Books: The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

P >> Philip Melanchthon >> The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25

Fourthly. The pontifical law differs also from the canons of the
Councils. For the ancient canons do not prohibit marriage, neither
do they dissolve marriages that have been contracted, even if they
remove from the administration of their office those who have
contracted them in the ministry. At those times this dismissal was
an act of kindness [rather than a punishment]. But the new canons,
which have not been framed in the Synods, but have been made
according to the private judgment of the Popes, both prohibit the
contraction of marriages, and dissolve them when contracted; and this
is to be done openly, contrary to the command of Christ, Matt. 19, 6:
What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. In the
_Confutation_ the adversaries exclaim that celibacy has been
commanded by the Councils. We do not find fault with the decrees of
the Councils; for under a certain condition these allow marriage, but
we find fault with the laws which, since the ancient Synods, the
Popes of Rome have framed contrary to the authority of the Synods.
The Popes despise the authority of the Synods, just as much as they
wish it to appear holy to others [under peril of God's wrath and
eternal damnation]. Therefore this law concerning perpetual celibacy
is peculiar to this new pontifical despotism. Nor is it without a
reason. For Daniel, 11, 37, ascribes to the kingdom of Antichrist
this mark, namely, the contempt of women.

Fifthly. Although the adversaries do not defend the law because of
superstition, [not because of its sanctity, as from ignorance], since
they see that it is not generally observed, nevertheless they diffuse
superstitious opinions, while they give a pretext of religion. They
proclaim that they require celibacy because it is purity. As though
marriage were impurity and a sin, or as though celibacy merited
justification more than does marriage! And to this end they cite the
ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, because, since under the Law, the
priests, at the time of ministering, were separated from their wives,
the priest in the New Testament, inasmuch as he ought always to pray,
ought always to practise continence. This silly comparison is
presented as a proof which should compel priests to perpetual
celibacy, although, indeed, in this very comparison marriage is
allowed, only in the time of ministering its use is interdicted. And
it is one thing to pray; another, to minister. The saints prayed
even when they did not exercise the public ministry; nor did conjugal
intercourse hinder them from praying.

But we shall reply in order to these figments. In the first place,
it is necessary for the adversaries to acknowledge this, namely, that
in believers marriage is pure because it has been sanctified by the
Word of God, i.e., it is a matter that is permitted and approved by
the Word of God, as Scripture abundantly testifies. For Christ calls
marriage a divine union, when He says, Matt. 19, 6: What God hath
joined together [let not man put asunder. Here Christ says that
married people are joined together by God. Accordingly, it is a pure,
holy, noble, praiseworthy work of God]. And Paul says of marriage,
of meats and similar things, I Tim. 4, 6: It is sanctified by the
Word of God and prayer, i.e., by the Word, by which consciences
become certain that God approves; and by prayer, i.e., by faith,
which uses it with thanksgiving as a gift of God. Likewise, 1 Cor. 7,
14: The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, etc., i.e..
the use of marriage is permitted and holy on account of faith in
Christ, just as it is permitted to use meat, etc. Likewise, 1 Tim. 2,
16: She shall, be saved in childbearing [if they continue in faith],
etc. If the adversaries could produce such a passage concerning
celibacy, then indeed they would celebrate a wonderful triumph. Paul
says that woman is saved by child-bearing. What more honorable could
be said against the hypocrisy of celibacy than that woman is saved by
the conjugal works themselves, by conjugal intercourse, by bearing
children and the other duties? But what does St. Paul mean? Let the
reader observe that faith is added, and that domestic duties without
faith are not praised. If they continue, he says, in faith. For he
speaks of the whole class of mothers. Therefore he requires
especially faith [that they should have God's Word and be believing],
by which woman receives the remission of sins and justification.
Then he adds a particular work of the calling, just as in every man a
good work of a particular calling ought to follow faith. This work
pleases God on account of faith. Thus the duties of the woman please
God on account of faith, and the believing woman is saved who in such
duties devoutly serves her calling.

