Part 6
Then follows a second act of presumption: man attempts outwardly to represent God as he has inwardly conceived him. Thus the understanding conceives the idol, and the hand gives birth to it.
The example of Israel shows that idolatry originates in man's inability to believe that God is near unless he has some bodily representation of his presence. The people said to Aaron:
"We do not know what has become of this Moses. Make us gods who shall go before us."
They certainly knew that he was God whose power they had experienced in so many miracles.
But they did not believe that he was near them unless they could see some bodily representation with their eyes as a testimony that God went before them. Therefore, by means of an image preceding them, they wished to be assured that God was guiding them on their journey.
We also see this daily by experience: the flesh is never at rest until it has found some fabrication resembling its own nature, in which it may delight as though it were an image of God. Consequently, in nearly every age since the world began, men, following this desire, have fashioned images to assure themselves that God was near whenever they possessed some visible sign of him.
And because they imagined that they saw God in such images, they worshiped him there. Finally, fixing all their sight and thought upon them, they became still more brutish. As though some divinity resided within the stone or wood, they were moved to reverence and wonder.
It is therefore evident that man never begins to worship images without first conceiving some carnal and perverse fantasy. This is not because he regards the images themselves as gods, but because he imagines that some divine power resides within them. Therefore, whether a person intends an image to represent God or some creature, when he bows before it to render honor, he is already steeped in superstition.
For this reason, the Lord not only forbade the making of statues to represent him but also the consecration of pillars or stones before which reverence might be offered.
Let those, then, who seek empty excuses to defend the execrable idolatry by which religion was corrupted and destroyed for so many years direct their ears and minds to this point.
"We do not regard images as gods," they say.
But neither were the Jews so entirely senseless that they had forgotten there was a God who delivered them from Egyptian bondage before they fashioned the calves. Indeed, when Aaron, after making the calves, summoned them to worship the gods who had delivered them from Egypt, they readily agreed. By this they signified that they intended to remain devoted to the living God who had
delivered them, provided they could possess a representation of him in the calf.
Likewise, we must not suppose the pagans were so ignorant that they failed to understand there was some god other than wood and stone. For this reason, they changed their images whenever they pleased while always retaining the same gods in their minds. Moreover, they made many images of the same god without imagining that they were different gods. Finally, they consecrated new statues every day without supposing that these were new gods.
What, then, did they do? Certainly, all idolaters, both Jews and pagans, entertained the fantasy we have described. Not content with a spiritual knowledge of God, they imagined that by making images they would obtain a more certain knowledge of him.
Once this false and perverse representation of God was introduced, there was no end to the corruption. Adding error upon error, they finally imagined that God manifested his power through his images.
Nevertheless, the Jews believed that in worshiping images they were honoring the eternal God, Creator of heaven and earth. The pagans likewise believed that they were worshiping the gods whom they imagined to dwell in heaven.
Anyone who denies that the same thing was formerly done, and is still done under the papacy, speaks falsely. For why do they kneel before images? Why do they come before them to pray, as though by doing so they approached nearer to the ears of God?
Why is there such a great distinction between images of the same God, so that one is altogether neglected or only lightly honored while another is held in the highest esteem and veneration? Why do they undertake pilgrimages to visit idols whose likenesses they possess in their own homes?
Why do they fight for them today as though they were defending their wives, children, and very lives—so that they would more readily suffer God himself to be taken from them than their images?
And yet I have not even begun to recount the gross superstitions of the common people, which are almost infinite and deeply rooted in the hearts of the greater part of the world. I merely indicate in passing what they allege when they seek to defend themselves and clear themselves of idolatry.
"But," they say, "we do not call images our gods." Neither did the ancient Jews or pagans. Yet the Prophets, and indeed all Scripture, continually reproach them for committing spiritual adultery with wood and stone for no other reason than that which moves those today who boast of being Christians: they worshiped God carnally through representations of stone and wood.
Their final refuge is to say that images are "the books of the unlearned." Even if we granted this—although it is false, since throughout the papacy images are possessed for the sake of worship —I still cannot see what benefit the unlearned can derive from images in which God is portrayed in a manner that can only make them Anthropomorphites, that is, cause them to conceive of God as corporeal.
Let them read what Lactantius and Eusebius wrote on this subject. They do not hesitate to conclude that all who can be represented by images must have been mortal men. Saint Augustine does not differ greatly from them, declaring that it is wicked not only to worship images but even to erect any representation of God.
As for images intended to portray male and female saints, what purpose can they serve except as examples of pomp and indecency— and such examples that anyone who imitated them would deserve to be whipped? It is shameful to say, but true, that prostitutes in a brothel are dressed more chastely and modestly than the images of virgins displayed in churches. The attire of the martyrs is no more appropriate.
Let there at least be some decency in their images, so that their falsehood may not be quite so shameless when they claim that these are books of holiness.
Yet we further answer that this is not the manner in which Christians ought to be taught in the church. God has willed that his people should be instructed by a doctrine far different from such rubbish. He ordained that the preaching of his Word and the administration of his sacraments should be presented to all as their common instruction. Those who have leisure to cast their eyes here and there contemplating images show little affection for that doctrine.
What purpose, then, would there have been in erecting so many crosses of wood, stone, silver, and gold if this truth had been properly impressed upon the people: that Christ was crucified for our sins, bearing our curse upon the cross and blotting out our transgressions? The simple would have profited more from that one
statement than from a thousand crosses of wood or stone. As for those of gold and silver, I acknowledge that the covetous will take greater delight in them than in any word of God.
Finally, I ask them: whom do they call "the unlearned," whose ignorance can be instructed only through images? Certainly, our Lord has declared that every member of his church shall be taught by his Spirit and his Word, so that they may be known as disciples of God. There is the extraordinary benefit that proceeds from images—a benefit that can never be adequately repaid!
To declare more expressly how detestable all idolatry is to the Lord, the commandment consequently adds:
"For I, the Lord your God, am mighty and jealous," etc.
This is as though he said that he alone is the one upon whom we must depend. To lead us to this, he displays his power, which he cannot permit to be despised. He then calls himself jealous, signifying that he cannot tolerate a rival.
Third, he declares that he will avenge his majesty and glory if anyone transfers them to creatures or idols. Nor will this be a simple act of vengeance, but one extending to the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who imitate the impiety of their forefathers. Conversely, he promises his mercy and kindness to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his law.
It is not unusual for the Lord to assume toward us the relation of a husband. For the union by which he joins us to himself, receiving us
into the fellowship of the church, is like a spiritual marriage requiring mutual faithfulness.
Therefore, as the Lord always and everywhere fulfills the office of a faithful husband, so he requires us to preserve for him the love and chastity of marriage. That is, our souls must not abandon themselves to the devil and the sinful desires of the flesh, which is a form of spiritual adultery.
