Chapter 14
Chapter 14 Earlier it was said that there are three kinds of works: private, political, and ceremonial. Since the most useful precepts about the others were taught above, now the teaching about ceremonies is added. Because this life cannot be without ceremonies, that is, some regulations of times and certain exercises, it was necessary that the church be reminded of their use. For error about ceremonies brings forth many very great troubles.
First, the doctrine of the Gospel about faith and the benefit of Christ is obscured when the opinion creeps in that such observances merit forgiveness of sins, and that we are righteous on their account, as the Jews imagined about their rites. This opinion naturally occupies minds unless they are rightly instructed from the Gospel.
Second, the teaching about the difference of works is extinguished when ceremonies are preferred to political life, yes, preferred also to inner spiritual exercises, to patience and prayer. Thus the monks called their observances perfections.
Third, the opinion that they are necessary creeps in, which is a dangerous torture of consciences.
Fourth, the opinion that they are necessary brings forth discords that cannot be healed, as were the disagreements about Easter long ago.
Fifth, when the true use of ceremonies is not known there is falsely ascribed to the bishops the authority of instituting new acts of worship. Thus the teaching of the New Testament is ignored, ungodliness is strengthened, and the tyranny of the bishops is increased.
Since error about ceremonies brings forth such great and numerous difficulties, it is necessary that their use be rightly taught. Paul here teaches in sum that neither the Mosaic ceremonies nor similar ones instituted by men are to be observed as being necessary, because the righteousness about which the Gospel speaks is not observance of Mosaic or similar rites, but knowledge of Christ, new and spiritual life in the heart. In the outer life, while it is lawful to use various intervals of days, it is also permitted to use different rites. He does not want the opinion of righteousness and necessity to be imagined for ceremonies. Neither does he want discord to be sown about rites, either Mosaic or human. This is the sum and substance of this chapter, which does not talk about sacraments, which have a command, because they are signs added to
Romans 14 DIF) the promises. Likewise, they are testimonies of confession, but here also it is profitable that human traditions be distinguished.
There are three kinds of ceremonies. The first kind is traditions which teach something that cannot be done without sin. Such is the tradition about celibacy, since it is imposed on those who are not fit for it. Likewise, the profanation of Masses and the worship of the saints. About this kind, the rule must be held fast: *'We must obey God rather than men'? [Acts 5:29]. Therefore such traditions are condemned by divine authority.
The second kind is traditions which make rules about things that are adiaphora according to their nature such as feast days, dress, and food. With respect to these, the purposes must be considered. If the purpose is political, they are lawful traditions, as when festival days are observed not as though this were an act of worship, but for the sake of order, that people may know at what time they should come together to hear the Gospel and for the Lord's
Supper. Since man naturally understands order and needs to arrange his activities in an orderly manner, church activities also ought to have their order.
Neither can life be without such rites and ordinances that make for good order.
Therefore also Paul commands: **That in the church all things should be done decently and in good order'? [1 Cor. 14:40].
The third kind is traditions regarding adiaphora that are thought to be acts of worship, meritorious, or necessary. Such traditions obscure the doctrine of the Gospel, and the opinion which comes to them makes godless traditions of adiaphora. Therefore they are rightly violated and abolished in order that the false opinion may be corrected, for it is necessary that errors about worship, merits, and necessity be rejected.
[False] worship can be such a work. The immediate aim of [true] worship is not something useful for the body, but that God may be honored by this work. But the people think about the distinction of foods that this work is done because it is an honor which God requires and approves. About them
Christ says: ''In vain they worship me with commandments of men'' [Mark LAK Frequently they add to it the opinion of merit, which is even more openly ungodly—that such a work merits forgiveness of sins or eternal life, that it is righteousness, that it is perfection, or that it is satisfaction. These errors must necessarily be condemned.
The opinion of necessity prevails when people think that the violation of something is a mortal sin. The Gospel condemns this opinion according to the passage: "'Let no one judge you in matters of food, of drink...
[Col. 2:16]. Therefore one should hold that the Gospel has ordained this freedom in matters which are permitted by the Word of God, and that it does not want to have such things made matters of right or wrong. It is profitable
Commentary on Romans to keep these kinds of tradition in mind in order that one may know which traditions are to be rejected and which ones may be retained.
Regarding Christian Liberty Here it is necessary also that we speak about Christian liberty. For the purpose of teaching, I distinguish four degrees of Christian liberty.
The first is that remission of sins, imputation of righteousness, and eternal life are not given on account of the Law or our virtues, but gratis, on account of Christ, only that we should believe that these things come to us on account of Christ. About this degree Christ says: "'If the Son makes you free then you are truly free'' [John 8:36].
The second degree is that in the remission of sins the Holy Spirit is given, who helps us to begin to obey the Law of God, rules us, and defends us against the snares of the devil. Although this degree is linked to the one above,
I distinguish it in the enumeration so that the benefits of Christ may be more clearly seen. Here belongs the saying of Paul: **Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty'' (2 Cor. 3:17]. For that lifts up hearts so that they are not oppressed by the terrors of sin, other terrors, or death. The Spirit moves them so that they begin to obey God, as is said elsewhere: 'The Holy Spirit helps our infirmity'' [Rom. 8:26]. This liberty will be complete after the resurrection. Meanwhile, however, it must be begun in this life in the exercises of faith and prayer. In these exercises it is understood and grows when we sustain ourselves with the Word of God, in order that we may overcome terrors and griefs. These two degrees chiefly constitute Christian liberty and pertain to spiritual and eternal life (which must be begun in this life) and their knowledge affords great comfort to the godly.
The third degree is that the Gospel frees us from the ceremonies and the civil or judicial laws of Moses. This degree pertains in some measure to the outer life, but has its cause in the earlier degrees. For the reason why the Gospel does not require the Levitical ceremonies is that it teaches that we are pronounced righteous not on account of those acts of worship or other works of ours, but by faith through mercy on account of Christ. And since the Gospel teaches about spiritual and perpetual righteousness of the heart, it does not require the form of government or the civil laws of Moses, but permits us in this bodily life to use the laws of all governments under which we live, as long as they are in agreement with reason, even as it permits us to use the architecture and medicine of all nations.
Here someone may ask: If the Gospel abrogates the law of Moses, then why does it not also abrogate the Decalogue, particularly because that part of the law is the most difficult? I answer, first most bluntly: The Decalogue is not retained because it is written in the law of Moses, but carnal persons
Romans 14
must be coerced by the moral law because it is the common law of all men.
The regenerate indeed begin to obey that law not because itis the Mosaic form of government, but because the Gospel preaches repentance and brings the Holy Spirit, because it begins spiritual worship in us. Therefore the Decalogue—that law which is common to all men—is retained because it condemns sins and teaches spiritual worship.
That is the bluntest kind of answer, and although it is true, not enough has yet been said about this matter. Therefore it is necessary that the chief reason be added, also the teaching about the abrogation of the Law or freedom from the Law. First, as far as justification is concerned, the Gospel truly frees us from the whole Law.It declares that we are pronounced righteous because of something else—on account of Christ, not on account of the Law. Therefore, those who believe in Christ have the forgiveness of sins, although infirmity still clings to them, which keeps them from fulfilling the Law. The chief reason why the abrogation of the Law must be taught is that it is necessary to teach consciences correctly about justification. Therefore it is necessary that this response be added to the earlier one.
Second, although we have been set free as far as justification is concerned, the Law has not been taken away as far as obedience is concerned, because the Gospel preaches repentance, subjects us to God, and begins spiritual obedience in us. Therefore, it is necessary that those acts of worship be begun which are contained in the moral law. Nevertheless, because we do not satisfy the Law, it meanwhile teaches that we are righteous by something else—because of Christ, by faith. Thus it frees consciences from that dreadful burden, from the terrors and the condemnation which the Law would bring, since we do not satisfy it, if we were not set free and righteous because of something else. This is what Paul is teaching when he says that we have been freed from the curse of the Law [Gal. 3:13]. For he says clearly ''from the curse'' in order to signify that freedom from the Law is freedom from the terrors and from the condemnation which the Law brings unless we lay hold of the mercy promised because of Christ by faith. It can be known from these facts that we have been set free from the whole Law as far as justification is concerned. Nevertheless. it is necessary that obedience be begun.
The fourth degree of Christian liberty is that while the Gospel permits some ordinances about times and practices in the church to be made by men in the interest of good order, it wants us to think that these observances are not acts of worship, that they do not merit remission of sins, and that they are not righteousness or perfection. Also, except in case of offense, they can be omitted without sin. Concerning this degree Paul teaches in Col. 2 [:16]:
''Let no one judge you in food, in drink.'' He is not speaking only about Mosaic rites, but in general about Mosaic and all other ceremonies which are
Commentary on Romans instituted in the church by human authority. Therefore he expressly names human traditions later nen he as [in Col. 2:22]: ''according to the precepts and doctrines of men.'
Knowledge of this degree is very necessary for the churches to avoid many errors. Men are naturally inclined to false acts of worship, and in dangers they take refuge in their own righteousness or merits, so they erroneously think up and heap up acts of worship. Therefore, it is necessary that the churches be forewarned so that they may truly understand the teaching about faith, true prayer, and the worship of faith, and may know that acts of worship instituted without a divine command are displeasing to God.
David says about Levitical sacrifices [Ps. 51:16]: ''For if you desired a sacrifice, I would give it; but surely you will take no pleasure in whole burnt offerings.' In this verse he indicates that human minds seek sacrifices when they are afraid, but he calls them back from works to faith and acknowledgment of mercy. Since this is said about Levitical sacrifices, how much more is the opinion of worship or merit to be taken away from human traditions.
If someone were now to restore circumcision or the Levitical burnt offerings, all would rightly be disgusted with him. So also we should detest monasticism and the ceremonies of the ungodly which are performed with the idea that they are acts of worship or merit. This picture must be set before the godly so that they may declare more firmly that such acts of worship are to be disapproved and avoided.
I have listed many reasons above why knowledge of this fourth degree of liberty is necessary for the church. Also, the opinion that a thing is necessary becomes a dangerous torture of consciences. Therefore, it is profitable that this should be the rule: except in case of offense, traditions in the church made by human authority can be omitted without sin, even if they do not bring on any godless work. Nevertheless, the godly should still be taught in churches which are rightly constituted that they may observe useful rites with a free mind for the sake of the example and good order, because this human life is not able to continue steadfastly without certain ordinances.
Regarding Scandal Scandal signifies an offense which deters minds or invites imitation. It is twofold. The one kind is called pharisaical scandal. That is an offense which hypocrites conceive on account of the true doctrine or an act which God requires or approves. By this offense, hypocrites are incited to hate the true doctrine and the godly. This scandal cannot be avoided, and the godly do not sin on account of such rage of the ungodly. Rather, it is necessary to obey the commandment of God despite the judgments and hatreds of the ungodly, because Paul says: "'If anyone preaches another Gospel, let him be
Romans 14 gl anathema''[1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8]. And the godly must be diligently taught and fortified, lest the hypocrites deter them from confession when they place dangers, insurrections, and destructions in their way after persecution. Minds should be thoroughly fortified against these terrors, lest they grow weary and discard the truth.
The other kind of scandal is wicked doctrine, or an evil deed, or an indifferent one, wilfully undertaken among the weak, which scares them away from the Gospel or wounds their minds in some way. These scandals are to be avoided. The most harmful of all is godless teaching, because it harms the glory of God and ruins innumerable minds of hearers.
Furthermore, every evil deed is a manifest offense. Bad examples invite others to imitation and Jessen reverence for God. They often cause the church itself and its teaching to be in ill repute, and reasonable persons are scared away from the true doctrine. Thus the doctrine would have been in ill repute if Joseph had committed adultery. In contrast, his continence glorified the godly doctrine in many ways and brought great advantages to the entire kingdom. Since this is an outstanding example, it shows how much good it does to shun scandals of this kind. Let us remember that all our actions concern not only ourselves but also the glory of God. It is written: 'The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you' [Rom. 2:24; cf. Is. 52:5;
Ez. 36:22}.
Finally, one must beware of thoughtlessness in the use of indifferent things lest indifferent customs be changed among those who either have not yet heard the teaching about liberty or are still too weak. The danger is that they may be deterred from the Gospel by the changing of such customs. They do not persecute the godly teaching, but are teachable. However, after the doctrine has been taught and the hypocrites are opposing it, it is right that examples of liberty be shown them, and these examples are a part of confession according to Galatians |. Thus the apostle violates the pharisaic traditions.
1-2. Welcome the person who is weak in faith As he is about to speak about the use of ceremonies and liberty, he sets down, first of all, an admonition about tolerating the weak. He teaches a precept which is not to be practiced toward wicked persecutors—enemies of the Gospel—but toward our members, that is, toward such as permit themselves to be taught and who hear the Gospel. He forbids these to be deterred by unusual examples so that they do not embrace the Gospel.
He calls him weak in the faith, not yet sufficiently learned in the doctrine of liberty: Furthermore, when he says that such a one is to be raised up lest he fall into a state of doubt, he reminds us of two things: that he should not be compelled to do something against his conscience which his conscience
Baz Commentary on Romans disapproves; and that he should be moved forward little by little and be snatched out and set free from the state of doubt. For doubting in any article, if it is not corrected and increases; is a terrible sickness. It casts out faith and causes despair, hatred of the entire Gospel, and manifest ungodliness. Thus it happened to Julian [the Apostate] and to many similar persons.
3. For God has welcomed him First you will note the precept to beware of doubting. Then you will note than an outstanding comfort is set forth here. For Paul testifies that the weak have been welcomed by God. But he understands not enemies or persecutors, but those who hear the Gospel, who are teachable, and have the beginnings of the fear of God and faith in Christ. Thus the apostles were righteous before Christ's resurrection, although they had their weaknesses, as 1s apparent in the gospel history.
Let us transfer this example to ourselves, and remember that we also have many weaknesses. Nevertheless, we do not abandon our faith because of them, since the Scripture here testifies that the weak are welcomed, but also admonishes at the same time that the weak are to be carried forward little by little.
In the third place the precept against doubting is taught. We should not do anything of which our conscience disapproves. Let everyone be certain in his own mind. This statement forbids one to act against his conscience. For whoever acts against his conscience openly despises the commandment of God. It is easy to understand that this contempt is a sin. Therefore every act against the conscience truly is a sin.
4-12. Who are you to judge another?
He hands down a rule which is necessary in the church: we should not do anything against our conscience. Afterward he forbids us to condemn one another in the use of indifferent things such as rites about foods, days, and other things of this kind. And he adds the argument about judgment. Judgment belongs to Christ; therefore we ought not to arrogate judgment to ourselves, namely, about the conscience of another (not about an outward deed that is clearly unlawful). This rule is wide open, as also that one: *'Judge not'' [Mt.
7:1; Luke 6:37]. But ministries are not forbidden, namely, teaching, brotherly admonition, or the duties of the magistrate. For these have commandments of God and are divinely instituted courts. What is prohibited are private judgments, that is, condemnations outside of these three courts which I have enumerated, judgments that have originated from a sick mind, ill will, or vanity. A judgment which is made by a man must be made about an external unlawful act. However, it is very common in the world that what others say
Romans 14
and do lawfully is deceitfully misinterpreted. Paul disapproves of such judgments in the use of indifferent things, and forbids that condemnations be made on account of dissimilar rites in indifferent matters, as at one time there were fights about the date of Easter, about fermented drinks, and other things of this kind.
13—I4a. But rather judge this He adds a precept about avoiding offenses. He spoke above about various kinds of offenses. Now he is speaking only about this one kind: when libertine persons misuse freedom, or the more hard-nosed ones (who are not enemies of the Gospel) criticize the use of liberty. Both are to be admonished. Although the misuse of liberty isto be scolded, there is more wrong on the other side, which also does more harm on account of the appearance of authority.'! The more rigid wound the consciences of the godly who make use of their liberty.