These testimonies teach that marriage is a lawful [a holy and
Christian] thing. If therefore purity signifies that which is
allowed and approved before God, marriages are pure, because they
have been approved by the Word of God. And Paul says of lawful
things, Titus 1, 15: Unto the pure all things are pure, i.e., to
those who believe in Christ and are righteous by faith. Therefore,
as virginity is impure in the godless, so in the godly marriage is
pure on account of the Word of God and faith.

Again, if purity is properly opposed to concupiscence, it signifies
purity of heart, i.e., mortified concupiscence, because the Law does
not prohibit marriage, but concupiscence, adultery, fornication.
Therefore celibacy is not purity. For there may be greater purity of
heart in a married man, as in Abraham or Jacob, than in most of those
who are even truly continent [who even, according to bodily purity,
really maintain their chastity].

Lastly, if they understand that celibacy is purity in the sense that
it merits justification more than does marriage, we most emphatically
contradict it. For we are justified neither on account of virginity
nor on account of marriage, but freely for Christ's sake, when we
believe that for His sake God is propitious to us. Here perhaps they
will exclaim that, according to the manner of Jovinian, marriage is
made equal to virginity. But, on account of such clamors we shall
not reject the truth concerning the righteousness of faith, which we
have explained above. Nevertheless we do not make virginity and
marriage equal. For just as one gift surpasses another, as prophecy
surpasses eloquence, the science of military affairs surpasses
agriculture, and eloquence surpasses architecture, so virginity is a
more excellent gift than marriage. And nevertheless, just as an
orator is not more righteous before God because of his eloquence than
an architect because of his skill in architecture, so a virgin does
not merit justification by virginity more than a married person
merits it by conjugal duties but each one ought faithfully to serve
in his own gift, and to believe that for Christ's sake he receives
the remission of sins and by faith is accounted righteous before God.

Neither does Christ or Paul praise virginity because it justifies,
but because it is freer and less distracted with domestic occupations,
in praying, teaching, [writing,] serving. For this reason Paul says,
1 Cor. 7, 32: He that is unmarried careth for the things which
belong to the Lord. Virginity, therefore, is praised on account of
meditation and study. Thus Christ does not simply praise those who
make themselves eunuchs, but adds, for the kingdom of heaven's sake,
i.e., that they may have leisure to learn or teach the Gospel; for He
does not say that virginity merits the remission of sins or salvation.

To the examples of the Levitical priests we have replied that they do
not establish the duty of imposing perpetual celibacy upon the
priests. Furthermore, the Levitical impurities are not to be
transferred to us. [The law of Moses, with the ceremonial statutes
concerning what is clean or unclean, do not at all concern us
Christians.] Then intercourse contrary to the Law was an impurity.
Now it is not impurity, because Paul says, Titus 1, 15: Unto the pure
all things are pure. For the Gospel frees us from these Levitical
impurities [from all the ceremonies of Moses, and not alone from the
laws concerning uncleanness]. And if any one defends the law of
celibacy with the design to burden consciences by these Levitical
observances, we must strive against this, just as the apostles in
Acts 15, 10 sqq. strove against those who required circumcision and
endeavored to impose the Law of Moses upon Christians.

Yet, in the mean while, good men will know how to control the use of
marriage, especially when they are occupied with public offices,
which often, indeed, give good men so much labor as to expel all
domestic thoughts from their minds. [For to be burdened with great
affairs and transactions, which concern commonwealths and nations,
governments and churches, is a good remedy to keep the old Adam from
lustfulness.] Good men know also this, that Paul, 1 Thess. 4, 4,
commands that every one possess his vessel in sanctification [and
honor, not in the lust of concupiscence]. They know likewise that
they must sometimes retire, in order that there may be leisure for
prayer, but Paul does not wish this to be perpetual, 1 Cor. 7, 5. Now
such continence is easy to those who are good and occupied. But this
great crowd of unemployed priests which is in the fraternities cannot
afford, in this voluptuousness, even this Levitical continence, as
the facts show. [On the other hand, what sort of chastity can there
be among so many thousands of monks and priests who live without
worry in all manner of delights, being idle and full, and, moreover,
have not the Word of God, do not learn it, and have no regard for it.
Such conditions bring on all manner of inchastity. Such people can
observe neither Levitical nor perpetual chastity.] And the lines are
well known: The boy accustomed to pursue a slothful life hates those
who are busy.