For this reason, when he reproves the Jews for their unfaithfulness, he complains that they have committed adultery and broken the covenant of marriage. Just as a good husband, the more faithful and loyal he is, becomes all the more indignant when he sees his wife turning toward an adulterer, so the Lord, who has betrothed us to himself in truth, declares that he is moved with extraordinary jealousy whenever we despise the chastity of his marriage and defile ourselves with evil desires.
This is especially so when we transfer elsewhere his glory, which above all things must be preserved whole and entire for him, or pollute it with any superstition. For in doing this, we not only violate the faith pledged in marriage but also defile our souls with adultery.
We must consider what he means by the threat that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon their children to the third and fourth generation. For besides the fact that it would be inconsistent with the equity of divine justice to punish the innocent for another person's fault, the Lord himself declares that he will not permit the son to bear the father's iniquity.
Nevertheless, this statement is frequently repeated: the sins of the fathers shall be punished in their children. Moses often speaks in this manner:
"Lord, Lord, who repays the iniquity of the fathers upon their children." —Exodus 34; Numbers 14
Jeremiah likewise says:
"Lord, who shows mercy to a thousand generations and repays the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children." —Jeremiah 32
Some, unable to resolve this difficulty, understand it as referring to temporal punishments, which children may fittingly suffer on account of their fathers since such afflictions are often beneficial to them. This is certainly true. For Isaiah declared to King Hezekiah that because of the sin he had committed, the kingdom would be taken from his children and they would be carried into a foreign land (Isaiah 39).
Likewise, the households of Pharaoh and Abimelech were afflicted because of the injury their masters had done to Abraham. Many other similar examples could be cited. Yet this is an evasion rather than a true interpretation of the passage. For the Lord here announces a punishment so severe that it cannot be restricted to the present life.
We must therefore understand the statement in this manner: the curse of God not only falls upon the head of the wicked man but is also spread over his whole family.
When this occurs, what can be expected except that the father, being forsaken by the Spirit of God, should live wickedly; that the son, likewise abandoned by God because of his father's sin, should follow the same path to destruction; and that the grandson and later descendants, being the accursed offspring of wicked men, should proceed into the same ruin?
First, let us consider whether such punishments conflict with God's justice. Since the entire nature of mankind is deserving of condemnation, it is certain that ruin awaits all those to whom the Lord does not communicate his grace. Nevertheless, they perish through their own iniquity and not through any unjust hatred on God's part. Nor can they complain that God does not assist them by his grace unto salvation as he assists others.
When, therefore, this punishment comes upon wicked men for their sins—that their households are deprived of God's grace for many years—who can condemn God for it?
"But," someone will say, "the Lord declares, on the contrary, that the child shall not suffer punishment for the father's sin" (Ezekiel 18).
We must observe what is being addressed in that passage. The Israelites, after long suffering various calamities, had a common proverb that their fathers had eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth were set on edge. By this they meant that their ancestors had committed the faults for which they themselves endured so many
evils without deserving them, and that this proceeded from God's excessively harsh anger rather than from measured severity.
The Prophet declares that this is not so. Rather, they suffer for their own faults, and it is inconsistent with God's justice that a righteous and innocent child should be punished for his father's sins. But no such thing is stated in the present passage.
For the visitation spoken of here is fulfilled when the Lord withdraws from the household of the wicked his grace, the light of his truth, and every other aid to salvation. When the children, abandoned by God to blindness, follow the course of their forefathers, they bear the curse of God. But when God afterward punishes them both with temporal calamities and eternal death, he does so not for the sins of others but for their own.
On the other hand, a promise is given that God will extend his mercy to a thousand generations of those who love him. This promise is frequently found in Scripture and is included in the solemn covenant God makes with his church:
"I will be your God and the God of your offspring after you." —Genesis 17
Solomon had this in view when he said that after the death of the righteous, their children shall be blessed. This is not only because good nurture and instruction contribute greatly to a person's wellbeing, but also because of the blessing God has promised to his servants: that his grace will abide perpetually upon their families.
This brings singular consolation to believers and ought greatly to terrify the wicked. For if the memory both of righteousness and of iniquity retains such power before God after a person's death that the blessing of the former extends to his descendants, and likewise the curse of the latter, then much more will the person who has lived well be blessed by God forever, and the person who has lived wickedly be cursed.
This is not contradicted by the fact that good children sometimes proceed from the offspring of the wicked and, conversely, wicked children from the offspring of believers. For the Lord did not intend here to establish an invariable rule that would derogate from his election. It is sufficient both to console the righteous and to terrify the sinner that this declaration is neither empty nor frivolous, even though it is not fulfilled in every instance.
The temporal punishments God sends upon some are testimonies of his wrath against sin and signs of the future judgment that shall come upon all sinners, although many remain unpunished in the present life. In the same way, when the Lord gives an example of this blessing by continuing his grace and goodness toward the children of believers on account of their fathers, he bears witness that his mercy abides eternally upon his servants.
Conversely, when he pursues the father's iniquity as far as the son, he demonstrates the severity of the judgment prepared for the wicked because of their own sins. This is his principal purpose in the present statement.
Moreover, he intended in passing to signify the greatness of his mercy by extending it to a thousand generations, while assigning
only four generations to his vengeance.
The Third Commandment
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
The purpose of this commandment is that the Lord wills the majesty of his name to be holy and sacred to us. Its substance, therefore, is that we must not profane it through contempt or irreverence. Corresponding to this prohibition is the positive command that his name should be held by us in singular esteem and honor.
Therefore, both our hearts and our mouths must be trained to think and speak of God and his mysteries only with reverence and great sobriety. Likewise, when considering his works, we must conceive nothing that does not tend to his honor.
We must carefully observe these three points. First, whatever our minds conceive of God or our tongues speak concerning him must be consistent with his excellence and the holiness of his name and must tend to exalt his greatness.
Second, we must not recklessly misuse his holy Word or pervert his mysteries to serve our avarice, ambition, or follies. Rather, because the dignity of his name is imprinted upon his Word and mysteries, we must always hold them in honor and esteem.
Finally, we must not speak evil of his works or disparage them, as certain wicked people customarily do with contemptuous speech. Instead, we must ascribe the praise of wisdom, righteousness, and power to everything we acknowledge that he has done.
This is what it means to sanctify the name of God. Whenever we act otherwise, his name is wickedly polluted because it is diverted from the lawful use to which it was consecrated. Even if there were no other evil, it is diminished in dignity and rendered contemptible.
If it is so wicked to employ God's name too lightly and recklessly, it is a far greater sin to direct it toward an altogether evil use, as in sorcery, necromancy, unlawful incantations, and similar practices.