They scare away many simple people from the Gospel, and in many cases grieve the Holy Spirit. Since there is much danger on both sides, Christians have need of great diligence lest they sin, either with harsh criticisms or with the misuse of their liberty. Christians should adhere to the fundamental principle, the doctrine, because here the use is an indifferent thing, as Paul says in | Cor. 8[:8]: *'Food does not commend us to God."'
To the precept about avoiding offenses, he adds four reasons full of Christian instruction. The first is taken from the kind of works, because the use of things divinely ordained and given is not of itself unclean or prohibited.
"I know,'' he says, "'that nothing is unclean in itself.'' He uses the term unclean, that is, profane, unlawful, prohibited, not holy, after the Jewish manner. Since the Jews are called the people of God and holy, that is, separated from the Gentiles for the worship of God, they called all things which were granted to them to use sacred. And indeed they were sacred, because they had been ordained by the Word of God. On the contrary, they call things profane and prohibited common, that is, not holy, not separated for the use of the holy people, but which the Gentiles used. These things I said about this term only. Now let also the rule be considered which is briefly taught here (elsewhere it is more fully explained) that the Gospel does not demand certain observances about foods, days, or clothing. Similar cases have been treated above because the Gospel teaches that sins are remitted gratis, because of Christ, not on account of our works or observances. Likewise, the Gospel brings righteousness and spiritual and eternal life. External observances of foods and similar things profit nothing for this.
1 The text has gratuitatis, which is not recognized by the Latin dictionaries. It apparently is a misprint for gravitatis, which is the reading of our 1540 edition.
Commentary on Romans 14b. Except for the person who thinks He adds an appendix to the rule. Clean things, that is, permitted things, become unlawful for those whose conscience judges that they are unlawful.
This subject must be diligently considered so we may learn that it truly is a sin to act against one's conscience. The meaning of this saying is this: The kind of food is indeed in itself lawful, but he who eats it while his conscience disapproves, sins. To do something when he is in doubt or when his conscience disapproves is to act in contempt of God and without faith.
15. But if because of food your brother The second reason has been taken from the duty of brotherly love, and it is emphasized greatly. To harm others is against brotherly love; beware lest your examples hurt others. The argument can be applied both to those who wilfully misuse their freedom, and to the hard-nosed who judge harshly about those who use their liberty. Frequently this harshness in judging deters the weak from the Gospel and wounds the minds of those who are only moderately confirmed. Yes, it grieves the Holy Spirit, in this way: some who are about to despair fall away from the Gospel and lose the Holy Spirit. These offenses are to be avoided with great care, according to the saying: *"Woe to that person through whom offense comes"" [Mt. 18:7].
16. Your good may be blamed The third reason is taken from the dignity of the Gospel. We must beware lest the Gospel sound bad to people, for the glory of God is harmed when his Word is reviled and the good of men is hindered. People do not accept a doctrine which they despise. Controversies do not necessarily alienate the minds of the inexperienced and simple from the Gospel so that they begin to hate a kind of doctrine as a seedbed of hatreds, but there are also those offenses which do alienate minds. Those who misuse liberty increase the licentiousness of the common people. On the other hand, hard-nosed persons deter the weak with the virulence of their judgments, etc. He commands us to shun diligently these offenses of minds on account of the glory of the Gospel, in order that more may love and embrace the doctrine.
17. For the kingdom of God is not The fourth reason is taken from a comparison of necessary and unnecessary things, and it is a useful statement about the distinction between true and false acts of worship. Necessary things are not to be ruined by unnecessary things. Indifferent rites are not necessary, so do not let necessary things be
Romans 1|4
harmed by them, namely, faith, the peace of the church, and the edification of the neighbor.
Moreover, the Scripture teaches frequently elsewhere that true acts of worship of God are repentance, faith, love, chastity, and similar spiritual impulses, as Paul elsewhere embraces this same meaning: ''In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails, but faith which works through love'' [Gal. 5:6]. Likewise: *'They will worship the Father in Spirit'' [John
4:23]. On the other hand, he says about human traditions: ''In vain they worship me with commandments of men'' [Mark 7:7].
This teaching is greatly needed in the churches so we may know that works thought up without a command of God do not constitute worship of God. Minds should be recalled to works commanded by God. It is a great comfort to the godly to know these true acts of worship, to know that God truly requires prayer and faith, that he wants to hear us, and that these common duties in home and state are pleasing to him if they are done in faith.On account of the common afflictions they are indeed exercises of faith. Therefore, this teaching is so often repeated: *'Call on me in the day of trouble and I will deliver you'' [Ps. 50:15]. Also Isaiah | and 58, Micah 6, and Zechariah 7.
With respect to this Paul also says here that the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. Righteousness means to be righteous, that is, accepted by God, at the same time submitting one's self to God with beginning obedience. Peace and joy in the Holy Spirit signify the same thing, namely, peace of conscience before God when we truly know that our sins are forgiven. This knowledge of mercy is followed by prayer, patience, diligence in keeping harmony, and avoiding offenses with the help of the church. Thus Paul embraces all acts of spiritual worship, as he frequently does elsewhere.
18—22. Whoever serves Christ in these There is a small] but important addition: '*Whoever serves Christ in these pleases God and is approved by men."' This passage contains a clear testimony that good works please God. But Paul says expressly ''Whoever serves
Christ'' in order to testify that he is speaking about the good works of those persons who are righteous by faith in Christ, who know that this worship pleases on account of Christ, the mediator and high priest.
Then there is added the useful teaching that when we serve Christ we will also be respected in the judgments of men, and most of all of the godly or of the church. However, he is speaking of those who serve Christ in order that we may know that the judgments of men are not to be put above the teaching and commandment of God. But when we hold fast to the com-
Commentary on Romans mandment and teaching of God, we must be careful that our morals adorn the Gospel and invite others to believe and to glorify God, according to the saying: ''Let your light shine before men'' [Mt. 5:16].
23. Moreover, whatever is not from faith In this chapter he has often inculcated the rule that we should do nothing contrary to our conscience. Now at the close he adds also that this work should be done from faith. This addition should be considered diligently, for this addition is not sufficiently clear to those who do not know the true teaching of the Gospel. For the common people, the statement of Paul is explained as follows: ''Whatever is not from faith is sin,'' that is, whatever is done contrary to the conscience is sin. But they do not explain this sufficiently, for they apply it only to the Law, that stealing is done contrary to the Law, and therefore is a sin, and against the conscience in the person who steals knowingly. This interpretation is true and necessary. For in our actions it is necessary first of all to consult the Law in order that we may know what works God forbids or commands, and there is no doubt that works against the Law of God are sins.
But when Paul mentions faith he demands not only the Law or knowledge of history, but true faith. He teaches that works commanded or permitted by God must be done in faith, that is, with the confidence that God is propitious to us on account of Christ, the mediator, and our works are pleasing on account of that high priest. Therefore it is necessary to apply the statement of Paul not to the Law only, but also to the Gospel.
But someone may ask: How can we declare that we or our works are pleasing to God, since they are rendered unclean by the contagion of concupiscence? I answer: The carnally secure, who are without repentance, do not understand this teaching about faith. But in genuine afflictions, their mind begins to see the light when they consider that they are not being heard by God. They begin to see that we may declare that God truly forgives us because of Christ, that he truly hears us and cares for us.
Where there is such comfort, it is possible to understand what faith is, and then faith fights against natural doubting and overcomes mistrust. By this faith a person first pleases God on account of Christ. Thereafter God declares that also our good works are pleasing on account of Christ, the high priest, although they are imperfect and unclean. It is necessary also that people be taught that God demands that we serve in faith, not in a perpetual state of doubting. Let them not think: '*Although I serve God and call on him, I should doubt whether these things please him.'' This doubt contains many sins; it denies the Gospel, it denies that God forgives sins, it expects nothing
Romans 14 23), from God, it is silently angry, and it murmurs against God. These are the things which properly result from through the Law, as Paul calls them.
Such doubting must be reprehended in the church, and the doctrine about faith must be opposed to it. Also to be reprehended is the very common error which has been disseminated in the church that a Christian should doubt whether there is grace for him, and that such doubting is not a sin. For this they quote a statement from Ecclesiasticus: *'A man does not know whether he is worthy of love or wrath.'' Then they seek conjectures from works— whether we are in grace—and our adversaries say that one should doubt, and that doubting is not a sin. This entire idea militates against the doctrine of faith.
Moreover, we do mot deny that doubt inheres naturally in minds, as does mistrust, which we all experience. But it must be known that this very doubt and mistrust is a sin, and that it arises from our natural blindess, which rejects the promise of the Gospel. And although this doubting inheres in the minds, these two things should be opposed to it: the promise of the Gospel and the commandment which teaches that we should believe that promise. Therefore doubting must be resisted and mistrust overcome, and we must declare that God truly forgives believers and that he truly accepts, cares for them, and hears them. And we should know that this faith is worked and nourished by the Word.
It is not only the promise which demands that we believe. The commandment which is added to it is unchangeable. It commands us most sternly to believe that the things which have been promised will certainly be imparted to us on account of the Son of God. Thus we read | John 3[:23]: 'This is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son.'' Likewise:
'*Whoever does not believe God makes him a liar, because he does not believe the testimony which God has testified about his Son' [1] John 5:10]. And Hebr. 4[:16]: "'Let us approach the throne of grace with confidence.'' The teaching which commands us to doubt militates against these commandments and promises.
One must struggle against doubting, and faith must be raised up in every prayer. James [1:6] also teaches this: ''Let him ask in faith, without doubting.'' Neither do acts of worship please God in those who do not fight against doubt and who silently retain their mistrust that they are not being regarded, that they have been rejected. We ought to recognize these sins, resist them, and arouse true exercises of faith.
Paul's statement should be understood: *'Whatever is not of faith is sin."'
Let us remember that we should perform works commanded by God, and that they are to be done in faith that God is propitious to us on account of Christ,
Commentary on Romans the mediator, and that for Christ's sake he hears us and cares for us, pardons our infirmities and approves our good works.
Now let the hypocritical acts of worship be compared with this statement.
When they do works not commanded by God, they cannot believe that such worship is pleasing to him because they have no word about the will of God.
Second, because they disapprove of the doctrine about faith and command us to doubt, another piece of ungodliness is added. They pray like the heathen, silently thinking that they are not regarded, not cared for, not heard by God, and that perhaps they have also been rejected. This perpetual doubting is ungodliness, even if the world does not judge it to be a sin.
How is the saying of Solomon [cf. Ecclesiasticus] to be understood: "*A man does not know whether he is worthy of love or of hate?'' I answer very simply: Solomon is not speaking of the judgment of the conscience before God, about grace or rejection, but about events in this life. These, he says, are uncertain, and good things and evil things alike happen in this life. This uncertainty offends Epicureans, and moves them to deny providence. Abel is pious, and yet he is slain by his brother. John the Baptist is killed; meanwhile the tyrant is enjoying all pleasures, and many wicked persons did not meet a tragic end. Solomon collected these arguments in order to warn us that we should not fall away from God on account of this offense, neither judge from the events about the will of God, except from the Word. Likewise, that the godly should not become carnally secure and forsake the fear of God, nor from trust in their own righteousness undertake anything without a call, etc.?
2 Our 1540 edition ends the discussion of Romans 14 here.
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture and the Fallibility of the Church Fathers Regarding the Church and the Authority of the Word of God People often argue how much authority should be given to the pronouncements of the church, the decrees of synods, and the sayings of writers.
Although we hold fast the rule that we embrace the Word of God, nevertheless, because ambiguous passages seem to occur in the apostolic writings, some argue that we should follow the pronouncements of the church rather than the writings of the apostles.
These people imagine that the authority of the church is to be placed above the Word of God, and that the church is able to change what is taught in the Word of God. In favor of these opinions they cite a saying of Augustine:
**T would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the catholic church did not move me to do it."' Under the false pretext of the name of the church, popes decree and command many things contrary to the Word of God, just as they please. They strengthen and establish ungodly teaching and ungodly acts of worship, and the mere name of the church now also deters very many from the true doctrine of the Gospel, which we profess. Therefore it is necessary that people be correctly advised about the authority of the church.
Certain ingenious but particularly impudent persons imagine new opinions from badly distorted statements of Scripture. They completely reject the consensus of the true church and all synods without distinction. For example,
Servetus fights with the church of all times and distorts the statement about the Word in John 1, seeking a more elegant interpretation, as he thinks. In order that such impudence may be held in check, the church needs a certain fence, so to speak, as the ancient synods and writers quote the earliest testimonies received from the apostles and from trustworthy writers.
Tertullian says against Praxeas that this rule must be maintained against all heresies: ''Whatever was first is right; whatever is later is adulterated."'
Then he calls what the apostles clearly taught "'the first,'' and in this way he explains what he means.
Irenaeus, writing against Florinus, quotes the authority of those who wo.
Commentary on Romans were before him. He quotes Polycarp by name, who listened to the apostle
John. He says that he would have cursed the dogmas of Florinus if he had heard them, and would shun the place where they had been spoken as polluted.
Basil quotes his wet-nurse, whose piety had then been very highly praised. He said that she had received the teaching from Gregory of Neocaesarea [Pontus], who at that time was famous for learning and miracles, and who refuted Paul of Samosata and left behind a brief confession of faith, which contains a clear witness about the Trinity. It is found in book 7 of [Eusebius] Church History.
Origen quotes the apostles about the baptism of infants. He says on Romans 6 that the churches received from the apostles the teaching that infants should be baptized. These quote the authority of the church correctly. Therefore I shall tell in orderly fashion what the church is, that it should be heard, that approved testimonies should be used, and that nevertheless the doctrine should be judged from the Word of God in order that the highest authority should remain the authority of the Word, according to the saying: "'If anyone teaches another Gospel let him be anathema"' [Gal. 1:8].
First, when I say church, I do not understand popes, bishops, and others who approve of their opinions. For these are enemies of the true church, being in part Epicureans, in part manifest idolaters. I call the church the assembly of those who truly believe, who have the Gospel and the sacraments, and are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, as the church is described in Ephesians 5 and John 10[:27]: ''My sheep hear my voice."
It is necessary that this true church always remain, because the kingdom of Christ is everlasting and it is written [Mt. 28:20]: **I shall remain with you until the end of the world.'' Nevertheless, we must know that this true church is not always flourishing equally, but often is only small, and is to be divinely restored later when true teachers are sent, as in Noah's time the church was oppressed and an assembly of only a few persons.
After the deluge Melchizedek, who was Shem, the son of Noah, retained the true doctrine. When idolatry increased among the Chaldaeans and the true doctrine had been extinguished almost everywhere, God renewed the church through the calling of Abraham. Then the family of Abraham and a few of his hearers, were the church. Meanwhile, the Chaldaeans and the Egyptians were boasting that they were the descendants of the fathers, that they retained the examples and the worship of the fathers. They proclaimed that they were the people of God, although they had not retained the Word of God (even if they had retained the ceremonies, to which they had attached perverse opinions and added idolatry).
At the time of Ahaz when the church was nearly extinct in Israel, it was again increased through Elijah and Elisha. Afterward it again collapsed.
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
When Christ was about to be born there was in Judah only a small church:
Mary, Joseph, the family of Zachariah, Simon, Anna, the shepherds, and a few others. Meanwhile, the church government was with the Pharisees and Sadducees who were openly ungodly. The Sadducees were also Epicureans.
Nevertheless, they, most of all arrogated to themselves the title people of God.
At the time of the prophets the true church was small. Isaiah 1[:9]: ''If the Lord had not left to us a seed, we would have become like Sodom and Gomorrah.'' These words admonish us most earnestly that we should not think of the church as a secular state, nor measure it by the succession of bishops, nor by the degree or position of popes, but declare that the church is with those who retain the true doctrine of the Gospel. It is necessary that there be in that assembly some who truly believe. For to this assembly belong the promises. Isaiah takes away this venerable title from his princes and high priests, and says a small seed is left in the people who were called the people of God.