Many heretics understanding the Law of Moses incorrectly have treated
marriage with contempt, for whom, nevertheless, celibacy has gained
extraordinary admiration. And Epiphanius complains that, by this
commendation especially, the Encratites captured the minds of the
unwary. They abstained from wine even in the Lord's Supper; they
abstained from the flesh of all animals, in which they surpassed the
Dominican brethren who live upon fish. They abstained also from
marriage; and just this gained the chief admiration. These works,
these services, they thought, merited grace more than the use of wine
and flesh, and than marriage, which seemed to be a profane and
unclean matter, and which scarcely could please God, even though it
were not altogether condemned.

Paul to the Colossians, 2, 18, greatly disapproves these angelic
forms of worship. For when men believe that they are pure and
righteous on account of such hypocrisy, they suppress the knowledge
of Christ, and suppress also the knowledge of God's gifts and
commandments. For God wishes us to use His gifts in a godly way.
And we might mention examples where certain godly consciences were
greatly disturbed on account of the lawful use of marriage. This
evil was derived from the opinions of monks superstitiously praising
celibacy [and proclaiming the married estate as a life that would be
a great obstacle to salvation, and full of sins]. Nevertheless we do
not find fault with temperance or continence, but we have said above
that exercises and mortifications of the body are necessary. We
indeed deny that confidence should be placed in certain observances,
as though they made righteous. And Epiphanies has elegantly said
that these observances ought to be praised dia tehn egkrateian kai
dia tehn politeian, i.e., for restraining the body or on account of
public morals; just as certain rites were instituted for instructing
the ignorant, and not as services that justify.

But it is not through superstition that our adversaries require
celibacy, for they know that chastity is not ordinarily rendered
[that at Rome, also in all their monasteries, there is nothing but
undisguised, unconcealed inchastity. Nor do they seriously intend to
lead chaste lives, but knowingly practise hypocrisy before the
people]. But they feign superstitious opinions, so as to delude the
ignorant. They are therefore more worthy of hatred than the
Encratites, who seem to have erred by show of religion; these
Sardanapali [Epicureans] designedly misuse the pretext of religion.

Sixthly. Although we have so many reasons for disapproving the law
of perpetual celibacy, yet, besides these, dangers to souls and
public scandals also are added, which even, though the law were not
unjust, ought to deter good men from approving such a burden as has
destroyed innumerable souls.

For a long time all good men [their own bishops and canons] have
complained of this burden, either on their own account, or on account
of others whom they saw to be in danger. But no Popes give ear to
these complaints. Neither is it doubtful how greatly injurious to
public morals this law is, and what vices and shameful lusts it has
produced. The Roman satires are extant. In these Rome still
recognizes and reads its own morals.

Thus God avenges the contempt of His own gift and ordinance in those
who prohibit marriage. But since the custom in regard to other laws
was that they should be changed if manifest utility would advise it,
why is the same not done with respect to this law, in which so many
weighty reasons concur, especially in these last times, why a change
ought to be made? Nature is growing old and is gradually becoming
weaker, and vices are increasing; wherefore the remedies divinely
given should have been employed. We see what vice it was which God
denounced before the Flood, what He denounced before the burning of
the five cities. Similar vices have preceded the destruction of many
other cities, as of Sybaris and Rome. And in these there has been
presented an image of the times which will be next to the end of
things. Accordingly, at this time, marriage ought to have been
especially defended by the most severe laws and warning examples, and
men ought to have been invited to marriage. This duty pertains to
the magistrates, who ought to maintain public discipline. [God has
now so blinded the world that adultery and fornication are permitted
almost without punishment, on the contrary, punishment is inflicted
on account of marriage. Is not this terrible to hear?] Meanwhile the
teachers of the Gospel should do both, they should exhort incontinent
men to marriage, and should exhort others not to despise the gift of
continence.