Nevertheless, the commandment speaks especially of oaths, in which the abuse of God's name is more detestable than in anything else. This is intended to produce in us a greater horror of every other form of its abuse.
We must first understand what an oath is. An oath is an appeal to God as witness in order to confirm the truth of our words. Open blasphemies uttered to defy God are not worthy of being called oaths.
Scripture shows in many passages that such an appeal, when properly made, is a form of glorifying God. Thus, when Isaiah says that the Assyrians and Egyptians shall be received into God's church:
"They shall speak the language of Canaan and swear by the name of the Lord." —Isaiah 19
That is, by swearing in the Lord's name, they shall declare that they acknowledge him as their God.
Likewise, when Isaiah speaks of the enlargement of God's kingdom:
"Whoever asks for prosperity shall ask it in God, and whoever swears shall swear by the true God." —Isaiah 65
Jeremiah similarly says:
"If the teachers instruct my people to swear by my name, as they formerly taught them to swear by Baal, I will cause them to prosper in my house." —Jeremiah 12
It is rightly said that by invoking God's name as witness we testify to our religious devotion toward him. For in this manner we confess him to be eternal and immutable truth. We call upon him not merely as a competent witness to the truth, but as the one to whom alone it belongs to uphold truth, bring hidden things to light, and know the human heart.
When human testimony fails us, we take God as our witness, particularly when we must affirm something concealed within the conscience. Therefore, the Lord is bitterly angered against those who swear by foreign gods and regards such an oath as a sign that they have renounced his name:
"Your children have forsaken me and swear by those who are no gods." —Jeremiah 5
Moreover, he demonstrates how detestable this sin is by the severity of its punishment when he declares that he will destroy all those who
swear both by the name of God and by the name of their idol (Zephaniah 1).
Since we understand that the Lord wills the honor of his name to be exalted in our oaths, we must be all the more careful that his name is not despised or diminished instead of honored.
To swear falsely by his name is an exceedingly great insult, and therefore the law calls it profanation (Leviticus 19). For what remains to God if he is stripped of his truth? He would no longer be God. Yet he is stripped of his truth when he is made the witness and approver of falsehood.
Therefore, when Joshua sought to compel Achan to confess the truth, he said:
"My son, give glory to the God of Israel." —Joshua 7
By this he indicates that God is grievously dishonored when anyone swears falsely by his name. This is not surprising, since by doing so we endeavor, so far as lies within us, to brand God as a liar.
A similar solemn appeal made by the Pharisees in the Gospel of Saint John shows that this form of speech was commonly used among the Jews when they wished to place someone under oath (John 9).
The formulas of Scripture likewise teach us how greatly we ought to fear swearing falsely:
"As the Lord lives."
And:
"May the Lord do this and more to me."
Again:
"May God be witness against my soul."
These expressions signify that we cannot call God as witness to our words without his avenging the perjury if we swear falsely.
When we employ God's name in a truthful but unnecessary oath, it is not altogether profaned, yet it is rendered contemptible and lowered from its proper honor. This, then, is the second kind of oath by which God's name is taken in vain.
It is therefore not enough to abstain from perjury. We must also remember that oaths were instituted not to serve the disorderly pleasure of men but only for necessity; outside that necessity they are unlawful. It follows that those who employ them in matters of no importance depart from their proper and lawful use. No necessity can be alleged except that which serves religion or love.
In this matter men sin today with shameful excess, all the more because long familiarity has caused the offense to be regarded as nothing, although it is by no means insignificant in the judgment of God. For God's name is used indiscriminately in foolish and frivolous conversation, and men imagine there is no wrong in this because their habitual license has given them, as it were, a prescriptive right to do so.
Nevertheless, God's commandment remains forever, and the threat attached to it remains inviolable and will one day be fulfilled. By it, spiritual vengeance is pronounced upon all who have taken God's name in vain.
There is also another grievous fault: in their oaths men substitute the names of saints for the name of God, swearing by Saint James or Saint Anthony. This is manifest impiety, since God's glory is thereby transferred to them. It is not without reason that God expressly commanded men to swear by his name and by a special commandment forbade them to swear by foreign gods (Deuteronomy 6; Exodus 23).
This is also what the Apostle means when he writes that men swear by one greater than themselves, but God swears by himself because there is none greater than he (Hebrews 6).
The Anabaptists, not content with this limitation, condemn all oaths without exception because Christ's prohibition is general:
"I tell you not to swear at all, but let your word be 'Yes, yes,' or 'No, no.' Whatever exceeds this is evil." —Matthew 5
But in doing so, they wrong Christ by making him the adversary of his Father, as though he had come to earth to abolish his commandments. For in his law the Lord not only permits oaths as lawful—which ought to be sufficient—but commands their use when necessity requires it (Exodus 22).
Yet Christ testifies that he is one with his Father, that he brings nothing his Father has not commanded, and that his doctrine is not his own. What, then, will they say? Will they make God contradict himself by forbidding and condemning what he once approved by commanding it? Their opinion therefore cannot be accepted.
Yet because Christ's words present some difficulty, we must examine them more closely. We shall not understand them unless we consider his purpose and direct our attention to what he intends in that passage. He does not purpose either to enlarge or restrict the law, but merely to restore its natural meaning, which had been greatly corrupted by the false glosses of the scribes and Pharisees.
If we hold to this, we shall not suppose that Christ intended to condemn every oath universally, but only those that transgress the rule of the law. His words show that the people at that time guarded only against perjury, although the law forbids not merely false oaths but also unnecessary ones.
Therefore, the Lord Jesus, the true interpreter of the law, warns that it is wrong not only to swear falsely but also simply to swear. How does he mean? To swear vainly. But those oaths approved by the law he leaves lawful and entirely intact.
They insist upon the expression "at all," but it does not refer to the act of swearing itself; rather, it refers to the forms of oath that follow. For part of their error was that when they swore by heaven and earth, they imagined they were not touching the name of God. Therefore, after correcting the principal transgression, the Lord removes all their evasions so that they may not imagine they have
escaped guilt merely by suppressing God's name and swearing instead by heaven and earth.
No person of sound understanding, therefore, can doubt that in this passage the Lord condemns only those oaths already forbidden by the law. For he who represented throughout his life the perfection he commanded did not hesitate to swear when circumstances required it. His disciples, whom we do not doubt followed his rule, followed the same example.
Who would dare say that Saint Paul would have sworn if all oaths had been absolutely forbidden? Yet when the matter requires it, he swears without any hesitation, sometimes even adding an imprecation.
The question, however, is not yet fully resolved, because some believe that only public oaths are excepted. These include those required of us by the magistrate, those made by the people to their rulers or by rulers to the people, those made by soldiers to their commanders, and those exchanged between princes when forming an alliance.