In the time of Jeremiah, when both kings and priests were against him, the church was not the assembly of priests, but those who believed the preaching of Jeremiah. Amos 3[12]: "'Israel will be liberated in this way, as when a shepherd rescues two legs out of the jaws of a lion.'' Finally, the church was small compared with the multitude of the wicked when all peoples, with the exception of the people of Judah, had totally lost the knowledge of God.
The Scripture also foretells that after the apostles there will be disaster for the church. Matthew 24[:11]: ''Many false prophets will arise and will deceive many.' Likewise: *'When you shall see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place'? [Mt. 24:15]. This signifies that in the church which bears the name there will arise idolatry, by which the true doctrine and true acts of worship will be destroyed, and the church will become a waste, that is, it will be forsaken or extinct; and so it happened. After the abuses of the Masses and the worship of traditions arose, there followed darkness about true acts of worship, about faith, about calling on God in faith, and about the duties of one's calling. This happened because a conscience that looks to its own merits is not able to understand the remission of sins, true prayer, the expectation of divine help, etc.
Finally, they will perform signs and wonders so that, if it were possible, even the elect would be misled [Matt. 24:24]. 2 Thess. 2[:3]: "'A falling away will come.'' Luke 18[:8]: ''Do you think that the Son of Man will find faith when he comes?'' Ps. 88[89:47]: ''Have you created all the sons of men in vain?'' This is a complaint about the coming ruin of the church. These sayings testify that although the church must be preserved, it will, especially in the last time, be only small and an assembly of few persons who are spurned and
Commentary on Romans rejected in this life, as Paul says: "'Not many wise, not many powerful" [1
ConmileZalr I have cited these testimonies for this reason, so that first it might be considered what the church is, and so that the mind may be led away from the carnal opinions which imagine that the church is the papal state tied to the orderly succession of bishops, as kingdoms are upheld by an orderly succession of rulers. But with the church it is a different matter, for it is an assembly not bound to an orderly succession, but to the Word of God. The church is reborn where God restores the doctrine, and gives his Holy Spirit.
Paul testifies in Eph. 4[:11] that the church is ruled and preserved in this manner, not by orderly succession: **He gave gifts to men, apostles, prophets.
... ''He teaches that the true church is where Christ is at work and where he bestows true teachers.
Therefore, when the name and the authority of the church is opposed to us, let us first consider whether they are speaking of the true church or about the papal assembly and its succession and form of government. Let us not permit ourselves to be scared away from the Word of God by the false protection of the name church.
Second, after it has been said what the true church is, one must add that the true church is small and consists only of saints. It retains the true doctrine of the Gospel, the articles of faith, or, as Paul calls it, the source of the truth.
Yet this same true church sometimes preserves the doctrine purely and clearly, but at other times less so. It also has many weak members, as the apostles were the church although they did not understand before the resurrection of Christ what the future kingdom of Christ would be like. Even after the Holy
Spirit was given, Peter imagined that the works of the Law were necessary.
Warned from heaven, he learned that the kingdom of Christ is not a Jewish state, but spiritual and eternal acts of worship (Acts 9).
Afterward, when the preaching of the apostles had been begun, the doctrine shone forth pure and clean in them. Nevertheless, there were many who were weak. Although they were true members of the church and held fast the articles of faith, they added something erroneous, as did those who observed the acts of worship of the Law and did not sufficiently understand the abrogation of the Law and the true acts of worship. This was not an insignificant error, and it poured out a certain amount of darkness on the articles of faith. Thus Christ predicts about the church of the last times that there will be great darkness which will hinder even the elect, that they will not have the pure doctrine |[cf. Mt. 24].
There remains some true church, which holds fast the articles of faith, but at times less pure, obscured by some incorrect opinions and holding some erroneous views. I am still speaking about true members of the church and
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
saints, not about the others who, when the light of the Word has been lost, lose the Holy Spirit and follow the judgment of reason. Although they think that they are teaching only godly things, they are really teaching foreign and wicked things. Thus also now there are many outstanding teachers—persons of good morals with a show of piety—who think they are speaking very holy things, although they are far removed from the true light, that is, from the true understanding of the Word of God. I am not yet speaking about such persons; now | am speaking only of true members of the church, who in large part are weak.
For Paul says: "'No man can lay another foundation except that which has been laid. But one builds on it gold, another wood, stubble ..."' [1
Cor. 3:11] He understands the foundation as the article of faith, that is, the sum and substance of the Christian doctrine, the doctrine about the benefit of Christ. But to this, he says, some add useful teaching, explanation, and true spiritual acts of worship; this he calls gold. Others add stubble, that is, opinions which are not fitting and contain something erroneous, even as in the beginning immediately ceremonies were laid down which brought errors in their train.
Thus I consider Ambrose a true member of the church. Nevertheless, he says about the forty-day fast: "'The other fasts are voluntary; this one is necessary."' This opinion is stubble added to the doctrine of faith.
Basil added monasticism, although it is stubble, and praises this kind of life with excessive and false praise, although he was rebuked by his bishop.
Scripture frequently reminds us that it is not a light error to institute new acts of worship. This is shown us by this one statement: ''In vain they worship me with commandments of men'' [Mark 7:7]. It is a serious sin against the First Commandment to institute or to approve of acts of worship not commanded by God. It is against the First Commandment, because this commandment forbids strange acts of worship.
Cyprian urges canonical penalties which were in use at the time, and promotes the view that they are necessary, and that sins are remitted because of them. At the same time, he says that absolution without these punishments is useless. Perhaps he thought better than he spoke. Nevertheless, these are not small errors, but very thick stubble, obscuring the pure doctrine about the benefits of Christ and about faith.
Furthermore, writers often felt more correctly than they spoke, because most were quite negligent and improper in speaking, and they borrowed many statements and formulas from the common people which contain something erroneous. Thus Augustine takes the term satisfactions from the common people, although he openly rebukes the errors about satisfactions. He tortures himself in explaining the statement ''Every sin is voluntary'' when he dis-
Commentary on Romans cusses original sin, although the saying is a civil saying that speaks about outward transgressions.
Thus they call the Lord's Supper an offering, after the manner of the people, although it was not instituted as an offering, since Christ himself was the sacrificer, offering the sacrifice. And there was not even in ancient times an offering of the body and blood in the ceremony of the Supper. Before the consecration, bread and other things were offered, and the priest said that he was offering prayers, thanksgivings, and the entire worship which was customarily done there. Therefore, although Offering was not understood in one and the same way, it was later twisted to offering the body; very great abuses followed from this.
In the book in which the ceremonies of the church are contained, Dionysius, when he diligently describes the order of the rites, makes no mention whatever of the offering of the Lord's body. Neither does the canon of Basel contain this offering. But I shall say more about the Lord's Supper later. I have added these things in order to show that the ancients at times borrowed unsuitable ways of speaking from the people, as is accustomed to happen in all ages.
Meanwhile, men are defeated by the judgments and examples of the crowd—which is not godly—so that they are drawn into superstitions by some human imagination, as at the Synod of Nicaea. If the one man Paphnutius had not objected, the opinion of those who wanted a decree made that priests should abstain from their wives would have been approved. Custom defeated Cyprian and many others, so that they approved prohibition of marriage.
Likewise, the entire Nicene Synod, overcome by the consensus of the crowd or of the time, approved the canons of penitence which afterward brought forth intolerable errors. Great examples frequently deceive even the godly, as the example of Antony darkened the understanding of many. Until now I have been speaking of the godly. Although they are holy, very many are weak. Now
I shall add something about the fallen.
At times the godly waver completely and lose the Holy Spirit, as I judge that Origen has completely fallen, especially if he affirmed those monstrous errors of the world which were innumerable, namely, that the devils would finally be saved.
Tertullian also wickedly condemns second marriages.
However, perhaps they returned to their senses. For many who truly lapse in life and doctrine nevertheless return to their senses. And it happens very often that saints truly waver and do not judge according to the Word and spiritual light, but are deceived by the imagination of reason, yet nevertheless afterward return to their senses. Thus Gideon fell completely when he instituted a form of worship guided by human counsel.
From all this the conclusion follows: Although the true church, which
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
is small, retains the articles of faith, that true church can hold errors which obscure the articles of faith. Moreover, many fall in such a way that they completely approve of wicked errors against the articles of faith, although some do perhaps return to their senses.
First of all when the authority of the church is appealed to, one must ask whether it was the consensus of the true church, agreeing with the Word of God.
Then one must say that extant writers often were persons who had lapsed, and perhaps some are not even members of the church.
In the third place this distinction must be added: In the assembly which is called the church there is a great multitude of ungodly persons, many of whom enjoy higher authority than others, through a show of religion or a reputation as teachers. Such were the high priests at the time of Jeremiah among the people of Judah, and the ungodly priests who appealed against Jeremiah [18:18] to the authority of their position and the law and to the promises: **The law shall not depart from the priests.' They denied that their assembly could err, while at the same time they were completely in error and disagreed with Jeremiah. Likewise, at the time of Christ there were very few godly people, for instance Zachariah and Simeon.
Moreover, when an ungodly crowd has control in the church, it establishes many false and ungodly things in the name of the church. Such a crowd embraced the application of Masses for the living and the dead, the worship of vows and of the saints; afterward this example harmed the godly. Such a crowd also decreed at a synod that the marriages of priests should be torn apart. However, it often happens in the church that wicked persons with ingenius minds make an attempt to establish a religion by human wisdom.
Since they are not influenced by the Word of God but are led by the imagination of reason and seek eloquent suppositions, they bring forth wicked dogmas. Such were Paul of Samosata, Arius, and Pelagius. Others seek merits, a showy administration, or discipline of the people, and they are moved by these causes to institute and to heap up acts of worship, as did the monk
Gregory. At the present time popes, princes, and many learned men who desire to set-up the church are moved by human wisdom, and having ignored the Word of God, they want to set up the church according to their own imaginings. They do not see that it is a dreadful act of impiety to depart from the Word of God, to seek God without the Word, to institute acts of worship by human judgment, to alter true dogmas without a command from God, and to oppress the purity of the Word of God.
The authority of the church is held up against us, as for instance about the application of Masses: *'The church does not err; the church has applied
Masses for so many centuries, the custom must be preserved.'" One must
Commentary on Romans answer to the major premise: The entire church, which is the multitude of those who dominate in the church, can err, as high priests and priests erred at the time of Jeremiah and of Christ. Although beside that multitude there are some pious persons who hold fast to the articles of faith, these also, moved by the examples, can assent to certain errors. It comes about that they retain the articles of faith less purely. For example, Bernard appears to have thought more correctly than others, although he assented to many errors, such as the abuse of the Masses, the power of the papacy, vows, and the worship of the saints.
Therefore, the authority of the crowd must not be appealed to against the Word of God, but it is necessary that one return to the rule: "'If anyone shall preach another Gospel, let him be anathema"' [1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8}.
Let the highest authority be that of the Word which was divinely taught.
Thereafter that church which agrees with that Word is to be considered authoritative as Christ says [John 10:27]: ""My sheep hear my voice.'" As Augustine said: ''The question is: "Where is the church?'
** What, therefore, shall we do? Shall we seek it in our words, or in the words of the church's
Head, our Lord Jesus Christ? I think that we should seek it in the words of the One who is the truth, and best knows his own body.
But here the objection is raised: "'If the authority of the church is repudiated, then too great a license is granted to the wantonness of human minds. When the statements of the church have been rejected, many will think up new and impious interpretations of Scripture.'' Although this danger is not to be despised and it is profitable to curb that licentiousness, one must see, on the other hand, to what extent the authority of the church is to be consulted. For when Servetus renews! the impious error of Paul of Samosata by denying that "the Word'' signifies a person in the statement: **In the beginning was the Word"' [John 1:1], he magnificently proclaims the authority of the Scripture, and commands that this be preferred to the decrees of the church. Then he slyly argues that the speech is to be understood simply. For since in common human speech word does not signify a person, he denies that it is to be understood of a person in John, so that if Demosthenes were to read this saying: "'In the beginning was the Word,"' he would certainly not think that a person is to be understood.
I ask, therefore, whether it is not profitable to oppose the authority of the church to such men. Here I answer: As the Gospel teaches that the church should be heard, so I always say that assembly which has the Word of God and which is called the church should be heard, even as we also command
' The text here has revovat, which is not recognized by the Latin dictionaries. It appears to be a misprint for revocat.
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
that our pastors be heard. Therefore let us hear the church when it teaches and admonishes, but one must not believe because of the authority of the church. For the church does not lay down articles of faith; it only teaches and admonishes. We must believe on account of the Word of God when, admonished by the church, we understand that this meaning is truly and without sophistry taught in the Word of God.
Perhaps Demosthenes would not think of a person if he were to read:
"In the beginning was the Word."' But a hearer, admonished by the church that Word signifies a person—the Son of God—is now aided by the church as it teaches and admonishes, and believes the article, not because of the authority of the church, but because he sees that this meaning has firm testimonies in the Scripture itself. He sees that it is spoken of a certain person, who, having assumed human nature, dwelt in the world with men. He sees that this person is called Aoyoc. He gathers fitting and firm testimonies about the two natures in Christ, for he knows that with respect to the nature of God the heavenly voice must be believed, and that it is the height of ungodliness to invent opinions about the nature of God without God's own testimony, according to 2 Pet. 1{:17], and Matt. 16 [17:5; cf. Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35]:
'**Hear him!"'
Also the first church has authority as witness of the apostles. I am speaking of dogmas, not about human traditions. For dogmas are intended to be firm and perpetual. Human rites are not intended to be perpetual or immutable.
Neither did the apostles err in doctrine. Therefore it is profitable to hold fast where the most ancient writers appeal to the authority of the apostles.
Thus about the Trinity they cite these: Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Gregory of Neocaesaraea [Pontus], Alexander the bishop of Alexandria, and many others who, since they testify that the doctrine of the Trinity was received from the apostles, powerfully strengthen the godly. Therefore such testimonies are not to be despised.
I said that the writers are to be heard, as now we say also that preachers are to be heard, because some remain in the church who hold fast the truth, some more purely, others less purely. But one must add that the hearers should judge according to the Word of God which always remains the rule for doctrine.
Examples Augustine contends more sharply about original sin than do the rest. For he teaches and reminds, and when we see that he truly and without sophistry sets forth the meaning of the Scripture, we believe the article, not on account of Augustine, but on account of the Word of God, and we see that the earlier
Commentary on Romans teachers think the same, although we see that they did not treat this article as fully or as clearly.
Another Example Peter, bishop of Alexandria, contends against Meletius that the lapsed are to be received back, and he quotes an old authority. For Epiphanius recites these words: ''as the doctrine which has come down to us teaches.'' Therefore that bishop of Alexandria teaches and reminds us that the lapsed are to be received back. We believe this not on account of that bishop, but because we see that this view is taught in the Word of God, and the testimonies of the ancient church agree with it.
Likewise I say that synods of the church are to be heard which teach and remind us when they discuss the Word of God. But they should be examinded, and when they draw right conclusions, we believe because of the Word of God. Thus the synod of Nicaea taught piously and usefully, and admonished all posterity with respect to the Son of God. But we believe this article not because of the synod, but because we see that it is so taught in the Word of God.
Other things which are outside the Scriptures are not to be accepted like that. For example, the Nicene Synod laid down the penitential canons, which are human traditions outside the Scriptures and have been the seeds of many superstitious opinions.
Samson's guests were not able to solve the riddle which was proposed to them at the banquet except by asking his spouse. So Samson said: "'If you had not plowed with my heifer, you would not have the answer to my question'' [Judges 14:18]. Thus one must look around to see where there is an assembly which has the Word of God, and one must examine which assembly of fathers or synods is purer, that is, having fewer opinions outside the Word of God. The church teaches, reminds, and testifies. But one must see whether the things which it proposes have firm testimonies from the Word of God.