The Popes daily dispense and daily change other laws which are most
excellent, yet, in regard to this one law of celibacy, they are as
iron and inexorable, although, indeed, it is manifest that this is
simply of human right. And they are now making this law more
grievous in many ways. The canon bids them suspend priests, these
rather unfriendly interpreters suspend them not from office, but from
trees. They cruelly kill many men for nothing but marriage. [It is
to be feared therefore, that the blood of Abel will cry to heaven so
loudly as not to be endured, and that we shall have to tremble like
Cain.] And these very parricides show that this law is a doctrine of
demons. For since the devil is a murderer, he defends his law by
these parricides.

We know that there is some offense in regard to schism, because we
seem to have separated from those who are thought to be regular
bishops. But our consciences are very secure, since we know that,
though we most earnestly desire to establish harmony, we cannot
please the adversaries unless we cast away manifest truth, and then
agree with these very men in being willing to defend this unjust law,
to dissolve marriages that have been contracted, to put to death
priests if they do not obey, to drive poor women and fatherless
children into exile. But since it is well established that these
conditions are displeasing to God, we can in no way grieve that we
have no alliance with the multitude of murderers among the
adversaries.

We have explained the reasons why we cannot assent with a good
conscience to the adversaries when they defend the pontifical law
concerning perpetual celibacy, because it conflicts with divine and
natural law and is at variance with the canons themselves, and is
superstitious and full of danger, and, lastly, because the whole
affair is insincere. For the law is enacted not for the sake of
religion [not for holiness' sake, or because they do not know better;
they know very well that everybody is well acquainted with the
condition of the great cloisters, which we are able to name], but for
the sake of dominion, and this is wickedly given the pretext of
religion. Neither can anything be produced by sane men against these
most firmly established reasons. The Gospel allows marriage to those
to whom it is necessary. Nevertheless, it does not compel those to
marry who can be continent, provided they be truly continent. We
hold that this liberty should also be conceded to the priests, nor do
we wish to compel any one by force to celibacy, nor to dissolve
marriages that have been contracted.

We have also indicated incidentally, while we have recounted our
arguments, how the adversaries cavil at several of these; and we have
explained away these false accusations. Now we shall relate as
briefly as possible with what important reasons they defend the law.
First, they say that it has been revealed by God. You see the
extreme impudence of these sorry fellows. They dare to affirm that
the law of perpetual celibacy has been divinely revealed, although it
is contrary to manifest testimonies of Scripture, which command that
to avoid fornication each one should have his own wife, 1 Cor. 7, 2;
which likewise forbid to dissolve marriages that have been contracted;
cf. Matt. 6, 32; 19, 6; 1 Cor. 7, 27. [What can the knaves say in
reply? And how dare they wantonly and shamelessly misapply the great,
most holy name of the divine Majesty?] Paul reminds us what an
author such a law was to have when he calls it a doctrine of demons,
1 Tim. 4, 1. And the fruits show their author, namely, so many
monstrous lusts and so many murders which are now committed under the
pretext of that law [as can be seen at Rome].

The second argument of the adversaries is that the priests ought to
be pure, according to Is. 52, 11: Be ye clean that bear the vessels
of the Lord. And they cite many things to this effect. This reason
which they display we have above removed as especially specious. For
we have said that virginity without faith is not purity before God,
and marriage, on account of faith, is pure, according to Titus 1, 16:
Unto the pure all things are pure. We have said also this, that
outward purity and the ceremonies of the Law are not to be
transferred hither, because the Gospel requires purity of heart, and
does not require the ceremonies of the Law. And it may occur that
the heart of a husband, as of Abraham or Jacob, who were polygamists,
is purer and burns less with lusts than that of many virgins who are
even truly continent. But what Isaiah says: Be ye clean that bear
the vessels of the Lord, ought to be understood as referring to
cleanness of heart and to the entire repentance. Besides, the saints
will know in the exercise of marriage how far it is profitable to
restrain its use, and as Paul says, 1 Thess. 4, 4, to possess his
vessel in sanctification. Lastly, since marriage is pure, it is
rightly said to those who are not continent in celibacy that they
should marry wives in order to be pure. Thus the same law: Be ye
clean that bear the vessels of the Lord, commands that impure
celibates become pure husbands [impure unmarried priests become pure
married priests].