They also include within this category—and rightly so—all the oaths found in Saint Paul, since the Apostles in the exercise of their office were not private individuals but public ministers of God.
Indeed, I do not deny that public oaths are the safest because they are supported by the clearest testimonies of Scripture. The magistrate is commanded to require a witness to swear concerning a doubtful matter, and the witness is bound to answer. Likewise, the Apostle says that human disputes are settled by this remedy
(Hebrews 6). Thus both the magistrate and the witness possess proper authorization for what they do.
We may also observe that the ancient pagans regarded public and solemn oaths with great religious reverence, while placing little value upon those made privately, as though God took no account of them.
Nevertheless, it is exceedingly dangerous to condemn private oaths when they are made reverently, soberly, and in necessary matters, since they are supported by sound reason and examples from Scripture. For if private persons may invoke God as judge of their statements, much more may they invoke him as witness.
For example, your neighbor may accuse you of some act of dishonesty. You endeavor in love to clear yourself, but he refuses to accept any explanation. If your reputation is endangered by his obstinate false suspicion, you may without offense appeal to God's judgment so that he may declare your innocence.
If we consider the words themselves, it is a far more solemn thing to call upon God as judge than merely as witness. I therefore see no reason to condemn an oath in which God is invoked as witness.
We also possess many examples of this. Abraham and Isaac swore oaths to Abimelech. If anyone argues that these were public oaths, Jacob and Laban were at least private persons, yet they confirmed their covenant by an oath (Genesis 31).
Boaz was a private man, yet he ratified by oath his promise to marry Ruth (Ruth 3). Likewise, Obadiah—a righteous and God-fearing
man, as Scripture testifies—confirmed by oath what he wished Elijah to believe (1 Kings 18).
I therefore see no better rule than that we regulate our oaths so that they are neither rash nor lightly made, neither concerned with frivolous matters nor prompted by disordered passion. Instead, they must serve a genuine necessity—namely, when God's glory must be maintained or love toward men preserved. This is the end toward which the commandment tends.
The Fourth Commandment
Remember to sanctify the day of rest. Six days you shall labor and perform all your work. The seventh is the rest of the Lord your God. You shall perform none of your work— you, your son or daughter, your male or female servant, your livestock, or the stranger within your gates. For in six days, etc.
The purpose of this commandment is that, being dead to our own desires and works, we should meditate upon the kingdom of God and exercise ourselves in that meditation by the means he has ordained.
Nevertheless, because this commandment has a particular character distinct from the others, it requires a somewhat different exposition. The ancient doctors customarily called it "shadowy," because it contains the outward observance of a particular day, which was abolished at the coming of Christ along with the other figures.
This is certainly true, but it touches only half the matter. We must therefore begin our exposition from a higher point and consider three purposes contained within this commandment.
First, under the rest of the seventh day, the Lord intended to represent spiritual rest to the people of Israel. Believers must cease from their own works so that they may permit God to work within them.
Second, he willed that there should be an appointed day on which they assembled to hear the law and observe his ceremonies.
Third, he intended to give a day of rest to servants and laborers subject to the authority of others, so that they might have some relief from their toil.
Yet many passages show that the representation of spiritual rest held the principal place in this commandment (Numbers 15; Exodus 31 and 35; Jeremiah 17; Ezekiel 20 and 22; Isaiah 56). For God never required obedience to any commandment more strictly than to this one.
When he declares through his Prophets that all religion has been destroyed, he complains that his Sabbath has been polluted and violated or that it has not been properly kept and sanctified—as though, once this point were abandoned, nothing remained in which he could be honored.
Conversely, he greatly commends its observance. For this reason, among all the blessings God had bestowed upon them, the faithful
regarded the revelation of his Sabbath as a singular benefit. Thus the Levites speak in Nehemiah:
"You revealed your holy Sabbath to our fathers and gave them your commandments, ceremonies, and law by the hand of Moses." —Nehemiah 9
We see how they esteemed it above all the other commandments. This shows us the dignity and excellence of the Sabbath, which Moses and Ezekiel also explain clearly. For we read in Exodus:
"Observe my Sabbath, for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the God who sanctifies you. Therefore, keep my Sabbath, for it must be holy to you. Let the children of Israel keep it and celebrate it throughout their generations, for it is a perpetual covenant and an everlasting sign." —Exodus 31
Ezekiel speaks of this even more fully, yet the substance of his words is that the Sabbath was a sign by which Israel was to know that God was its Sanctifier (Ezekiel 20).
If our sanctification consists in renouncing our own will, the correspondence between the outward sign and the inward reality is already evident. We must cease altogether so that God may work within us. We must surrender our will, resign our hearts, and renounce and forsake all the desires of our flesh. In short, we must cease from everything proceeding from our own understanding so
that, with God working within us, we may rest in him, as the Apostle also teaches.
This was represented to Israel by the rest of the seventh day. To render its observance more sacred, our Lord confirmed this order by his own example. For it ought greatly to move man when he is taught to imitate his Creator.
If anyone seeks a hidden significance in the number seven, it is probable that, since this number signifies perfection in Scripture, it was chosen here to denote perpetuity. This corresponds with what we find in Moses: after telling us that the Lord rested on the seventh day, he appoints no subsequent day to bring that rest to an end.
Another probable interpretation may also be offered. By this number the Lord intended to signify that the Sabbath of believers will never be perfectly accomplished until the last day. We begin it here and pursue it daily, but because we still wage continual warfare against our flesh, it will not be completed until Isaiah's declaration is fulfilled —that in the kingdom of God there shall be a Sabbath continuing eternally (Isaiah 66)—when God shall be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).
It may therefore appear that by the seventh day the Lord intended to represent to his people the perfection of the Sabbath that will come on the last day, so that throughout this life they might continually aspire toward that perfection.
If this interpretation seems too subtle and anyone is unwilling to receive it, I do not object to his resting in a simpler explanation: that
the Lord appointed a day by which the people, under the tutelage of the law, might be trained to meditate upon an endless spiritual rest.
He assigned the seventh day either because he judged it sufficient, because he wished to encourage the people more effectively to observe this ceremony by setting his own example before them, or rather because he intended to show that the Sabbath tended toward no other end than to conform them to their Creator.
The precise explanation matters little, provided the mystery's significance remains: that the people were instructed to cease from their own works. The Prophets continually directed the Jews toward this contemplation so that they would not imagine they had fulfilled the commandment merely by abstaining from manual labor.
Besides the passages already cited, Isaiah says:
"If you turn away your foot on the Sabbath, refraining from doing your own pleasure on my holy day; if you call the Sabbath holy and delightful to the glorious Lord, and honor him by not performing your own works or pursuing your own pleasure, then you shall prosper in God." —Isaiah 58
There is no doubt that what was ceremonial in this commandment was abolished by the coming of Christ. For he is the truth whose presence causes all figures to vanish. He is the body before whom the shadows are forsaken. He is, I say, the true fulfillment of the Sabbath.