Surely it is proper for pious persons to confess that the fathers who fought with the sharpest contentions and held fast to godly dogmas deserve to be honored by those who come after them. This benefit is not to be considered a small matter. Here belongs the dictum of Augustine: ''I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the church did not move me.'' Augustine does not think that the authority of the church is greater than the authority of the divine Word, or that the church should abolish articles taught in the Word.
But he holds that the church is teacher and witness. We would not believe the Gospel if the church did not teach us and testify that this doctrine was handed down from the apostles.
This dictum is useful also for refuting new dogmas which never were
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
found in the church, for example, as the Manichaeans contrived new idle talk. It is necessary that dogmas necessary for godliness first have existed in the preaching of the apostles. New things, and things entirely unknown to the apostolic church, must be rejected. But there is a fuller discussion of Augustine's dictum elsewhere: he certainly does not grant to the church the authority to establish articles of faith contrary to the Word of God, or to abolish articles taught in the Word of God, or lay down new articles of faith.
Catalog of Examples I shall collect a number of examples of synods and fathers in order that it may be seen that dissimilar materials are contained in them, and that not all sayings of all, nor all rites of the ancients, are to be accepted as necessary without discrimination. Certain inept persons so admire antiquity that they want all old human rites restored just as if the Spartans were now to institute all the old rites of their state. Rites thought up by men are often harmful, and even if they are acceptable, they are not appropriate for all times.
The Synod of Neocaesarea forbids priests to attend the banquets at second marriages, lest they appear to approve of them. Such ridiculous decrees are mixed in with many good ones. Therefore a choice must be made, and not all sayings of the ancients are to be rashly applauded.
In the year of our Lord 325? the Nicene Synod was called together by Constantine, in which Eustathius, the bishop of Antioch, was chairman. Most serious controversies about dogmas were decided in this synod, and the errors of Paul of Samosata and Arius were rightly condemned, as were those of the Cathari, who denied that the lapsed should be received back and that these received remission of sins.
Afterward certain political matters were ordained about the governing of the churches—that the bishop of Alexandria should be over the churches of the Orient, and the Roman bishop over the churches of neighboring nations, and that bishops should be ordained by neighboring bishops. Although these political matters are useful, they are not intended to be considered articles of faith.
In the third place, they added certain ceremonies—the canons of penitence, as they called them—which in the beginning were less harsh, and perhaps contained fewer superstitions. But later the burden and the superstitions grew, and gratuitous forgiveness was obscured. The fathers were not cautious enough in this matter. And since the outcome afterward showed that 2 Melanchthon dated the synods and councils as follows: Nicaea, 324; Constantinople,
383; Ephesus, 433; Chalcedon, 422: and Fifth Carthage, 438. In the translation, we have corrected these dates to conform to those commonly accepted today.
Commentary on Romans superstitions are increased by such examples, let us not admire this synod so much in this matter that we would be willing either to approve or to restore those canons. Neither do we for this reason disagree with the ancient church; we retain the articles of this synod about dogmas which properly belong to the church. Other things, which are outside or contrary to the Word of God, do not pertain to the church.
In A.D. 381, the Synod of Constantinople was convoked by Theodosius, in which the bishop of Constantinople presided. A grave controversy about the Holy Spirit was resolved. He is a person proceeding from the Father and from the Son, and is God. Eunomius and others who believed the contrary were rightly condemned. Some matters of polity were also decided, e.g., that bishops should not administer anything in dioceses other than their own.
In the year 431 the Synod of Ephesus was convoked by the younger Theodosius, in which Cyril of Alexandria presided. This synod rightly condemned Nestorius. He denied that in Christ the Word is united with human nature in an essential union. He claimed that the Word was only present and dwelt in the human nature like a guest in a home, and was at work there.
This was a controversy of great importance, for the two natures are truly and essentially united in Christ. Neither is it true that only the human nature is the Christ, and that it is the home of the Word which stands by. From then on the godly urged this form of speaking about the unity of the person, that God had been born, had suffered, etc. Although Nestorius denied that he thought the same as Paul of Samosata, | suspect that he actually thought the same thing, but he proposed the old madness hidden under guise of a cover.
In the year 451 the Synod of Chalcedon was convoked by the Emperor Martianus, in which Eutyches was rightly condemned. He also denied the two natures in Christ, and contended that the nature of the Word had been divinely sent, that Christ had been brought forth through a virgin, and that the two natures are not united. This also seems to have renewed the madness of Paul of Samosata, but put forth under a different guise. This judgment of the synod is to be praised.
In other ways human traditions were already increasing in the church.
This synod added some bad regulations, not about dogmas, but about ceremonies and acts of worship outside the Scripture. Nevertheless, these regulations are still more modest than others that were brought forth later. At this synod the regulation was first made which prohibits marriage to monks and virgins who had made vows, and excommunicates them if they contract marriages, although it adds the mitigation that also this could be granted according to the judgment of the bishop.
To be sure, many useful matters of polity were decreed at that time, such as that the bishops themselves should not have the administration of
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
church properties, but that the churches should have stewards; that no one should hold more than one ministry; that no one should be ordained if he did not have a ministry; and that in every province the bishops should meet annually, and hold a synod about current controversies of the church.
Meanwhile there were also other synods, either provincial, or, more frequently in which the bishops of neighboring provinces came together. Such was the Synod of Antioch, convoked against Paul of Samosata, which piously and rightly condemned the wickedness of Paul of Samosata prior to the Nicene
Synod. Such was also the Synod of Gangara in Galatia, ancient and pure; it has the very best decrees against superstitions concerning marriage, food, and monasticism. It is evident that this synod was convened on account of Montanus, Marcion, and similar persons who greatly increased those superstitions.
Other later synods followed, such as that of Ancyra, which has this memorable regulation: "'If deacons at ordination have not promised that they will live celibate, they are to be retained in their ministries, also if they take wives afterward; but if they promised and nevertheless took wives afterward, they are to be removed from the ministry."' It also has other canons about years of pentience that are dangerous and superstitious.
The Synod of Laodicea rightly condemns the Novatians, but errs when it also censures lay people who are married twice; it commands them to be punished before they are admitted to communion, and forbids baptism after two weeks of the forty-day feast. The other decrees about polity are honorable, as when the synod forbids marriage with heretics. This synod came shortly after that of Nicaea.
The Synod of Toledo was under the Emperor Honorius; it contains many useful chapters about doctrine. For it piously recounts the articles about divinity and the natures of Christ, and certain other articles. Afterward it adds on certain matters about polity, and ceremonies about chrism and vows. This synod forbids deacons be to elevated to the office of presbyter if they do not abstain from their legitimate wives. Likewise, it excommunicates parents who embrace with parental affection daughters who are obligated by vows if they marry. Likewise, it does not admit such married women to communion unless they leave their husbands.
The fifth Synod of Carthage, held in the year 418, forbids to bishops, presbyters and deacons intercourse with their lawful spouses. Thus little by little the prohibition was increased. Previously, intercourse with their wives had been granted to deacons as the synod of Ancyra testifies; afterward the prohibition followed. These constitutions about celibacy were later repeated in all synods, and there are added sharper punishments, as a certain Synod of Toledo decreed that the possessions of wives should be auctioned off if they returned to their husbands.
Commentary on Romans Furthermore this Carthaginian Synod contains also another memorable regulation about the chapels and altars of saints where their bodies are not buried. It commands the bishops to demolish these altars and chapels, or, if they fear tumults, it commands them to warn people in sermons not to go to those places. It seems that some have wanted to prohibit a growing superstition in the worship of saints.
The Carthaginian Synod of the year 457 dealt with the appeal of the bishops. The Roman bishop demanded that appeal be permitted whenever anyone appealed to the Roman bishop, and in order to obtain this he committed fraud. He quoted a newly invented decree which affirmed that the Nicene
Synod had published a decree that had this same sense. Afterward the fraud was discovered from examples sought from Constantinople, and the petition of the Roman pontiff was rejected. At this synod Augustine was present.* By such tricks the Roman pontiffs constructed themselves a road to the primacy.
This example reminds us that we should not admire antiquity so much that we free it from all faults.
The fourth Carthaginian Synod [A.D. 399] contains a decree about prayer and offering for the dead in these words: "'If penitents who have diligently observed the canons of penitence accidentally die before communing, let their memory be commended with prayers and offerings.'' That age did not yet have private Masses, but superstition still grew little by little. This canon does not receive the dead unless they have diligently observed the rites of penitence. Likewise, it adds the custom of offerings.
The Synod of Milan, at which Augustine was present,* dealt with a most weighty matter, and rightly defended the correct doctrine of original sin, grace, and justification. It also has certain matters of polity among which these are noteworthy: It forbids appeal to bishops who live beyond the sea. Not even the Roman bishop would now accept this decree. Likewise, it forbids to ask the emperor for judges who are not bishops. That was fitting for those times; now it would be harsh. With respect to divorce, it also decreed that the innocent person should not marry again, and it added that one should petition the emperor to make a law to this effect. This also is too harsh. For at Rome
Fabiola married again, as is clear from Jerome.
That synod also confirmed that superstition about vows. It permits virgins to be veiled before the twenty-fifth year, contrary to the old canons. Although it decreed tolerably about doctrine, afterward there came some stubbles and superstitious regulations. Therefore not all decrees of synods are to be approved without exception. Yet one must confess that godly synods deserve
5 Augustine died in A.D. 430.
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
honor because they preserved some articles of the Christian doctrine, and with respect to these it is profitable to hold fast to the witness of synods and antiquity.
Regarding the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers These also deserve honor, particularly insofar as they are witnesses of the ancient and first church of the apostles. For they strengthen us by their testimony about the Trinity, the natures in Christ, the baptism of infants, the use of the Lord's Supper, the ordination of ministers, the use of indifferent things, and the repentance of the lapsed. Regarding all these articles, noteworthy examples of the apostles are cited which defend us.
As for the rest, sme were more diligent in some matters, others in other matters, and, as is human, they often thoughtlessly poured out absurd and false statements which they would without doubt have corrected if they had been admonished. Frequently, although they did not hold to a bad opinion, they were not able to say sufficiently clearly what they wanted to say. Often they defended existing traditions too stubbornly on account of the custom of the times; meanwhile, they also held to some false opinions. Therefore not all writings of the fathers are to be approved of without exception. Often they fought among themselves, and it is not rare that one disagrees with himself.
Therefore decisions should be made according to the apostolic Scripture. But I will add examples.
Origen Origen, who cites examples and statements of apostles and about ancient churches, is a useful witness for posterity about a number of articles: the Trinity, the two natures in Christ, the baptism of infants, original sin, the use of the Lord's Supper, and certain other articles.
Otherwise, he mixed into his writings many false and absurd statements, some of which even his own contemporaries disapproved. He imagines that before the present world there were more worlds. He imagines that the punishments of the devils and the damned will have an end. Even his own contemporaries reproved these things.
When he treats the proposition in Romans [3:28]: **We are justified by faith, not by works,'' he understands it according to a synecdoche: "we are just by faith, that is, by perfect faith which embraces all virtues.'' He explains this by saying that the same could be said about other virtues. We are saved through mercy, namely, perfect mercy that embraces the other virtues. This is saying nothing except that people have forgiveness of sins and are righteous on account of works and virtues. And since he pays no attention to what Paul
Commentary on Romans is saying, what Paul calls faith, what the exclusive phrase: "'not of works"' means, he adds confused and intricate explanations and is not consistent with himself.
Meanwhile he pours out some tolerable teaching, but ruins it soon afterward, such as this on Rom. 4: ''The beginning of justification by God is faith, which believes in God who justifies. This faith, when it has been justified, like a root conceived during a shower of rain, clings in the lower part of the mind. When it begins to be worked on through the Law of God, branches sprout in it which bear the fruits of works.'' Therefore the root of righteousness is not from works. Rather, the fruit of works grows from the root of righteousness. By this root, God accepts righteousness without works.
On Romans 3 [:27]: ''Where is your boasting?'' Now he seems closer to the meaning of Paul, for he admits the exclusive that men are justified solely by faith, and he cites the thief on the cross and the woman in Luke
[8:48]: ''Your faith has saved you.'' But afterward, when he explains these things, he seems to want to say that man in the beginning receives remission of sins solely by faith, but afterward is righteous through other virtues, as he himself says afterward: "'Faith is counted for righteousness to him who is converted, but afterward righteousness is counted for righteousness."' Moreover, there is a strange variety and confusion in his explanation, although he grants that man in the beginning receives remission solely by faith. Nevertheless, if afterward he imagines that the converted are without sin, that they satisfy the Law and are righteous on account of other virtues, he disagrees with Paul and with the other divine Scriptures, according to the statement:
'*No man living will be justified in your sight'' [Rom.3:20]. Likewise: *'If we say that we have no sin.
'' [1 John 1:8].
On Romans 7, Origen says clearly that the saints are speaking for another person when they attribute sin to themselves, as with Daniel [9:18]: '*Not because of our righteousnesses, but in your mercy you will hear us.'' He corrupts such statements and teaches confidence in one's own righteousness or despair. On Romans 3 [:21] he says: *'The righteousness of God is manifested without Law'' means that the new evangelical laws are taught without the natural law. About ''Let not your right hand know what the left hand does"' [Mt. 6:3] he says the law previously was ignorant. Likewise: ''The Law is spiritual'' [Rom. 7:14], he understands only of allegory, that is, ceremonies contain an allegory, and frequently he understands ''Spirit'' incorrectly, not about the impulses of the Holy Spirit, but only of allegorical interpretation or thinking.
On Romans 8[:3], "'What was impossible for the Law, because it was made weak through the flesh,'' Origen transfers flesh to the Law: The flesh of the Law was infirm, that is, the ceremonies were impossible, useless, etc.
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture Wa) 8) But by "'flesh'' Paul understands the nature of man: '*The Law was made weak through the flesh' [Rom. 8:3], that is, it could not be done by human nature. These passages show that Origen is running off the track and is not paying attention to what Paul is after.
I could collect many less important examples, as when he says that Peter stands higher than the rest because it is said to him in the plural number that "it will be loosed in heaven,'' while to the entire assembly of apostles it is said in the singular number "'it will be loosed in heaven'' [Mt. 16:19; 18:18; but this is not true]. But I omit these useless things. As to the rest, it is profitable for the learned and for those who use judgment to read the ancient writings, first on account of the historical testimonies, then because comparing them sharpens and exercises students. Thus the reading of Origen will profit also those who have been rightly instructed beforehand and hold fast to the sum and substance of the Christian doctrine.
Dionysius There is one booklet of Dionysius about the ecclesiastical episcopate which is useful on account of the history; the others contain useless speculations. There the ceremonies of the sacraments and the rites of the church are taught, and it is clear that at that time ceremonies were still moderate.
Most of all, the ceremonies of the Mass should be considered here in order that it may become apparent that the more recent popes in the church have departed far from the ancient form. Certain psalms and readings from the gospel were recited. Prayers were said for the church and the state. Afterward, the presbyter, standing at the altar, recited the words of Christ about the Lord's Supper. Then the sacrament was distributed to people. The giving of thanks followed. This was the rite of the Mass; from this it is clear that the Mass was only a communion, and that there were no private Masses. Thus it also is a matter of wonder that no mention is made of offering [offering the body of the Lord; see below] and that he relates not even a rite of offering.
It is profitable to observe chiefly these things in Dionysius in order that we may oppose antiquity to those who are defending the misuses of the Masses.