The third argument is horrible, namely, that the marriage of priests
is the heresy of Jovinian. Fine-sounding words! [Pity on our poor
souls, dear sirs; proceed gently!] This is a new crime, that marriage
[which God instituted in Paradise] is a heresy! [In that case all
the world would be children of heretics.] In the time of Jovinian the
world did not as yet know the law concerning perpetual celibacy.
[This our adversaries know very well.] Therefore it is an impudent
falsehood that the marriage of priests is the heresy of Jovinian, or
that such marriage was then condemned by the Church. In such
passages we can see what design the adversaries had in writing the
_Confutation_. They judged that the ignorant would be thus most
easily excited, if they would frequently hear the reproach of heresy,
if they pretend that our cause had been dispatched and condemned by
many previous decisions of the Church. Thus they frequently cite
falsely the judgment of the Church. Because they are not ignorant of
this, they were unwilling to exhibit to us a copy of their Apology,
lest this falsehood and these reproaches might be exposed. Our
opinion, however, as regards the case of Jovinian, concerning the
comparison of virginity and marriage, we have expressed above. For
we do not make marriage and virginity equal, although neither
virginity nor marriage merits justification.

By such false arguments they defend a law that is godless and
destructive to good morals. By such reasons they set the minds of
princes firmly against God's judgment [the princes and bishops who
believe this teaching will see whether their reasons will endure the
test when the hour of death arrives], in which God will call them to
account as to why they have dissolved marriages, and why they have
tortured [flogged and impaled] and killed priests [regardless of the
cries, wails, and tears of so many widows and orphans]. For do not
doubt but that, as the blood of dead Abel cried out, Gen. 4, 10, so
the blood of many good men against whom they have unjustly raged,
will also cry out. And God will avenge this cruelty; there you will
discover how empty are these reasons of the adversaries, and you will
perceive that in God's judgment no calumnies against God's Word
remain standing, as Isaiah says, 40, 6: All flesh is grass, and all
the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field [that their
arguments are straw and hay, and God a consuming fire, before whom
nothing but God's Word can abide, 1 Pet. 1, 24].

Whatever may happen, our princes will be able to console themselves
with the consciousness of right counsels, because even though the
priests would have done wrong in contracting marriages, yet this
disruption of marriages, these proscriptions, and this cruelty are
manifestly contrary to the will and Word of God. Neither does
novelty or dissent delight our princes, but especially in a matter
that is not doubtful more regard had to be paid to the Word of God
than to all other things.

Part 29

Article XXIV (XII): _Of the Mass._

At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do
not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For
among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other
festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use
it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public
ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons of prayers, vestments,
and other like things.

The adversaries have a long declamation concerning the use of the
Latin language in the Mass, in which they absurdly trifle as to how
it profits [what a great merit is achieved by] an unlearned hearer to
hear in the faith of the Church a Mass which he does not understand.
They evidently imagine that the mere work of hearing is a service,
that it profits without being understood. We are unwilling to
malignantly pursue these things, but we leave them to the judgment of
the reader. We mention them only for the purpose of stating in
passing, that also among us the Latin lessons and prayers are
retained.

Since ceremonies, however, ought to be observed both to teach men
Scripture, and that those admonished by the Word may conceive faith
and fear [of God, and obtain comfort] and thus also may pray (for
these are the designs of ceremonies ), we retain the Latin language
on account of those who are learning and understand Latin, and we
mingle with it German hymns, in order that the people also may have
something to learn, and by which faith and fear may be called forth.
This custom has always existed in the churches. For although some
more frequently, and others more rarely, introduced German hymns,
nevertheless the people almost everywhere sang something in their own
tongue. [Therefore, this is not such a new departure.] It has,
however, nowhere been written or represented that the act of hearing
lessons not understood profits men, or that ceremonies profit, not
because they teach or admonish, but _ex opere operato_, because they
are thus performed or are looked upon. Away with such pharisaic
opinions! [Ye sophists ought to be heartily ashamed of such dreams!]

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25