For being buried with him through baptism, we are united with him in his death so that, being made participants in his resurrection, we may walk in newness of life (Romans 6).
Therefore, the Apostle says that the Sabbath was a shadow of things to come and that the substance belongs to Christ—that is, the true and solid reality, which he explains clearly in that passage (Colossians 2).
This reality is not content with a single day but requires the whole course of our lives, until, being altogether dead to ourselves, we are filled with the truth of God. It follows that every superstitious observance of days must be far removed from Christians.
Nevertheless, since the two remaining purposes must not be numbered among the ancient shadows but apply equally to every age, although the Sabbath has been abolished, this principle continues among us: we must have appointed days on which to assemble to hear preaching, offer public prayers, and celebrate the sacraments. Second, servants and laborers must be given some relief from their work.
There is no doubt that the Lord had both purposes in view when he commanded the Sabbath. The first is sufficiently demonstrated by the practice of the Jews themselves. Moses notes the second in Deuteronomy:
"That your male and female servants may rest as you do. Remember that you were a servant in Egypt." —Deuteronomy 5
Likewise in Exodus:
"That your ox and donkey and your household may rest." —Exodus 23
Who can deny that these two purposes apply to us no less than to the Jews? Ecclesiastical assemblies are commanded by the Word of God, and experience itself demonstrates how necessary they are for us. But unless appointed days are established, when could we assemble?
The Apostle teaches that among us all things must be done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14). Yet so far is it from being possible to preserve decency and order without this arrangement of days that, if it were abolished, we would immediately witness extraordinary disorder and confusion within the church.
If, therefore, we experience the same necessity that the Lord intended to remedy by ordaining the Sabbath for the Jews, let no one claim that this law has no relevance to us. For our gracious Father certainly intended to provide for our necessity no less than for theirs.
"But why," someone may ask, "do we not assemble every day and thereby remove this distinction?"
I would greatly desire it. Indeed, spiritual wisdom deserves to have some portion of every day assigned to it. But if, because of the infirmity of many, daily assembly cannot be obtained, and love does not permit us to compel them any further, why should we not follow the rule God has shown us?
We must speak somewhat more fully on this matter because certain restless minds today raise an uproar over Sunday. They complain that the Christian people are being maintained in a form of Judaism because they still retain some observance of days.
I answer that we observe Sunday without Judaizing because there is a great difference between us and the Jews. We do not observe it with strict religious devotion as a ceremony containing some spiritual mystery. Rather, we employ it as a necessary means of preserving good order within the church.
"But," they say, "Saint Paul denies that Christians should be judged regarding the observance of days, since such things are shadows of things to come. For the same reason, he fears that he has labored among the Galatians in vain because they still observe days. And in Romans he declares it superstition to distinguish one day from another" (Colossians 2; Galatians 4; Romans 14).
But what person of sober understanding does not see what kind of observance the Apostle is discussing? Those people were not considering the purpose we have described—the preservation of order and good governance in the church. By retaining festivals as shadows of spiritual things, they obscured the glory of Christ and the brightness of the gospel.
They did not abstain from manual labor because it hindered them from devoting themselves to meditation upon God's Word. Rather, they did so out of foolish devotion, imagining that by resting they were rendering service to God.
It is against this perverse doctrine that Saint Paul protests, not against the lawful ordinance established to preserve peace within Christian fellowship. For the churches he founded observed the Sabbath for this latter purpose. He demonstrates this by appointing that day for the Corinthians to bring their offerings to the church (1 Corinthians 16).
If we fear superstition, it was more to be feared in the Jewish festivals than it is now on Sunday. Therefore, because it was expedient to overthrow superstition, the day observed by the Jews was abandoned. And because another day was necessary for maintaining order, good governance, and peace in the church, a different day was appointed in its place.
I do not insist upon the number seven in order to subject the church to any form of bondage. For I would not condemn churches that appointed other solemn days for assembly, provided there were no superstition—which there is not when the sole purpose is to maintain good order.
Let this, then, be the substance of the commandment. As the truth was represented to the Jews under a figure, so it is declared to us without a figure: throughout our lives we must meditate upon a perpetual rest from our own works so that God may work within us by his Spirit.
Second, we must observe the lawful order of the church by hearing the Word, celebrating the sacraments, and offering public prayers.
Third, we must not excessively burden those who are under our authority.
This overturns the falsehoods of those false teachers who formerly filled the poor common people with Jewish notions, distinguishing between Sunday and the Sabbath only by saying that the seventh day formerly observed had been abolished but that one day must nevertheless still be kept in the same manner.
This amounts to nothing more than changing the day in defiance of the Jews while retaining the superstition condemned by Saint Paul: that the day possesses some hidden spiritual significance, as it did under the Old Testament.
Indeed, we see what their doctrine has produced. Those who follow it surpass the Jews in their carnal conception of the Sabbath, so that the rebukes found in Isaiah would apply more properly to them than to those whom the Prophet reproved in his own day.
The Fifth Commandment
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord your God gives you.
The purpose is this: because God wills the order he has established to be maintained, we must observe the degrees of authority as he has appointed them.
The substance of the commandment, therefore, is that we must reverence those whom the Lord has ordained as our superiors and render them honor and obedience, together with gratitude for the benefits we have received from them.
From this follows the prohibition that we must not detract from their dignity through contempt, rebellion, or ingratitude. For the word honor bears this broad meaning in Scripture. Thus, when the Apostle says that elders who rule well are worthy of double honor, he speaks not only of the reverence owed to them but also of the compensation their labor deserves.
Because this commandment, which subjects us to our superiors, is strongly opposed to the perversity of our nature—which, swollen with ambition and pride, does not willingly submit—the least objectionable and most agreeable form of authority is presented to us as an example, since it is best able to bend and soften our hearts toward obedient submission.
Thus, through the subjection that is sweetest and easiest to bear, the Lord gradually accustoms us to every form of lawful subjection, because the same principle applies to them all.
Whenever God gives someone preeminence, he communicates his own name to that person insofar as is necessary to preserve his authority. The titles Father, God, and Lord belong so properly to God that whenever they are mentioned, our hearts ought to be moved by an acknowledgment of his majesty.
Therefore, when he permits men to share these titles, he imparts to them, as it were, some spark of his own brightness so that they may be ennobled and rendered honorable according to their rank.
Thus, in the person called father, we must recognize something of divine honor, since he does not bear God's title without cause.
Likewise, one who is a prince or lord participates in some measure in the honor of God.