He tells about baptism, chrism, communions (as I have said), the ordination of presbyters and of those who made vows, the anointing of the dead, where he tells what were the ceremonies at funerals, when the corpse had been set down in the church. In the presence of the people some readings from the sacred writings about the resurrection were recited. Thereafter the people were commanded to give thanks by means of prayers that this person had departed in a godly manner in the knowledge of the Gospel. There was added the exhortation that everyone should pray for a godly exit from this life for himself. This custom was filled with godliness, and is worthy of
Commentary on Romans praise. For what greater benefits can be thought of than to retain the knowledge of Christ in that great struggle, to be helped by Christ and to be saved? Our more recent age has totally abolished this better ceremony and has retained and heaped up worse ones.
Dionysius adds that after this exhortation the presbyters went away and poured oil on the corpse and prayed that God would forgive him any infirmity which remained in him after his conversion. After that the corpse was laid in the earth. These were the only ceremonies at funerals; no mention was made of the dead in the Mass, and much less was the body of the Lord offered for the dead. This profanation of the sacrament was added by a later age.
So much from Dionysius. Although at times there are in him ceremonies which are less evil, there are nevertheless the beginnings of monasticism, and this deserves to be rebuked earnestly because he does not distinguish between sacraments that are divinely instituted and human traditions. He speaks in the same way about the chrism as he does about baptism, and, so to say, makes unimportant things the equal of works. He also places the ordination of monks above the ordination of ministers, which is to be criticized severely, since the ordination of ministers pertains to the preaching of the Gospel, while the ordination of monks is a matter of superstition and is done only for the sake of a worship that is forbidden according to the passage: ""In vain they worship me with commandments of men'' [Mk 7:7]. Nevertheless, there monasticism is called perfection. Therefore his testimonies are useful so far as the history is concerned so that we may know which rites were customary at that time but not so that dogmas and laws can be made from his descriptions.
Tertullian Tertullian rightly refuted Marcion and the other heretics of his faction.
He has useful testimonies about the Trinity, reciting not his own view but the ancient view received from the apostles. In the writing against Praxeas there is an excellent testimony about the Word, that is, about the Son of God, that he was a person even before he assumed human nature.
On the other hand, the ancients criticize certain errors of Tertullian, namely, that he condemns second marriages and argues in a ridiculous fashion:
'It is not lawful to marry the wife of a dead brother. Marrying a widow left behind by a Christian, he marries the wife of his dead brother; therefore he does not do right."
He also plays about the rule of the saints, which they imagined would last for a thousand years in this bodily life before the world burns up, and before the last judgment, some being resurrected gradually, others more quickly than those who are resurrected more slowly. This Jewish foolery must be wholly driven out of the church.
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture 2a In the booklet De Corona Militis he says much about human rites and rants most harshly that custom must be accepted as law. Since these sayings were badly distorted in the church, as happens, great errors were strengthened in all ages because the watchfulness of men is never so great that some evil customs do not creep in.
Tertullian lists the most childish customs, that on the first seven days after baptism one should not go into a bath. Likewise, that milk and honey should be offered to the baptized to taste. There he says we also make offerings for the dead, for birthdays annually. Our adversaries now wickedly twist this to Masses for the dead. Why do they omit birthdays if they ascribe so much authority to Tertullian? But he is not speaking about the Lord's Supper. On birthdays and funerals food was indeed brought into the churches, together with other gifts for the poor. They called these offerings and love feasts. The custom had been taken over from the heathen, but somewhat corrected. For the heathen also held feasts in their temples on birthdays and at funerals, and after the Nicene Synod some also forbade this pomp on birthdays.
Therefore, as has been said about other things, the historical testimonies in Tertullian are profitable where he calls to mind what the earlier church thought. But his reports and discussions should not be accepted as dogmas except to the extent that they agree with the apostolic Scripture.
Cyprian Cyprian lived around A.D. 260. He has useful testimonies about the Trinity, the baptism of infants, the use of the Lord's Supper, and the manner of the election of bishops, who, he writes, were elected by the assembly of the church, and that their election was approved with the counsel of a number of neighboring bishops.
But the ancients also criticized Cyprian because he held that persons baptized by heretics should be rebaptized. Meanwhile, as he preaches he pours out absurd statements when he exaggerates with immoderate hyperboles a cause which he has instituted. Thus when he writes too harshly about canonical punishments he says that absolution is of no avail unless these punishments have been completed. It is not difficult to see how much that is improper is contained in that dictum.
He also blusters vehemently about celibacy, although he indeed mitigates this subject. He commands that those who had made vows should enter marriage if they do not keep what they promised. In the booklet about alms he says that sins committed before baptism are remitted on account of the sufferings of Christ, but that after baptism forgiveness must be sought through alms. These things are full of absurdity, which he would without doubt have
Commentary on Romans corrected if they had been called to his attention. Therefore not all his statements are to be taken as dogmas.
About the Lord's Supper, he' is accustomed to use the words offering and sacrifice, as others do, who say variously: *'We offer prayers, we offer bread and wine, we offer the body and blood of Christ.'' This is found also in Cyprian. Our adversaries take testimonies from here for defending the profanation of the Lord's Supper in the private Mass, etc.
The power of custom is great, and persons who follow it often speak improperly. Thus we now use the term Mass, although the etymology of the term is not known. Thus the ancients retained the terms offering and sacrifice without being much concerned about the etymology and the proper significance. And because Augustine saw something unsuitable in these terms, he softened them. He says it is called a sacrifice in remembrance of the sacrifice, and an offering in remembrance of the offering. These are figures of speech, as we say that Passover is a memorial or sign of the crossing. But | do not want to explain in many words or excuse the way of speaking of that time.
For that is how the people spoke, at times accepting an improper word.
Irenaeus says clearly that this offering is an act of thanksgiving. Others thought the same thing, as the term Eucharist (giving of thanks) testifies.
Therefore they felt that it was a ceremony by means of which thanks is given.
That contains nothing unsuitable. For we receive it in order that we may be reminded of the benefit given us by Christ, and so we may arouse faith.
Thereafter we give thanks for the benefit; from this it does not follow that this work should be done for others, be applied to others, etc. The fathers did not even think of these monstrous things. Therefore, when we read the term sacrifice and offering, we should understand either a sign of sacrifice and offering, or giving of thanks; we should not invent for it applications for others.
Meanwhile they express with the one word offering the whole business which is here being done, namely, prayers and the Lord's Supper. When this is done, prayers may be understood to be offerings.
One also reads in Cyprian certain words about the dead which more recent people distort badly: '*We offer sacrifices for them.'' But he says these things about the martyrs, for mention was made of them in prayers when thanks was given to God because he had helped them. Thus the Greek canon says: 'We offer for patriarchs, prophets, apostles,' that is, we give thanks that you have chosen, redeemed, sanctified, etc., the church from the beginning until now. In the beginning this was the meaning of these words; it was not a prayer that God should lessen the punishments of the dead. During a later time wrong opinions were added, and the earlier words were partially
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
changed, while the form of the old words was partly retained, but posterity understood something other than what earlier persons had understood.
Therefore the testimonies of antiquity offer no defense for more recent abuses, which are partly different from present customs, and if they contain something wrong, they ought not to be opposed to firm testimonies of Scripture, because also other ages had their unsuitable customs. This is my answer very simply and without sophistry with respect to the words offering and sacrifice.
Basil In Basil there are useful testimonies about the Trinity, and about penitence, against Novatu8. In a sermon on humility he hands down an outstanding statement about the righteousness of faith which openly favors us. Without any sophistry he takes away justification from good works. He is not speaking about ceremonial matters, but about all virtues; nor is he speaking only about works done before renewal, but about virtues in the renewed. He commands us to believe that we are righteous by confidence alone in the mercy promised because of Christ. His words are these: ""The apostle says, 'Whoever boasts, let him boast in the Lord' [1 Cor. 1:31], saying that Christ has been made for us wisdom from God, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.
As it is written: "Let him that glories glory in the Lord' [2 Cor. 10:17]. For this is the perfect and complete glorying in God: when a person does not even take pride in his own righteousness, but acknowledges that he is without true righteousness and that he is justified solely by faith in Christ. Paul boasts that he scorns his own righteousness, and that he is seeking the righteousness through Christ by faith, which is from God."'
These words show sufficiently that Basil understood the righteousness by faith in this way, that one must think that we are righteous on account of Christ, through mercy, that is, that we are accepted, but not on account of our Own virtues.
As for the rest, regarding the fact that Basil first instituted groups of monks, that example did harm and contained something evil, although he himself did not hold crass superstitions, and these groups still bore a certain image of teachers. Certain books are also being circulated under his name which contain rules of the monks. Some of these are without doubt forgeries and came into being long after Basil, for they are full of false opinions about celibacy and other acts of worship devised without a command of God, and they contain ridiculous foolery. For instance there is a great mass of punishments or satisfactions which he calls émitiwia: "'If a girl were to laugh in the choir, she should sit for two days in the vestibule,'' and there are similar
Commentary on Romans nursery lullabies. If one wanted to renew these through admiration of antiquity, he would in truth have lost his reason.
Gregory of Nazianzus Gregory of Nazianzus treated the article of the Trinity; on other dogmas he only lightly touches. He writes a life of Cyprian in which he relates that a certain girl was loved by Cyprian before his conversion, who, calling on the Virgin Mary, overcame magical incantations of Cyprian.
This example is cited about the invocation of saints. Although it seems to be a made-up story and was afterward spread under the name of Gregory, nevertheless, even if it had actually happened, it should not be cited for confirming the invocation of the saints. For the errors of the godly must not be opposed to the Word of God, and the godly in the church also have their weaknesses at all times.
They also quote from Basil and Gregory that at the end of sermons about the saints they are accustomed to address them: *"O Athanasius, pray for us.""
Even if these direct addresses can be excused as rhetorical figures, it can still happen that after the manner of their time they then invoked the saints. For the invocation of the saints at that time gradually crept into the church, and the errors of the times draw people, so that they disapprove less of the things they are accustomed to and good people adopt them, just as the force of rivers carries the sailors along. Nevertheless the invocation of saints must not be approved of for this reason. And after the custom has grown and its wickedness has been revealed, it ought to be completely removed from the church. Basil does not say anything about invoking [the saints], but says only that the memory of the saints is celebrated in order that we may imitate their virtues.
He calls the saints helpers of our prayers, not because they are to be invoked, but because all the blessed in heaven pray for the church and commend it to God.
Epiphanius writes that certain women were calling on the Virgin Mary and were accustomed to carry around her statue. He condemns this whole business and calls it an idolatrous work. Epiphanius contains refutations of ancient heresies, especially with regard to the Trinity and about a few other matters. I judge that his history should be read most of all.
Chrysostom The age of Chrysostom had already accepted many bad customs which he does not reprove as he reports them. Thus, he praises those who go to the sepulchers of the saints. He makes mention of prayers for the dead. He adorns monasticism with immoderate and false praises. In the tractate about penitence, he collects many ways of achieving remission of sins, namely, alms,
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
tears, and other works. However, he makes no mention of faith, about which he should have spoken, and this writing contains many false things, and is confused and involved.
The Greeks greatly praised his commentaries on Paul, where in passages about justification and about faith the course of Paul's argument winds up in this way, that he frequently repeats the statement that we receive remission of sins by faith on account of Christ, not on account of works. Chrysostom says expressly: **By faith not only is God loved, but believers feel that they in turn are loved by God, although they are guilty in many ways."'
In harmony with this interpretation he shows that he understands faith not merely as knowledge of history, but as confidence that our sins are forgiven us, and indeed he distinguishes this faith from works, from not stealing, not killing, etc. He also says that this is a higher act of worship. Although his explanation is simpler and less impure than that of Origen, it also is obscure and is not always consistent with itself.
On Romans 7 he runs even farther out of bounds. He says concupiscence and emotions are not sins if they do not bring forth the outward work. Nevertheless, if one reads these commentaries with judgment, he will find testimonies about many articles. Although there was at that time darkness in the church, it is clear that very many retained this common understanding that we are given forgiveness of sins on account of Christ, not on account of works. Therefore, although the ancients at times speak less adequately, one can see in other places what they really wanted to say.
With respect to the Lord's Supper, it is sufficiently clear that there were no private Masses. For he describes the presbyter standing at the altar and calling the people to come forward to the communion.
In the booklet about the dignity of the priesthood he learnedly distinguishes between civil and ecclesiastical power, and denies that the ecclesiastical has the right of compelling by physical power.
Ambrose Ambrose touches on many matters, including about the Trinity, against the Novatians, and about justification. Although in his commentaries contradictory statements are at times found, they seem to have been written not so much by himself, as introduced by others. Nevertheless, it is clear from his longer discussions that he thought the same about grace and about justification as we teach.
This is testified in the letter to Irenaeus about the Pauline dictum: "'The Law works wrath'' [Rom. 4:15] in Epistola 71. He speaks thus: ** "By the works of the Law no one will be justified' [Rom. 3:20], that is, through the law sin is known, but the guilt is'not lessened. Therefore, when the Lord
Commentary on Romans Jesus came he forgave the sin of all, which no one had been able to avoid, and wiped out our bonds by the shedding of his blood. That is what he says:
'Sin abounded through the Law; grace abounded through Jesus' [Rom. 5:20], as John [1:29] says: 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.' Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one is justified by his deeds. Whoever is righteous has it given to him, because he has been justified through Christ. Therefore, it is faith which sets us free through the blood of Christ, for blessed is he whose sin is remitted and has been given forgiveness'' [ cf. Ps. 32:1].
A number of similar statements are also found in other places of this writer, for example, in De Vocatione Gentium (Of the calling of the Gentiles).
Likewise to the virgin Demetria, where he says: **For the commandment has been given for no other purpose except that help might be sought from him who gave the commandment.'' Otherwise there are some preparations for the Mass under his name, and certain foolish things which seem to have been forged.
Jerome By his translations Jerome performed a useful work for the church, and although his explanations of the prophets are thin, his explanation of the histories, taken from the ancients, is useful. He writes little about dogmas.
Writing against Jovinian, he strongly confirms false and superstitious opinions about human traditions. He maligns marriage and attacks it with a shameful speech which is by no means worthy of a Christian. He collects badly distorted statements of Scripture as though they spoke abusively of marriage, e.g.: "'If you live according to the flesh, you will die'' [Rom. 8:13], and similar passages, and says expressly that anyone marrying after a second marriage is not different from a whore. Likewise, that one should look not at what
God allows, but at what he wants, as if God did not want marriage. Finally, after the manner of the heathen, he gathers complaints of the common people against the female sex and against marriage. A Christian ought to think far otherwise about them, because he knows that the cause of the infirmity in each sex is the corruption of nature, and that nevertheless for God's sake honor is to be accorded to the female sex. Since God did not create this sex in vain, this work of God should be acknowledged and the divine ordinance highly regarded. Neither is there less infirmity in the minds of men, in matters which have been committed to men. For God's sake, a Christian bears and mitigates the weakness in the companions divinely joined to men in this life, who are also co-heirs of eternal glory. He also knows that it is the will of God that we should care for them as part of the human race, and should not look down on them in diabolical pride. These things and others in the same
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
sense ought to have been said in a Christian discussion, rather than these scurrilous outcries against a sex and a divine ordinance.
With respect to the distinction of foods, he praises rites instituted without a Word of God as though they constituted worship of God, yes, as if they were perfection. He makes the ridiculous statement: ''If you want to be perfect, itis good not to drink wine and not to eat meat.'' There he badly distorts the statement of Paul, who, when he says: *'It is good not to eat meat,'' adds:
"if your example harms your brother'' [Rom. 14:21]. Although it is necessary that such superstitions be rebuked in the church—for they give rise to many other errors—one should judge prudently with respect to these statements uttered thoughtlessly.
