to our confession, when the adversaries endeavor, by means of terrors and tortures and punishments, to drive away from thee that consolation which has been tendered to the entire Church in this article of ours. Testimonies of Scripture will not be wanting to one seeking them, which will establish his mind. For Paul with his entire voice, as the saying is, cries out (Rom. 3: sq., and 4:16), that sins are freely remitted for Christ’s sake. “It is of faith,” he says, “that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure.” That is, if the promise would depend upon our works, it would not be sure. If remission of sins would be given on account of our works, when would we know that we had obtained this, when would a terrified conscience find a work which it would consider as sufficient to appease God’s wrath? But we have above spoken of the entire matter. Thence let the reader derive testimonies. For the unworthy treatment of the p. 234 subject has forced from us the present, not discussion, but complaint that on this topic they have distinctly recorded themselves as disapproving of this article of ours, that we obtain remission of sins not on account of our works, but by faith and freely on account of Christ.

² Virgil’s Æneid, vi. 95.

The adversaries also add testimonies to their own condemnation; and it is worth while to recite several of them. They quote from Peter (2 Ep. 1:10): “Give diligence to make your calling sure,” etc. Now you see, reader, that our adversaries have not wasted labor in learning logic, but have the art of inferring from the Scriptures whatever pleases them. “Make your calling sure by good works.” Therefore works merit the remission of sins. A very striking mode of reasoning, if one would argue thus concerning a person sentenced to capital punishment, whose punishment has been remitted: “The magistrate commands that hereafter you abstain from that which belongs to another. Therefore you have merited the remission of the penalty, because you are now abstaining from what belongs to another.” Thus to argue is to make a cause out of that which is not a cause. For Peter speaks of works following the remission of sins, and teaches why they should be done, viz. that the calling may be sure, i. e. lest they may fall from their calling if they sin again. Do good works that you may persevere in your calling, that you may not lose the gifts of your calling, which were given you before, and not on account of works that follow, and which now are retained by faith; for faith does not remain in those who lose the Holy Ghost, who reject repentance, just as we have above¹ said, that faith exists in repentance.

¹ Apology, xii., p. 167 sqq.

They add other testimonies cohering no better. Lastly they say that this opinion was condemned a thousand years before in the time of Augustine. This also is very false. For the Church of Christ always held that the remission of sins was given freely. Yea, the Pelagians were condemned who contended that grace is given on account of our works. Besides we have above shown sufficiently that we hold that good works ought necessarily to follow faith. “For we do not make void the Law,” says Paul (Rom. 3:31): “yea we establish the Law,” because when by faith we have received the Holy Ghost, the fulfilling of the Law necessarily follows, by which love, patience, chastity and other fruits of the Spirit gradually grow.