We must not doubt, therefore, that the Lord here establishes a universal rule: according as we recognize someone to have been ordained by God as our superior, we must render him honor, reverence, and love and perform every service toward him within our power.
Nor must we consider whether our superiors are worthy of such honor. Whatever their character may be, they did not attain their position apart from God's will, and it is on account of that position that our Lord commands us to honor them.
Nevertheless, he expressly commands us to reverence the parents who brought us into this life, something nature itself ought to teach us. For all who violate parental authority through contempt or rebellion are monsters rather than men.
Therefore, our Lord commands that all who disobey father or mother should be put to death, and with good reason. For since they do not acknowledge those through whom they entered this life, they are surely unworthy to live.
Many passages of the law confirm what we have said: the honor spoken of here consists of three parts—reverence, obedience, and love arising from gratitude for benefits received.
The first is commanded when God orders that anyone who curses father or mother should be put to death, for in this manner he
punishes all contempt and disrespect (Exodus 21; Leviticus 20; Proverbs 20).
The second appears in his command that the rebellious and disobedient child should likewise be put to death.
The third is confirmed by Christ's declaration in Matthew 15 that God commands us to support our parents and do them good.
Whenever Saint Paul mentions this commandment, he exhorts us to obedience, which belongs to the second part (Ephesians 6; Colossians 3).
The promise is added to commend the commandment more highly and remind us how pleasing this submission is to God. Saint Paul uses this incentive when he says that this is the first commandment with a promise. For the promise previously given in the first table was not attached to one commandment alone but extended to the whole law.
The present promise must be understood in this manner. The Lord spoke specifically to the Israelites concerning the land he had promised them as an inheritance. If possession of that land was a pledge of God's favor, we should not be surprised that he chose to testify to his grace by promising them long life, through which they might enjoy his blessing for a longer time.
It is therefore as though he had said: "Honor your father and mother, so that by living long you may enjoy for a longer time the land that shall serve as a testimony of my grace toward you."
Moreover, because the whole earth is blessed to believers, we rightly number the present life among God's blessings. Therefore, insofar as long life is evidence of God's favor toward us, this promise also belongs to us.
Long life is not promised to us, any more than it was promised to the Jews, because it contains blessedness within itself, but because it is a sign of God's goodness toward the righteous.
Therefore, if an obedient child dies in youth—as frequently happens —God nevertheless remains entirely faithful to his promise. Indeed, he fulfills it no less than if he were to give a hundred acres of land to someone to whom he had promised only two.
The whole matter rests upon this: long life is promised here only insofar as it is a blessing, and it is a blessing from God insofar as it testifies to his grace. Yet he displays that grace to his servants a hundred thousand times more clearly in death.
Conversely, when the Lord promises his blessing in the present life to those who obey their fathers and mothers, he likewise signifies that his curse shall come upon all who are disobedient. To ensure that his judgment is executed, he commands in his law that justice be carried out against them.
If they escape the hands of men in some manner, God himself will avenge their disobedience. For we see how many such people die in wars, quarrels, or other ways, so that it becomes apparent that God's hand is at work in bringing them to a miserable end.
And if some escape until old age, yet remain deprived of God's blessing in this life, merely languishing here while being reserved for greater punishment hereafter, they are very far from participating in this promise.
Finally, we must briefly observe that we are commanded to obey our parents only in the Lord, as is evident from the foundation we have established (Ephesians 6). They preside over us because God has elevated them and communicated to them some portion of his honor.
Therefore, the submission rendered to them should serve as a step leading us to reverence God, who is the supreme Father. Consequently, if they seek to make us transgress his law, we must not then regard them as fathers but as strangers who seek to turn us away from obedience to our true Father.
We must form the same judgment concerning our princes, lords, and superiors. For it would be exceedingly unreasonable if their preeminence possessed any authority to diminish the supremacy of God, since it depends upon his authority and ought to magnify rather than diminish it—to confirm rather than violate it.
The Sixth Commandment
You shall not kill.
The purpose of this commandment is that, because God has united the whole human race in a common bond, the safety and preservation of everyone must be precious to each of us.
In sum, therefore, every act of violence, injury, or harm by which our neighbor's body is wounded is forbidden to us. From this we must proceed to the positive command: if we are able to do anything to preserve our neighbor's life, we must faithfully employ ourselves in doing so. We must both provide whatever contributes to his welfare and oppose whatever threatens it. Likewise, if anyone is in danger or distress, we must assist and relieve him.
If we remember that God is the Lawgiver who speaks here, we must understand that he gives this rule to our souls. For it would be ridiculous to suppose that he who beholds the thoughts of the heart and chiefly regards them would instruct only our bodies in true righteousness.
Therefore, murder of the heart is forbidden here, and the inward affection of preserving our neighbor's life is commanded. Although the hand gives birth to murder, the heart conceives it when infected with anger and hatred.
Consider whether you can be angry with your brother without desiring to harm him. If you cannot be angry without such a desire, neither can you hate him without it, since hatred is nothing but deeprooted anger.
However much you may dissemble and seek refuge beneath deceitful excuses, it is certain that hatred and anger cannot exist without the desire to do harm. If you still seek to evade the matter, the Holy Spirit has already pronounced that everyone who hates his brother in his heart is a murderer (1 John 3:15).
Christ likewise declares that whoever is angry with his brother is liable to judgment; whoever displays his anger is liable to condemnation before the council; and whoever insults him is liable to the fire of hell (Matthew 5).
Scripture identifies two reasons upon which this commandment is founded: man is the image of God, and he is also our own flesh.
Therefore, if we would not violate the image of God, we must do no injury to our neighbor. And if we would not renounce all humanity, we must cherish him as our own flesh.
The exhortation that may be drawn from the benefit of Christ's redemption will be treated elsewhere. But the Lord intended us naturally to consider these two things already mentioned in man, both of which lead us to do him good: that in everyone we should reverence God's image impressed upon him and love our own flesh.
Therefore, a person who has abstained from shedding blood is not necessarily innocent of murder. For whoever either commits an act contrary to his neighbor's welfare, endeavors or plots to do so, or merely conceives it in his heart is regarded by God as a murderer.
Conversely, unless we employ ourselves according to our ability and the opportunity given us to do good to our neighbor, we transgress this commandment by our cruelty.
If the Lord is so deeply concerned for the bodily welfare of every person, we may understand from this how greatly he obligates us to seek the salvation of souls, which are incomparably more precious before him.
The Seventh Commandment
You shall not commit adultery.
The purpose of this commandment is that, because God loves purity and chastity, every form of uncleanness must be far removed from us.
Its substance, therefore, is that we must not be stained by any impurity or fleshly intemperance. Corresponding to this prohibition is the positive command that our life in all its actions should be regulated by chastity and self-control.