In the dialog against Pelagius he argues rightly that renewal is accomplished not by the powers of free will, but is a work of the Holy Spirit. He is also right in denying that the saints are without sin, and he sets down the noteworthy statement: **We are righteous when we confess that we are sinners, and that our righteousness does not depend on our own merit but on the mercy of God.** But what he says later is not satisfactory. He understands the sins of the saints as actual sins, such as the flames of lust or anger or similar things. He does not understand it of the inner and perpetual doubting, carnal security, and concupiscence. Therefore it is clear that there are many lapses in the writings of Jerome, that are not insignificant.
Augustine Augustine treated many necessary controversies. He refuted the Arians,
Manichaeans, Donatists, and Pelagians. Philosophical opinions had already crept into the church, which Pelagius strengthened, transforming the Gospel into a philosophy. He argued that there is no such thing as original sin, that men are able to satisfy the Law of God, and that this outward obedience merits forgiveness of sins, makes men righteous, and merits eternal life. He taught nothing about faith in Christ, nothing about the aid of the Holy Spirit.
This teaching of Pelagius was not evangelical but philosophical, even as the understanding of the scholastic teachers wants almost the same thing, except that they patch on something of monastic superstitions. And now many are slipping into Pelagian opinions because they are plausible to reason.
Augustine in his time restored the doctrine of the Gospel about grace and faith, which had been almost extinguished, and again revitalized it. For this benefit the church is deeply indebted to him. About the doctrine of original sin he speaks with much greater clarity than all others. He also speaks more clearly and correctly about free will, that people are able to perform the outward works of the Law by the powers of free will, also honorable civil works, but that without the Holy Spirit they are unable to have spiritual
Commentary on Romans impulses, true fear of God, and true patience, that is, the newness which should be found in those who are to be saved.
He teaches a useful distinction between letter and spirit; he teaches about gratuitous remission; he calls to our attention how Paul is to be understood when he says: ''By the works of the law no man is justified'" [Rom. 3:20], namely, that he takes away justification not only from ceremonies but also from moral works. The church had great need of this reminder. For Origen and many who followed him had spread the false interpretation in the church that justification is taken away only by ceremonies, and had imagined that people satisfy the Law and are righteous on account of their works. Augustine treats this question expressly in the book about the spirit and the letter, and declares that Paul is speaking also about morals as a whole when he denies that we are righteous by the Law. Therefore he denies that people satisfy the Law, Romans 8.
It is most useful to remember this admonition of Augustine and this topic of his. Since reason does not clearly see the magnitude of original sin and of our natural corruption, it easily slips into those opinions. It thinks the Law is unsatisfied and that men are righteous on account of works. Thus the righteousness of faith is directly obscured and lost, and true spiritual exercises are cast out, namely, true prayer, which must rest solely on mercy. Thus we are now being derided by our adversaries, who want to appear to be the more prudent. They loudly shout that we are ineptly exaggerating man's infirmity and are ridiculously taking justification away from works, although reason does not understand righteousness to be anything other except obedience according to the Law.
But the teaching of the Gospel about sin and the righteousness of faith is the hidden and special wisdom of the true church, which also few of the writers knew, and some wiser ones more obscurely, others more clearly. The Scotists and similar teachers completely buried it. Therefore, let us diligently guard the doctrine which has been brought to light after God has again made it known.
Furthermore, why do our adversaries not consider in their turn how absurd it is to say that Christ has set us free only from ceremonies? Likewise, if the liberation pertains only to ceremonial matters, then it did not profit the fathers who were before Moses. We must declare that liberation from the Law pertains to the entire church from the beginning of the world until its end. These things are, as I have said, more fully discussed in the booklet about the spirit and the letter.
Finally, those who understand it only of ceremonies are totally ignorant of what liberation from the Law is. As all men after the fall of Adam are oppressed by sin, by the wrath of God, death, the immense troubles of life,
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
and eternal punishments, so all are burdened by the Law, which rebukes sin, accuses us, and kills us with eternal terror, as Paul says [cf. Rom. 7:7 ff.].
Therefore to be set free from the Law is to be set free from that accusation, so that we are not subject to the wrath of God and to eternal death [Cf. Rom.
8:2]. It is not merely to be set free from rites and outward shows, but much more to be rescued from the Law which terrifies, curses, damns and kills,
This is made clear when something else is offered on account of which we are pronounced righteous, namely, the Son of God, who was made the sacrificial victim for us.
In the same way, Adam, Noah, Abraham, and all the elect before Moses were set free from the Law. They were accused by the Law; they were driven by dreadful terrors and by a sense of the wrath of God and the curse. But amid these terrors they were raised up by knowledge of mercy, promised because of the Lord who was to come, and they declared that they were pronounced righteous on account of the coming sacrificial victim, not on account of the Law [cf. Heb. 11:13]. They knew that their sins were not mere outward faults, but an inner uncleanness, horrible doubting about God, anger and indignation against God in adversities, and other evil impulses. They knew that sin itself, the infirmity of our nature, and the wrath of God are not taken away by any Law. But they also knew that they had been snatched out of such great miseries by knowledge of and trust in the promised Savior. Thus they also were set free from the moral Law, insofar as it judges and kills them, and from eternal wrath which the Law proclaims. They knew that the gratuitous remission of sins is not set before us through natural knowledge.
Therefore, they sought forgiveness from somewhere else. But if they had thought that they would be righteous when they would be without sin, they would have sunk down with an agonized conscience. But they knew that a Savior had been promised for this reason, that they might declare that they pleased God even though they were unworthy and unclean. Thus they believed that they were righteous not on account of the Law, but on account of the Savior who would come.
Liberation from the Law embraces these great things. Carnally secure persons who do not know what true repentance and calling on God is do not understand these things. Finally, also those who are not exercised by afflictions, who have minds occupied with pleasures, who delight in their own opinions and despise the Word of God, or who bend it to their own imaginations and corrupt it, do not understand these things. Some of our more astute adversaries, although they see that Augustine's and our interpretation is truly the meaning of Paul and of the prophetic and apostolic Scripture, nevertheless thrust on us the opinion of Origen, Jerome, and Chrysostom.
They cite the authority of who knows what persons, not because they truly
Commentary on Romans with all their mind approve of them, but only in order to create a smokescreen for the inexperienced, lest they should appear to have been defeated.
For our adversaries do not bring a good conscience to these struggles, neither zeal for seeking the truth. They only bring hatred against us, contempt for the Gospel, and concern for protecting their own authority. They are not concerned about what the people should think about Christ or how the churches should be taught. To some extent they openly practice deceit, as do Cochlaeus,
Wicelius, and others. In some respects they are tyrants and the accomplices of tyrants who, on account of their reputation of wisdom or virtue, govern the counsels of popes, kings, and princes, although they are persons who have no God, who think that all religions are fabrications, and are wonderfully pleased with themselves because they dare to break wind against thunderclaps, as the wit in the comedy says. And they will express such opinions at synods about the glory of Christ, whose name they consider as being a fable.
Therefore, I exhort pious readers that they should first consider the kinds of doctrine, whether they set forth the meaning of the prophetic and apostolic
Scripture simply and without sophistry. Then, when the fathers are cited, they should consider which sayings of the fathers are in agreement with the divine voice. Finally, as Paul commands to test the spirits [cf. | Thess. 5:21; 1 John
4:1], one should look at the will of each father and at the substance of his counsel. Our adversaries do that not in order to emend anything, but in order that they may defend their tyranny in any way they can, and strengthen and defend their power. For this reason kings and popes are against the marriage of priests, because they see that celibacy is more expedient for retaining their power and wealth. Since, in this way, the marks of their impious will are visible in certain manifest articles, it is plain enough that they are not motivated by a good spirit, but that they are enemies of Christ, and that also in other articles they are not seeking the truth. Therefore we shall steadfastly repudiate their judgments.
On Ps. 42 [43] Augustine declares that a regenerate person is not righteous on account of works, but by faith, for he says this: 'Be afraid if you say that you are righteous if you do not hold fast what is said in another Psalm
[143:2]: "Enter not into judgment with your servant.' For if You would apply judgment without mercy, where shall I go? 'Lord, if you should mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?' [Ps. 130:3]. 'Do not enter into judgment with your servant, because in your sight no man living shall be justified [Ps.
143:2]. Therefore if no person living will be justified in your sight, because everyone lives here, woe to him if God should enter into judgment with him.
For also in another prophet he scolds the arrogant and proud thus: 'Why do you contend with me in judgment? All of you have forsaken me, says the Lord' [Jer. 2:29]. Therefore do not contend in judgment. Be concerned to be
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
righteous and no matter what kind of person you have been, confess that you are a sinner. Always hope for mercy, and, secure in that humble confession, say to your soul which is troubled and cries out against you: 'Why are you sad, O my soul? Why do you trouble me?' [Ps. 42:5]. You wanted to hope strongly in yourself. Hope in the Lord, not in yourself. For what are you in yourself? What are you of yourself? Let him be your health who received wounds on your account, and says: Hope in the Lord.'
On Ps. 31 [32] Augustine asks, '**Who are the happy ones? Not those in whom he does not find sin, for he finds it in everyone: 'For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God' [Rom. 3:23]. Therefore, if sins are found in everyone, it follows that none are happy except those whose sins are forgiven. The Apostle reminds us of this when he says: 'Abraham believed
God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness' [Rom. 4:3]."'
Here Augustine correctly applies the statement about faith, and testifies that he understands by faith not merely the knowledge of history, but confidence. We are confident that sins are forgiven us because of Christ. Indeed, no one is able to understand Paul's meaning unless he understands the term faith. Understanding faith only as knowledge of history and not as confidence in the mercy promised because of Christ is truly, as the saying goes, to wander about in the marketplace. It is not surprising that the monks went completely astray in explaining Paul, because on this subject they hallucinated shamefully.
And now this darkness is the chief hindrance which prevents them from accepting the doctrine about faith because they do not understand the term faith correctly. Why do they not ponder such statements of Augustine's as the one I have just quoted? Here he testifies that Augustine wants this, that Abraham was pronounced righteous because he believed not only about his descendants but about the remission of sins.
Such statements which one meets here and there in Augustine show sufficiently clearly that he thinks the same about grace and about faith as we teach. Thus he also says in De Spiritu et Litera: *'From the Law we fear God.
However, through faith we flee to mercy.'' Here he learnedly distinguishes the Law from the Gospel.
Although here and there figures of speech occur in writings which are not sufficiently explained or are unsuitable, these must be forgiven to his times, because the custom of the common people had accepted certain figures, such as the term merit, and certain others, and the learned were not able to drive them out. Besides, the writers themselves were not sufficiently accustomed to accurate examinations, and one can judge how great the darkness was in the church at that time from the fact that the wicked opinion of Pelagius was received with such great applause that Augustine and a few others were not able to drive it out from the church without great struggles.
Commentary on Romans If with respect to ceremonies someone opposes to us the age of Augustine, he should know that not even Augustine himself was pleased with all the rites and persuasions of his time. For he complains that many superstitious opinions clung to the church, that human traditions were placed ahead of the commandments of God, and that ceremonies had been so multiplied that the servitude of the Jews was more bearable than that of the church. These are his words to Januarius in Epistola 119:° '*The mercy of God wanted religion itself to be free with very few and very simple sacraments of celebration. But they weigh it down with servile burdens so that the condition of the Jews was more bearable, who however were subject to divine laws, not to human."'
And first he says about human rites: ''This whole class of things has free observances.'' Then he expressly commands that useless human rites should be abolished. Therefore Augustine does not so approve of the ceremonies of his time that he wanted the church to be set up according to this norm. For many things had become accepted which not even he himself approved; rather, he wanted them reproved and corrected. He observes some according to the custom of that time, even as we all condone many things according to present customs.
At that time sermons about purgatory began to grow greatly in number.
He neither refutes nor confirms these; he merely reports them, saying that some people were of the opinion that the souls of the godly are purged after they have departed from the bodies. But in book 9 of his Confessions he prays a prayer for his dead mother with these words: "'Inspire your servants, Lord, that they may remember my mother and father at the altar. He does not ask more than this. Although he said this modestly, it is now criminally twisted to the offering of the sacrament for the dead, as it was not done at the time of Augustine.
Vows were also customary at that time, and the question occurs whether marriages contracted after a vow ought to be dissolved. There is a statement of Augustine about this matter in Decretis 27. q. 1. C. nuptiarum. Although
Augustine here ascribes more to vows than was fitting, he declares that marriages contracted after a vow should not be dissolved and that they truly are marriages, so that one person should not violate the vow to the injury of another. Neither does the obligation between two persons become invalid when one person previously had a different purpose. He says these things in sum he says in that text. But the error concerning vows was stronger than the mitigation of Augustine. Regulations which followed later tore marriages
> Melanchthon summarizes chapter | of Letter LIV in The Confessions and Letters of St.
Augustine, ed. Philip Schaff, vol. | in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956) p. 300.
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
apart. Augustine saw that this separation was an evil, but he did not sufficiently consider what evil there was in the vows themselves because it was too difficult to see. For he was defeated by the opinions of the people of his age. The custom of making vows had already been accepted. The admiration of many who lived at that time was very great; admiration influences judgment. Therefore, he does not question whether vows are valid, although many errors were involved in them. They were considered acts of worship, as of special merit for righteousness, and as perfection. Likewise, they were impossible to keep for many. If he had refuted these things earlier, he would have been better able to prohibit the dissolution of marriages.
It is certain, therefore, that already at that time many errors clung to the church. Although Augustine was opposed to some of these, he considered others good. After these are uncovered, they ought not to be defended. Although the examples of the ancients were in their time passed over in silence, they certainly should not be used now to confirm greater abuses. The conclusion is by no means valid: Augustine commands that prayer should be made at the altar for his mother, therefore Masses for the dead are to be approved. Or: In Augustine's time some thought that there was a purgatory, therefore Masses, indulgences, and other things done for the dead should be approved. For at the time of Augustine there were not yet the monstrous forms of ungodliness, although the seeds were gradually being sown.
Gregory Gregory became pope in the year 590, exactly 157 [160] years after the death of Augustine. Meanwhile, many barbarian tribes had streamed into Italy including Goths, Lombards, and their allies. Not only had the study of literature died down and the churches had become neglected, but also these same barbarian tribes which occupied Italy had brought in with them or easily accepted many superstitious opinions. Therefore in a short time the abuses were greatly increased.
As Italy was thus being cut up it seemed to be a particular happiness to be far removed from the state, to live in some kind of solitude without family, without children, and not to see the destruction of cities and the devastation of the fatherland. For it is a sad thing to say what Aeneas says: "'I also was a large part of these things.'' Therefore moderate men who had families congratulated the monks on account of their quiet life. Thus admiration of the monks increased, and many began to seek and to love solitude.
The barbarian people by nature admire new rites which have a show of outstanding piety, and, as it were, business deals with God. Therefore it is not surprising that the crowd of monks grew at that time, and favorable
Commentary on Romans opinions about that kind of works floated about, and that the light of the Gospel about true faith and true acts of worship was extinguished.
The veneration of the saints.was pleasing to the barbarians. After the custom had once been accepted according to the manner of the heathen to honor them with statues and special® temples, the custom grew through imitation by the powerful. Little by little there came to it such great ungodliness that the veneration of the saints was not different in the following centuries from the manifest idolatry of the heathen. Anna and George were invoked in no other way than Juno, Mars, or Hercules. People ran to the statues, and bishops confirmed such idol-mania with great authority; teachers praised it. The sum and substance of religion consisted in such acts of worship. Meanwhile, there was great silence about invoking Christ and about faith.
There the beginnings of such great impiety should have been guarded against. Instead, Gregory greatly strengthened them. He instituted the public rite of invocation of the godly dead; he commanded that temples should be dedicated to their bones and dust.
At that time also the opinion crept in that an offering of the body and blood of Christ should be made for the dead. This opinion brought forth a dreadful profanation of the sacrament.
Although even greater darkness followed after the age of Gregory, these errors at that time clung to the church: a false persuasion about monasticism; works contrived without a command of God; the invocation of the saints; and the offering of the body of Christ for the dead. These errors thereafter drew great ruin in their train. Therefore, the age of Gregory cannot be the norm for improving the church. In order that it may be possible to see this more clearly, I shall first list the more evident errors of Gregory, then I shall discuss a few things about the Lord's Supper. In Book 3 of his Epistles, the Epistle to the bishop of Catania in Sicily, Gregory commands: "Subdeacons or deacons are not to use the custom of spouses whom they had married before they were ordained," although the Sicilians had previously followed the Greek custom and had not forbidden the custom of spouses to the married. This lapse is sufficiently clear.
For no pious person can approve the separating of a lawful marriage.
He tells that there was a certain Speciosus who preferred to relinquish the office of subdeacon rather than do without the conjugal custom. Whoever this man was, he certainly was gifted with saner judgment than those who broke up such marriages.
The sin of Gregory is increased by the fact that he wanted this custom ° The text here has pericularibus, a word not found in Latin dictionaries. The context calls for peculiaribus, and we have so translated.
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture ae | to be received in the Sicilian churches, which until that time had, according to the decrees of the old synods, retained marriages in all grades of clergy and had not burdened deacons and others with vows. Why does Gregory take to himself the rule over other churches when he shouts so mournfully that he detests the name of universal bishop? Moreover, why does he separate marriages where deacons had not been burdened with vows? Why does he not here honor the authority of earlier synods? Since this lapse includes manifest ungodliness and tyranny, it is quite clear that the age of Gregory was not without great errors.
Likewise, how unjust he is toward those who as children had been educated in monasteries by order of their parents, and after they had matured, asked for a different kind of life. About these he answers that it is sinful for them to leave the monastic life. This hardness must be rebuked not only because harm has been done to their age, but also because it greatly strengthened superstitious opinions about monastic acts of worship.
I shall add a third error which is not difficult to see. He is influenced by ghosts to approve of offering the sacrament for the dead. He tells about two who after death served in the baths, of whom the one begged that an offering of the sacrament might be made for him, that he might be set free from these punishments. From these ghosts he accepts dogmas in the church contrary to the clear commandment of God. Deut. 18[:11]: ''Do not seek truth from the dead.' And Is. 8[:19]: "'Should a people seek truth for the living from God or from the dead?'' Therefore no matter what the condition of souls is after this life, dogmas are not to be taken from ghosts. And who does not see that it is a poetical fancy when he says that after death the godly are made bathmasters? A similar fable has been contrived about the daughters of Danaus who draw water with sieves.
Conclusion We have not drawn up this catalog in order to add refutations of the errors, since they are found elsewhere in sufficient number. I only wanted to list the errors to show that those persons are deceived who so greatly admire the fathers as though they had been without error and had never disagreed with the clear divine writings. Although the more learned fathers teach us something, nevertheless one must judge them according to the Word of God.
Refraining from all refutations, I shall briefly add certain things about the offering on behalf of the dead. There is no need to ask whether there is a purgatory; this question has nothing to do with offering. Even if there were a purgatory, it is nevertheless wicked to offer for the dead. There are many firm reasons. First, it is an act of wickedness to institute an act of worship
Commentary on Romans in the church without a command from God. The application of the Lord's
Supper to others is done without any divine command or testimony. Therefore this application is without any doubt wicked.
Very many statements confirm the major premise. **You shall not have other gods'' [Ex. 20:3; Deut. 5:7]. In this commandment also strange acts of worship are forbidden. Here belongs the statement: ""In vain they worship me with commandments of men'' [Mark 7:7]. Likewise: '*Whatever is not of faith is sin'' [Rom. 14:23]. Moreover, acts of worship that are without a command from God cannot be done from faith. The world does not understand how great a sin it is to invent acts of worship without a command from God, to depart from the Word of God. The prophets preach much about this crime and deplore the blindness of men who invent acts of worship and dogmas about the will of God with dreadful boldness, and who do not hold fast to the Word and the worship in which God set forth his will to us. These blind persons seek God in other ways. It is certain that Christ did not give us the Sacrament on behalf of the dead. What mention is there of the dead? He commands that the Supper be celebrated in order that we may remember his death and his benefits [cf. | Cor. 11:24 ff.]. Are the dead present, and do they remember it together with us? I shall briefly add other arguments also.
Second, the statement is sure and it cannot be shaken: *'The righteous shall live by his faith'' [Rom. 1:17]. Therefore it is necessary that we receive remission of sins while we are alive, and it is impossible that anyone should receive remission because of a work or sacrifice of some priest. Obscure and ambiguous matters call for long explanations. However, this error about offering is refuted by such clear and firm arguments that they do not call for a lengthy explanation. The doctrine about the remission of sins is certain and clear. No one receives forgiveness unless he accepts it with his own faith. If anyone takes this understanding away, he commits an insult to Christ. Those persons who imagine that offering merits remission for the dead offer an insult to Christ.
Third, the use of the sacrament profits only those who as they use it remember the death and the benefits of Christ.It is impossible that this work should be of use to the dead, who neither use it nor add the remembrance there. What goes before is clear from the institution of Christ, who commands that this ministry be celebrated in remembrance [cf. 1 Cor. 11:24, 25]. Nothing else is to be added by the imagination to the institution. If anyone adds anything by his own imagination, if he transfers it to the dead, he wickedly defiles the institution of Christ.
Fourth, the Scripture says plainly: *'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord"' [Rev. 14:13]. Rom. 8[:10]: ''The body is dead because of sin; however, the spirit lives because of justification,"' that is, those justified with respect
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
to the spirit, as long as they carry about this body to which the remnants of sin cling, are afflicted in various ways in order that faith, the knowledge of God, and spiritual newness may increase in prayer. But when the body has died, the remnants of sin are destroyed. And Paul adds expressly that the spirit lives because of justification. The life of the justified spirit is not fear or a sense of the wrath of God, but it is joy in the Holy Spirit, as Paul says
[cf. Rom. 14:17]. Therefore there are no punishments of purgatory.
Christ says to the converted thief: *'Today you will be with me in paradise'' [Luke 23:43], that is, in a tranquil and blessed life, not in punishments and fears. Therefore the souls of the righteous do not go away to torments, but to spiritual joy and peace. In this life the godly are plagued by dreadful afflictions, because Ged according to His wonderful counsel wants his church to be subjected to the cross and to taste the afflictions of Christ. Thus Adam,
Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptizer, and other lights of the church were in difficulties, the magnitude of which no one is able to describe. Therefore Peter says: '*'Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God'' [1 Pet. 5:6]. Although there are such punishments of the godly while they live in the body, why should it be said that there are such punishments after death? The purpose of these afflictions is that the remnants of sin in the flesh may be acknowledged, and that people may repent. But after death there is no room for repentance, as Paul clearly declares, 2 Cor. 3 [2
Cor. 5:10]: **Everyone will receive the things which he had done in the body."'
The Psalms also teach this: "'The dead do not praise you, Lord'' [Ps. 88:10; 115:17]. Likewise: **Because in death there is none who remember you'' [Ps.
6:5]. Therefore it cannot be said that some are so plagued by such tortures after death that they repent.
If our adversaries say that these torments are not inflicted in order that repentance may increase, but that they are satisfactions, then this opinion must be disapproved all the more. For the doctrine about satisfactions which the masters of [Lombard's] Sentences thought up is false and wicked. And indeed, into those discussions there flow together, as in the bilge of a ship, many lies about purgatory, vows, offering for the dead, and finally many others. Sincé purgatory, as they call it, cannot be affirmed, it is godless to institute an offering for liberating the dead. However, even if there were a purgatory, the Lord's Supper could not be transferred to the dead.
But why do I argue? The mention of purgatory arose from ghosts, then was strengthened on account of financial gain, and now it is being defended by popes, cardinals, bishops, and canons who are plainly Epicureans and securely despise the judgment of God. They take the things which they read about punishments after death as the fables of the poets about Ixion, Sisyphus,
Commentary on Romans Tantalus, or similar persons, and laugh at the stupidity of others who declare that God intends eternal punishments for the wicked.
Therefore I omit a discussion for the present. At the Synod of Basel the Greeks brought in a speech about purgatory which is today found in the library at Pforzheim, in which they discuss the passage of Paul in 1 Cor. 3[:15], which a more recent age has twisted to purgatory, although it is certain that passage speaks about repentance: "He will be saved, but only as through fire." Paul wants a fall into sin to be corrected by repentance. He is speaking about this present life in which there is room for repentance. Surely the saying is true:
"The speech of truth is simple." Since Paul is speaking about repentance, this passage cannot be twisted to speak about torments after death.
The answer about the passage in Maccabees is also quite plain. A jurist says:
"The truth is not vitiated by the wrong things that are done." And Demosthenes, in reproving evil examples, says against Aristocrates: "Do not allow us to say:
'Thus it happened,' but 'It is right to happen." " The Levitical sacrifices did not wipe away sins before God; none were afterward instituted for the dead.
Therefore it was an error to sacrifice for the sins of the dead, even as the Jews frequently accepted other wrong acts of worship. For the nature of men is prone to superstition in every age. Since that example militates against the Scripture, it must not be quoted for confirming superstitions in the church. These are the chief things which are quoted about purgatory. I have inserted this discussion that it may be more apparent that the lapse of Gregory, who confirmed offering for the dead, openly militates against the apostolic Scriptures.
Since this is so, also the canon of the Mass, as it is called, is to be reproved, in which it is said that an offering is for the redemption of the living and the dead. What audacity it was to transfer the sacrament to the dead when the institution speaks so clearly about the living, about a remembrance! Gregory writes that this canon was composed by a certain scholar, as he himself calls him. But no matter who the author was who put together this rhapsody, it cannot be denied that the Latin canon disagrees with both Greek canons, although the Greek canons also do not agree with each other but differ in important places.
Until now I have spoken of Gregory, and I do not want to add the writers of the following ages. For the doctrine degenerated even more afterward.
There came to it also the tyranny of the popes, although until this time Gregory repudiates the title of universal bishop and strongly scolds it, as a number of epistles in book 4 testify.
I could add the complaints of ancient writers about the greed and the ignorance of the bishops which, if they tell us nothing else, at least tell us that the church is by no means to be set up according to the example and
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
pattern of that time. But in the Apocalyse of John there are set before us dreadful pictures which without doubt signify the times of the church, and slow that wicked teachers would at once go about in the church and would suppress the truth with tyrannical rule.
Also the histories of the synods show what a fury there was in very many bishops who inflamed rulers and the common people with strange tricks to protect their wickedness, exactly as now popes and bishops attempt with every trick to incite the minds of kings to start civil war.
With what a sad complaint Basil, at the close of his book about the Holy Spirit, deplores the madness and the wickedness of the bishops of his time.
He tells that they sought to defend their wicked dogmas with seditions and murders. And to the Jtalian and Gallic bishops he writes thus:' ''The true dogmas have been overthrown; pious laws are frustrated; the ambition of people who do not fear God seizes the governance of the churches. There is no way to honor except through godlessness, with the result that whoever is maddest and most audacious in ruining godly and true dogmas is judged most worthy of the honor of bishop. The earnestness befitting priests has departed.
Shepherds who will feed the flock of the Lord with learning are lacking."'
Thus this man pictures the bishops of his time, to whose vices a more recent age has added the desire to rule and tyrranies.
Since it is certain, therefore, that that age was not without vices, it must be granted to the church that it seek counsel from the Word of God, as the Father in heaven commands that we hear his Son, and David says:
'' Your Word is a lamp to my feet'' [Ps. 119:105].
Although I have passed over many things that were absurdly said, I have not collected these errors of the ancient writers in order to take away anything from their true praises. I believe that there were very many pious and outstanding men among them—some even exceptionally well deserving—but not even they wanted to have their pronouncements placed ahead of the teaching of Christ. Those who now oppose the authority of the ancients to us are greatly misusing their testimonies. Although seeds of errors were scattered in those times, such abominable abuses had not yet found their way into the church.
In the beginning there was some mention of the saints. How great an amount of ungodliness came to it later? The speech of Gregory Nazianzus must not be quoted, since his age did not yet know this recent idolatry.
But why do our adversaries appeal to the authority of the church, although they are fighting not about doctrine, not about religion, but about their lusts and possessions? They do not want their tranquillity disturbed. This is the 7 Melanchthon here offers first the Greek text and then a Latin translation. This translation is of the Latin.
Commentary on Romans one and only reason why they desire to destroy us. For certain dogmas are clearer than the light of noon. And yet, to suppress this, manifest cruelty is exercised. They kill godly priests—learned and good men—on account of marriage. Where can one read about any barbarian land where men are killed on account of honorable marriage? If they approve of the ancient church, why do they not imitate the first times in this? Do they think that Ambrose or Augustine would have approved of these cruel punishments? Truly they would have cursed this inhumanity and would have testified openly that these popes were authors of cruelty, not members of the church, but instruments of the devil, and would without any doubt have undertaken the defense of pious priests, women, and children, and all peoples who are connected with this cause.
I have said which is the true church. It is clear that we faithfully retain and guard the doctrine of the catholic church of Christ taught in the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, and also in our confessions. It is clear that we think of the catholic church as Christ thinks. I add also this, that the foremost writers—Ambrose, Augustine, and a few others—think the same, if they are properly understood, and a few things are forgiven them which at that time did not come into controversy.
With respect to the liturgy, there is no doubt that there were neither private Masses, nor Masses sold for money, nor funeral Masses before Gregory, nor had the invocation of saints begun to be celebrated much before Gregory.
Also the law about perpetual celibacy is quite recent. It is being defended for no other reason except that celibacy is more suitable for guarding wealth.
Those who assert that the marriage of priests militates against divine law do a manifest injury to the Word of God.
The men on our side have said many things more clearly than the ancients about repentance, about the remission of sins and justification (which we say people receive by faith on account of Christ, not on account of works), about satisfaction, about the keys, about human traditions, and about matters of church government. It appears that these are in agreement with the constant opinion of those who were more learned and more experience in spiritual matters. If they had read this explanation and method they would joyfully have approved of them because they were godly persons, as I hear that a famous man, a Parisian theologian, told that he first understood the statement of Augustine about justification more correctly from our explanation.
I know that it is possible to quote many things from the writings of the ancients which fight against our statements. And everyone quotes what seems suitable for his own pleasure, so that from the same flowers the bees gather honey but the spiders poison. But let deceits be far removed from the judg-
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture 0) ments of the church. I shall not appeal to all writers, but to the better ones—
Ambrose, Augustine, and others to the extent that they agree with these.
Although they themselves at times said wrong things, they will forgive us if we rebuke certain things as long as we follow the clear and sure meaning of the divine Scriptures, and do not depart from the symbols, and hold what they themselves saw and intended but were not always able to make clear.
For it is beyond doubt that the kind of doctrine which we profess is truly the consensus of the catholic church of Christ, as the symbols, the saner synods, and the more learned fathers show. This is how I answer the more moderate persons who oppose the authority of the church or the fathers to us.
A certain new kind of wise men arise who, although they are atheists, want no controversies at all to be carried on about religion. They praise peace and harmony, curse all who in any way sow discords, and judge that these should be taken away as refuse and pestilence of the human race. This is the one and only philosophy of popes, cardinals, kings, canons, and many who want to show that they are statesmen.These persons do not want their leisure to be disturbed or their dignity shaken, and hate a doctrine which it seems will harm their comforts. Finally, each has a different reason. In the council of kings they all say that no change is to be granted, and that the concord of the church and the authority of the ordered power must be preserved.
They also have their own orators who put forth the most vehement speeches in favor of this opinion. There is no need to name all of them since we have the writings of many of them. But from all these, Omphalius recently sewed together a patchquilt. In the beginning, as though he were Solon or an areopagite, he preaches about the dignity of laws. He scolds seditions and tells about contempt for law, and how sweet the harmony of good order which the laws bring about is in the state. Then, although he does not name a certain profession, he shows clearly enough whom he is chiefly seeking out. He declaims against us who have rejected certain tyrannical and wicked laws of the popes. Although I am not of the opinion that he is saying these things gratis, nevertheless, since the same things are being said by great and eloquent men, I shall not discuss what he is trying to accomplish.