God expressly forbids adultery, toward which all sexual incontinence tends, so that by the shamefulness and indecency of adultery—which is all the more visible more visible because it dishonors our bodies— he may cause us to abhor every form of sexual impurity.
Man was created on the condition that he should not live alone but should possess a helper corresponding to himself. Moreover, through the curse of sin, he became still more subject to this necessity. Therefore, insofar as it was expedient, the Lord provided us with a remedy by instituting marriage, which, having ordained it by his authority, he sanctified by his blessing.
From this it is evident that every union of man and woman outside marriage is cursed before him, while the fellowship of marriage is given as a remedy for our necessity so that we may not give free rein to our sinful desires.
Let us not flatter ourselves when we hear that a man cannot live with a woman outside marriage without incurring the curse of God.
We need this remedy for two reasons: both because of the condition of our original nature and because of the corruption that subsequently entered it. No one is exempt except the person to whom God has granted a special grace. Let everyone, therefore, carefully consider what has been given to him.
Those who have not received the special gift of continence, if they refuse to employ the remedy granted and offered to them, contend against God and resist his ordinance.
Let no one object here, as many customarily do, that by God's assistance he will be able to do all things. For such assistance is given only to those who walk in his ways—that is, within their calling (Psalm 91). All who forsake the means God provides and rashly attempt to overcome their necessity by their own presumption have departed from that calling.
The Lord declares that continence is a singular gift, not bestowed indiscriminately upon his whole church but upon very few of its members. For he sets before us a particular class of persons who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven—that is, so that they may devote themselves more freely to the service of God's glory (Matthew 19).
Lest anyone imagine that this lies within our own power, Christ had already said that not everyone is capable of receiving it, but only those to whom it is given from heaven. He therefore concludes, "Let the one who is able to receive it, receive it."
Saint Paul teaches the same even more clearly when he says:
"Each person has received his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that." —1 Corinthians 7
But our priests, monks, and nuns, disregarding this consideration, confidently suppose that they will be able to remain continent. Yet who revealed to them that they could preserve chastity throughout their lives, as they bind themselves perpetually to do?
They hear God's declaration concerning the universal condition of mankind:
"It is not good for man to be alone."
They also understand—and would to God they did not so keenly experience—how fierce the goads of incontinence are within their flesh. With what boldness, then, do they dare reject this general calling for their entire lives, since the gift of continence is often granted only for a particular season, as circumstances require?
In such obstinacy, they should not expect God to assist them but should instead remember what is written:
"You shall not tempt the Lord your God."
To tempt God is to strive against the nature he has given us and to despise the remedies he provides, as though they had no relevance to us.
These people not only do this but are unashamed to call marriage a pollution. Yet our Lord did not consider its institution unworthy of his majesty; he pronounced it honorable among all; and Jesus Christ sanctified it by his presence and honored it with his first miracle (Genesis 2; Hebrews 13; John 2).
They do this solely to magnify the condition they have embraced— the abstention from marriage—as though their own lives did not plainly demonstrate that abstaining from marriage and possessing virgin chastity are entirely different things.
Yet they are so shameless as to call their manner of life "angelic." In this they grievously insult the angels of God, comparing them with fornicators, adulterers, and men guilty of even worse abominations.
No elaborate arguments are needed here, since the truth itself convicts them. For we see plainly with what horrible punishments our Lord repays such arrogance and contempt for his gifts. I am ashamed to uncover the more secret things, although far too much is already known—so much that the very air stinks with it.
They offer one argument to prove that priests should not marry: if the Levitical priests were required to refrain from relations with their wives whenever they approached the altar, so that they might offer their sacrifices more purely, it would be improper for the Christian sacraments, being nobler and more excellent, to be administered by married men.
As though the evangelical ministry and the Levitical priesthood were the same office!
On the contrary, the Levitical priests represented the person of Jesus Christ, who, as Mediator between God and men, was to reconcile us to the Father by his perfect purity.
Since those priests were sinners and could not fully correspond to Christ's holiness, they were commanded to purify themselves beyond ordinary human custom whenever they approached the sanctuary, so that they might represent him in some measure through these figures. At that time, they specifically bore the figure of Christ because, acting as mediators, they appeared before God on behalf of the people in the tabernacle, which was an image of the heavenly throne.
But because ecclesiastical pastors do not possess this office or represent this person, the comparison is irrelevant.
Therefore, the Apostle declares without exception that marriage is honorable among all, but that God will judge fornicators and adulterers (Hebrews 13).
Moreover, it was exceedingly presumptuous for them to require such continence as a matter of necessity. In doing so, they brought great reproach upon the ancient church, which was not only distinguished by pure doctrine but flourished even more remarkably in holiness.
For what, I ask, will they say of all the ancient Fathers, who plainly not only tolerated marriage among bishops but also approved it? It would follow that they perpetuated a profanation of God's mysteries, since, according to the present opinion, married men could not administer them purely.
It is true that this matter was debated at the Council of Nicaea. As there are always certain superstitious persons who invent some new fantasy to make themselves appear remarkable, some wished marriage to be forbidden to priests.
But what was decided? The opinion of Paphnutius was accepted, who declared that a man's faithful cohabitation with his wife was chastity. Thus holy marriage remained intact. It was not regarded as dishonorable for bishops to be married, nor was marriage judged to bring any stain upon the ministry.
Likewise, the Fathers who followed, with the exception of Jerome, did not detract so severely from the honor of marriage.
We shall be content with one testimony from Saint Chrysostom, since he cannot be suspected of favoring marriage too greatly. On the contrary, he was excessively inclined to praise and magnify virginity. Yet he speaks in this manner:
"The first degree of chastity is undefiled virginity. The second is marriage faithfully preserved. Therefore, the love of a husband and wife who live honorably in marriage is a second kind of virginity."
Now, if married persons acknowledge that their union is blessed by God, this should warn them not to contaminate it through unrestrained intemperance. Although the honor of marriage covers the shamefulness of incontinence, that does not mean marriage should become an incentive to it.
They must not imagine, therefore, that everything is lawful for them. Each husband must conduct himself soberly toward his wife, and each wife likewise toward her husband, governing themselves so that they do nothing contrary to the holiness of marriage.
For God's ordinance must be regulated and reduced to such modesty, not allowed to overflow into dissipation.
Finally, we must consider who the Lawgiver is that condemns adultery: the one who possesses us entirely and therefore rightly requires integrity from us in body, soul, and spirit.
Thus, when he forbids adultery, he also forbids us to entice others toward evil by immodest clothing, indecent gestures and behavior, or shameful speech.
The philosopher Archelaus did not speak without reason when he told a young man dressed too delicately that it made no difference through which part of his body he displayed his immodesty. This judgment is valid before God, who abhors every impurity wherever it may be found, whether in soul or body.
Lest anyone doubt this, let us remember that God commends chastity to us here. If he commands chastity, he condemns everything opposed to it.
Therefore, if we would obey this commandment, our hearts must not burn inwardly with evil desire; our eyes must not look immodestly; our faces must not be adorned for seduction; our tongues must not entice others to immorality with filthy words; and our mouths must not, through intemperance, provide occasion for lust.
For all these vices are stains by which chastity and continence are defiled and their purity polluted.
The Eighth Commandment
You shall not steal.
The purpose of this commandment is that, because all injustice is displeasing to God, we must render to everyone what properly belongs to him.
Its substance, therefore, is that God forbids us to seek to draw another person's possessions to ourselves and commands us faithfully to labor to preserve for everyone what is his.
We must understand that what each person possesses did not come to him by chance but through God's distribution. Therefore, no one can be defrauded of his possessions without violating God's providential arrangement.
There are many forms of theft. One consists in violence, when another person's property is forcibly seized and plundered as though by robbery. Another consists in fraud and malice, when someone cunningly impoverishes his neighbor through deceit. Another employs a still more concealed craftiness, depriving someone of his possessions under the appearance of law. Another operates through flattery, when persuasive words are used to obtain, under the title of a gift or by some other means, what rightfully ought to belong to another.
But rather than spend too long cataloguing its various forms, we must briefly observe that every means we employ to enrich ourselves at another's expense must be regarded as theft whenever it departs from the Christian sincerity that love requires and turns aside into any crookedness, deceit, or harmful dealing.
Although those who act in this manner often win their cases before an earthly judge, God regards them as nothing other than thieves. He sees the schemes crafty men devise from afar to catch the simple in their nets. He sees the severity of the exactions by which the powerful oppress the weak. He sees how poisonous are the flatteries employed by those who sweeten their words to deceive someone— things that often escape human detection.
Moreover, this commandment is transgressed not only when someone is wronged in his money, merchandise, or possessions, but in any right belonging to him. For we defraud our neighbor of his property when we deny him the duties we owe him.
Thus, if a steward, sharecropper, or tenant, instead of watching over his master's property, lives idly and neglects the interests of the one who supports him; if he wastefully dissipates what has been entrusted to him or consumes it in excess; if a servant mocks his master, divulges his secrets, or plots against his property, reputation, or life; or if, on the other hand, a master treats his household inhumanely—all this is theft before God.
For whoever fails to discharge toward others the duty required by his calling withholds what properly belongs to them.
We shall therefore obey this commandment if, being content with our condition, we seek no gain except what is honest and lawful; if we do not desire to enrich ourselves by injuring our neighbor; if we do not plot his ruin in order to obtain his property; if we do not labor to accumulate wealth from the blood and sweat of others; and if we do not grasp unjustly and indiscriminately at everything possible either to satisfy our avarice or squander it in excess.
On the contrary, we must always aim to assist everyone, as far as we are able, with our counsel and resources in preserving what belongs to him. If we must deal with wicked and deceitful people, we should be prepared to surrender something of our own rather than contend with them through the same malice.
Nor is this all. When we see others suffering poverty, we must share in their need and relieve their necessity from our abundance.
Finally, everyone must consider what duties his office obligates him to perform toward others so that he may discharge them faithfully.
By this same rule, the people must render honor to their superiors, willingly submitting to them, obeying their laws and commands, and refusing nothing they can perform without offending God.
Conversely, superiors must exercise care and diligence in governing their people, maintaining peace everywhere, defending the good, punishing the wicked, and administering their office as those who must give an account to God, the sovereign Judge.
Let ministers of the church faithfully administer the Word of God, neither corrupting the doctrine of salvation nor compromising its
purity. Let them instruct the people not only through sound doctrine but also by the example of their lives. In short, let them preside over the sheep as good shepherds.
On the other hand, let the people receive them as messengers and apostles of God, rendering them the honor our Lord assigns to them and providing for their livelihood.
Let parents labor to nurture, instruct, and govern their children as persons entrusted to them by God. They must not treat them so harshly that they lose heart, but sustain them with the gentleness and kindness appropriate to their condition. As has already been stated, children in turn owe their parents reverence and submission.
Likewise, let the young honor the aged, since our Lord has willed that advanced age should be honorable. Let the aged also endeavor to guide the young by their wisdom, not treating them with excessive severity but exercising a gravity tempered by gentleness and kindness.
Let servants render themselves useful to their masters and diligently seek to please them—not merely while being watched, but sincerely from the heart as those who serve God.
Let masters likewise not make themselves excessively harsh and unmanageable toward their servants, oppressing them with severity or treating them contemptuously. Rather, let them recognize them as brothers and fellow servants of God and therefore treat them humanely.
In this manner, let everyone consider what he owes his neighbors according to his station and position and render them their due.
Moreover, we must always direct our attention toward the Lawgiver so that we remember that this rule is ordained for the soul no less than for the body. Thus, everyone must apply his will to preserving and advancing the welfare and advantage of all men.
The Ninth Commandment
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
The purpose of this commandment is that, because God is truth and abhors falsehood, we must uphold truth without deceit.
Its substance, therefore, is that we must not injure anyone's reputation through slander or false reports, nor harm him in his possessions. In short, we must not wrong anyone either by speaking evil of him or by holding him up to ridicule.
Corresponding to this prohibition is the positive command that we faithfully assist everyone in upholding the truth, whether to preserve his property or his reputation.
It appears that our Lord intended to explain the meaning of this commandment in Exodus 23 when he said:
"You shall not uphold a false report, nor join with another to bear false witness in support of a lie."
Again:
"You shall flee from every falsehood."
Elsewhere he forbids us not only to spread malicious reports, defame, and slander others but also to deceive our brother, for he expressly mentions both offenses (Leviticus 19).
There is no doubt that, just as he previously sought to correct cruelty, sexual impurity, and avarice, he here intends to restrain falsehood, which is comprehended under the two categories already mentioned. For either we injure our neighbor's reputation by speaking evil of him, or we hinder his welfare through lies and deceitful words.
It matters little whether this commandment is understood specifically of solemn testimony given in court or of statements made privately. For we must always return to this principle: from every category of vice, our Lord sets forth one particular form as an example, to which all the others must be referred, and he chooses the form in which the vice's shamefulness appears most clearly.
Nevertheless, I prefer to understand the commandment generally, since false testimony in court is never given without perjury, and perjury has already been addressed in the first table.
We now see that properly observing this commandment requires us to employ our speech truthfully for our neighbor's benefit, both to preserve his reputation and to protect his interests.
The equity of this is evident. For if a good reputation is more precious than any treasure, a man is no less wronged when deprived of his good name than when stripped of his possessions. Indeed, a