This whole class of speeches is intended to strengthen the minds of the mighty, lest they give ear to any moderate and godly counsels, but that, inflamed, they may exercise unjust savagery. As David prayed that the counsels of Ahithophel might not prevail [cf. | Sam. 15:31], so also we shall pray
God that the eloquence of these orators may not suppress the truth and glory of Christ. Since it is written: "'Out of the mouths of infants and sucklings you have perfected praise'' [Ps. 8:2; Mt. 21:16], we hope that God will not fail to be with us as we refute these slanders and as we proclaim the glory of Christ.
Commentary on Romans I know that they are speaking plausibly about the dignity of the laws, peace, and the common tranquillity.
| am not so ignorant with respect to literature nor so unaquainted with a civil way of life. I also think that in the state those burdens which can be tolerated without impiety must be condoned for the common tranquillity. With respect to such things the statements are valid: ''Evil sleeps well if it is not stirred up.'' Also what Plato says: "*As the mad acts of a father, so also the customs of a foolish fatherland must be borne.'' These things are rightly said in the proper place about civil burdens which can be borne without impiety, but these philosophical judgments should not be transferred destroying the glory of Christ. Errors in doctrine and idolatry should certainly not be hidden, as Christ says: "'If anyone shall deny me, | shall confound him'' [Mt. 10:33]. The first commandment: **You shall not have other gods'' [Ex. 20:3] must be set high over all human things—laws of men, governments, orderly power, peace, fatherland, and concord. Nothing is more venerable than these, but nevertheless the name of God is to be placed above them all.
The prophets and apostles without doubt most dearly loved their fatherland, its tranquillity, and other good things. Nevertheless, they were compelled to rebuke wicked worship and evil opinions. And indeed, Christ professes that he is bringing a kind of doctrine which, like a fire, will kindle great discords. For it is necessary that there be fights about the worship of God, because the devil burns with a dreadful hatred for God, and tries as much as he can to destroy the Word of God. He incites wicked persons against God and draws along with himself the most flourishing governments. It is with these enemies that Christ wages war.
Since it is necessary that the godly reprove and abolish ungodly worship, prophets and apostles cannot avoid being authors of changes. Although political wisdom shrinks back from the very term change, also the godly, who certainly are not all dumb or foolish, understand how many difficulties and dangers changes bring with them. Nevertheless, a Christian breast prefers the commandments of God and high mindedly accepts all difficulties. He understands that they are all ruled by Christ, to whom all things have been subjected, as the prophet says [cf. Ps. 110].
I answer with these things briefly, not only to the speech of Omphalius, but also to the arguments of those wise persons who in all councils make speeches about avoiding changes and about concord. Although persons who are without God laugh at this answer, it is useful for the godly to consider these arguments, lest that kind of wisdom deter minds from godliness and from the profession of the truth.
I write these things most of all for the purpose of admonishing the youth.
The wicked now capture the minds of many with all kinds of lures—triches
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
and other pleasant things. Then indeed they also hold those that are in their net with these persuasions. Saying that changes are to be avoided because it is proper to favor the common authority in order to guard the present form of the state. No matter how praiseworthy these are, Christians must be admonished not to forget this commandment: *'You shall not have other gods"'
[Exe 20:3) Iam grieved that some who are gifted with excellent minds are conspiring with the ungodly to incite kings to cruelty and to confirm ungodliness. It is a virtue worthy of great and outstanding men to confer diligence and authority most of all on the glory of God. This aim should be set before all, that each one in his own place should, as much as he can, do something for the preservation of the heavenly doctrine. I shall not speak here about the other little parasites who write dishonest books. They belong to the race of flatterers such as Dionysius the Sicilian nourished, who took the spittle of the tyrant and licked it, proclaiming that it was sweeter than nectar.
I return to those wise persons, some of whom pretend to be religious.
After they see that the absurd superstitions of earlier times cannot be excused, they invent less harsh interpretations for rites and decrees in order that they may secretly stabilize impiety by preserving the rites and faulty decrees. Such is the book published at Cologne under the title of Reformation. | hear that Cardinal Contarini in Italy is accustomed to say that the Lutherans are inflicting an injury on the most distinguished Romans when they ascribe to them the errors of plebeian writers, such as of legends, Dormi Secure, and similar ones.
The foremost Romans had never held thus or had approved of those foolish books; thus they now lead the errors away from themselves. I know also that there are everywhere very many people who with this new trick seek to grasp the praise of special wisdom, who are chiefly after this: after they have borrowed from our books many things which have been corrected by us and have carelessly adulterated our pens, they give us an unjust teacher's pay.
For they do not cease to exercise cruelty. Moreover, they do not consider that this new sophistry will be the final destruction of the true religion.
If it is permitted to the more audacious intellects to mix in glosses according to their own will, what is going to happen? There is manifest idolatry in the cult of the saints, in Masses for the dead, and glosses are nevertheless coatrived for retaining rites which are themselves faulty. Perhaps a little later they will excuse Egyptian superstitions. Let this godless and pernicious sophistry which vouches for what is contrary to fact be far removed from the church! Worship not instituted by an express Word of God is of itself evil even if you attach to it whatever gloss you wish, because it is not divinely instituted. It is evil also for this reason, that this custom, even if you think differently, gives to the saints honor which belongs to God, as all can hear.
Commentary on Romans I could cite many examples, but I desist and urge the godly to curse this nefarious sophistry. Hezekiah not only corrected the superstitious opinions about the brazen serpent, but destroyed the statue itself [2 Kings 18:4]. Thus godliness demands that we cast off together with ungodly opinions the rites themselves which are not proper customs of the realm. Thus the Scripture commands that idols be destroyed. It follows that the rites themselves of private Masses, the invocation of saints, the observance of vows, monk's garb, the monastic brotherhoods, the bond of celibacy, the distinction of foods, and similar foolish rites which have their origin from superstitions should be taken away and abolished.
But what am I arguing? Those who paint evil rites with this sophistry do not truly do this in order to remove errors from the church, but in order, under any kind of pretext, to defend their authority and skillfully establish impiety. For wrong opinions easily spring up again if the rites themselves remain. The godly must be vigilant, for the devil fights against the Gospel, not only openly inciting tyrants to savagery, but also slyly constructing ambushes under the pretext of wisdom and pouring out beautiful persuasions.
The Holy Spirit often teaches about being wary of these, as Paul says to Timothy that deceitful spirits will come [Cf. | Tim. 4:1], and to the Colossians he says that human traditions will have the appearance of wisdom [cf. Col.
2:23]. Not only will manifestly foolish dreams be spread, such as were many ancient and recent ones and as were a little earlier the manifest frauds of the indulgences, but even astute men may skillfully paint false dogmas and wicked rites so that they may be received with great applause, be loved, and held fast. Does not the wickedness of Paul of Samosata have the appearance of wisdom? Is not the error of Pelagius plausible to profane intellects? Thus these things have an appearance of wisdom. It serves peace and tranquillity to retain the customs people are used to. Therefore, the more objectionable opinions may be removed and better-sounding interpretations invented if the rites themselves are retained. This seems to be said splendidly while what is done is far otherwise.
These hypocrisies are revealed in the history of Christ. After they had blindfolded him, they struck his cheeks laughing, commanding him to prophecy by whom he had been struck. So these excusers of impious rites make sport with Christ and the church. After they have thought up some tasteless gloss they think they have now put a blindfold on the eyes of Christ. Then they add blows, that is, they establish their wickedness. They inflame kings to cruelty and institute triumphs as if they had already completely destroyed the truth. They receive applause in their theater. They are praised by the wicked and loved by kings whose lusts they serve. But we must pray to God that he may suppress these types of flatterers.
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
Nicander says there is a kind of serpent which he calls Hemorrhoidae.
They are tiny beasts, one foot in length, but the power of their poison is so great that on a person struck by them bloody sweat breaks out over the entire body, so that blood flows abundantly out of the mouth, nostrils, ears, and bladder, the eyes shed bloody tears, and the entire body burns with an incredible inflammation. When a beast of this kind had in Egypt killed the master of Helen's ship, a heroic woman crushed it with her foot. For this reason, also the descendants of the Hemorrhoidae are said to waver, having lost their sting. Moreover, the outcome shows that this new sophistry of the interpreters of traditions is a poison no different from that of the Hemorrhoidae. Although the unlearned have been made uncertain by us, they still fight with stubborness and hatred, but they do not fight with authority. These
Hemorthoidae are held in admiration because of their opinions about the doctrine, on account of schisms, and, as Paul calls it, on account of the appearance of wisdom [cf. Col. 2:23]. They incite the minds of the mighty to oppress the truth. Inflamed by this poison the princes conceive flames of hatred. They become bloodthirsty and madly cruel. But Christ does not permit the light of the Gospel to be darkened, as it is written: ''Whatever is of God will not be abolished"' [cf. Mt. 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 26:33]. Therefore the church, in which the true doctrine is shining, will finally extract the stings from the Hemorrhoidae. These sophistical interpretations and the astute and cruel counsels of the wicked will not suppress the truth.
Here and there persons desirous of a godly agreement look for papal synods and hope that these will heal the church or correct its faults. But they are greatly deceived. For the popes and their associates and companions will never cease to wage war against Christ.
| am not moved to expect this by merely human conjectures, which are many and weighty, but by the examples of all ages. For Christ says that blasphemers—who fight against the truth contrary to their own conscience, defend manifest idol-mania, and defile themselves with the blood of the godly—are not healed. Madness without doubt accompanies blasphemies and parricides, as the histories of Cain, Pharaoh, Saul, and the Jewish people testify. And God threatens blindness to blasphemers, as the Psalm [69:23] says: "Their eyes will be darkened."'
Therefore the pleas increase daily while the princes bind themselves to wicked alliances. Neither do they only go about openly, but they also build traps against the life of pious princes. Are we to think that they would tolerate moderate or pious counsels? We have experienced already a number of times that many who simulated moderation were really after nothing except to suppress. us, catch us in a net, and destroy the entire kind of teaching.
I know that there are a certain few saner persons in the assemblies of the enemies who deplore the stubbornness of the mighty, but their counsels
Commentary on Romans are rejected as counsels of schoolmen. Since these things are so, godly minds and those who think about their own salvation and the glory of Christ must ask which is the true church, in order that they may join it and be a part of this assembly and the flock of Christ, as Christ says: "'He that is not with me is against me'' [Luke 11:23]. Thereafter he should know that tyrants and persecutors of Christ, and those who either aid savagery or approve of it are by no means the church. About these we hold fast the very sure rule of Paul:
'If anyone preaches another Gospel, let him be anathema"' [Gal. 1:8]. And when he says: ''Let him be anathema,"' let us not think that he is using a mild or vulgar malediction. When he says ''anathema"' he indicates that God has cast the enemies of the true doctrine out of the church, that they are to be avoided as gruesome pestilences whom God curses. Good people should know that they are polluted by the society and custom of such people, and that grave punishments will be given for friendship and association with them.
The Psalm [109:18] says about people of this kind: "'He puts on cursing as a garment, and it enters his inside like water, and as oil into his bones."
Contact with this cursing harms others who are joined with those who oppose the truth and exercise savagery against the godly.
Therefore let us not think that it is of little importance that we have this commandment: ''If anyone preaches another Gospel, let him be anathema"
[Gal. 1:8]. They are not bishops; they are not members of the church, but enemies of Christ who, since they are driven by furies, are not concerned about harmony and peace of the church, but about establishing their tyranny.
They are not eager to heal the church, but to set in motion civil wars, the devastation of churches, and murders of pious priests and of pious women.
Therefore one must not expect betterment of the churches from them, but everyone should rather try to separate himself from them in thought, mind, and will. Everyone should flee from their idol-madness and should not listen to their abuses of the true doctrine, none should aid or approve of their plans, nor should anyone strengthen their power. *'Flee idolatry,' Paul says [1 Cor.
10:14]. These are not to be considered light precepts. Therefore let the true church be sought. We know that its prayers are heard; we know that in it are the members of Christ; we know that to it belong the promises of the Gospel.
The promises do not belong to the enemies of the Gospel, even as they do not belong to the Jews or to the Mohammedans, as God frequently testifies and as Christ, the high priest, says in Ps. 16[:4]: *'Their libations of blood I will not pour out or take their names upon my lips.'" Who would not be moved by this sad threat to flee the assembly of those who are adversaries of the true church?
Finally, the divine Scripture in both its parts is full of such speeches which command us to flee the enemies of the true doctrine and the true church,
Excursus on the Authority of Scripture
and to embrace the true doctrine, to love, aid, and adorn the true church. Let us not think that the church is merely a Platonic state. The true church is the assembly in which the pure doctrine of the Gospel shines forth and in which the divinely delivered sacraments are rightly administered. In such an assembly there are bound to be some living members of the church who render God true worship, who repent, call on God in true faith, show zeal and labor for spreading the Gospel, show their confession, serve their calling, and perform the pious duties commanded by God. They are exercised by dangers of every kind in which they practice calling on God and other good works. This I declare to be the true church, to which the godly everywhere on earth should be joined in belief, will and confession. And I consider our churches to be like that by the grace of God, since they profess the pure doctrine of the Gospel, which is without any doubt in agreement with the understanding of the catholic church of Christ.
Would that good minds might consider how important it is not to be in the camp of the enemies of the church, but to be a citizen of the true church of Christ for the sake of which God wanted to become known. For the sake of the true church he created everything. He has sanctified it with the blood of his own Son. In the true church he has revealed himself with wonderful works through the fathers, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, Elijah,
Elisha, the apostles, and other lights of the church who ultimately will have eternal life and glory, and will enjoy association with God and the good angels. What glory and bliss it is to be an associate in this assembly, to be seen in the battle-line with Christ as the leader, around which the good angels fly, in which there are the chief men Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and other men endowed with outstanding gifts. In this battle-line you will already certainly have a place if you do not aid, approve of the wickedness and cruelty of the enemies of the church, but embrace the true doctrine, confess it, and adorn it with godly customs. The Psalm [122:6] says: ''Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; blessed are those who love her.'' What a lovely and sweet statement! It urges all to aid every kind of office of the church to guard the purity and consensus of the church, to do good to teachers so they may commend the common safety to God in prayers and vows, and may keep wicked teachers and tyrants away from it.
I wish with all my mind that the men in government, which should and are able to help the church, would consider the magnitude of these duties.
They should have regard for those who will come after us, to whom they wish to leave the state well organized. They ought much more to hand down to them the true knowledge of God, uncorrupted religion, the pure Gospel, and rightly constituted churches, as Paul commands Timothy faithfully to guard what has been entrusted to him in order that it may come uncontaminated
Commentary on Romans to those who come after us [cf. | Tim. 6:20]. We see that this care does not trouble popes, cardinals, and canons at all. They fight about their wealth, not about the doctrine. Therefore others should assume this care in the schools and in the government of states. This sacrifice in particular God demands of all, as Peter says that we have been called so that we should show forth the good deeds of God [1 Pet. 2:9]. This foremost purpose of all counsels and actions should be set before the wise in order that they may serve the glory of Christ. God promises very great rewards for this service in this verse:
'*Blessed will be those who love the church'' [cf. Ps. 122:6]. He promises defense, successes, and perpetual salvation to those who love the true church.
With these words the godly should arouse their minds to care for the service of the church, and should not only strengthen themselves against the threats of tyrants, but should also fortify themselves against the sophistry of those who falsely cite testimonies of antiquity and the church for the defense of their ungodly dogmas. It was my desire to instruct students to some extent for the purpose of refuting these.