The Apology of the Augsburg Confession Part 11

But where has this arrangement, to which he refers when he says that we ought to resort to the aid of the saints, been inst.i.tuted by G.o.d?

Let him produce an example or command from the Scriptures. Perhaps they derive this arrangement from the courts of kings, where friends must be employed as intercessors. But if a king has appointed a certain intercessor, he will not desire that eases be brought to him through others. Thus, since Christ has been appointed Intercessor and High Priest, why do we seek others? [What can the adversaries say in reply to this?]

Here and there this form of absolution is used: The pa.s.sion of our lord Jesus Christ the merits of the most blessed Virgin Mary and of all the saints, be to thee for the remission of sins. Here the absolution is p.r.o.nounced on the supposition that we are reconciled and accounted righteous not only by the merits of Christ, but also by the merits of the other saints. Some of us have seen a doctor of theology dying, for consoling whom a certain theologian, a monk, was employed. He pressed on the dying man nothing but this prayer: Mother of grace, protect us from the enemy; receive us in the hour of death.

Granting that the blessed Mary prays for the Church, does she receive souls in death, does she conquer death [the great power of Satan], does she quicken? What does Christ do if the blessed Mary does these things? Although she is most worthy of the most ample honors, nevertheless she does not wish to be made equal to Christ, but rather wishes us to consider and follow her example [the example of her faith and her humility]. But the subject itself declares that in public opinion the blessed Virgin has succeeded altogether to the place of Christ. Men have invoked her, have trusted in her mercy, through her have desired to appease Christ, as though He were not a Propitiator, but only a dreadful judge and avenger. We believe, however, that we must not trust that the merits of the saints are applied to us, that on account of these G.o.d is reconciled to us, or accounts us just, or saves us. For we obtain remission of sins only by the merits of Christ, when we believe in Him. Of the other saints it has been said, 1 Cor. 3, 8: Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor, i.e., they cannot mutually bestow their own merits, the one upon the other, as the monks sell the merits of their orders. Even Hilary says of the foolish virgins: And as the foolish virgins could not go forth with their lamps extinguished, they besought those who were prudent to lend them oil; to whom they replied that they could not give it because peradventure there might not be enough for all; i.e., no one can be aided by the works and merits of another, because it is necessary for every one to buy oil for his own lamp. [Here he points out that none of us can aid another by other people's works or merits.]

Since, therefore, the adversaries teach us to place confidence in the invocation of saints, although they have neither the Word of G.o.d nor the example of Scripture [of the Old or of the New Testament]; since they apply the merits of the saints on behalf of others, not otherwise than they apply the merits of Christ, and transfer the honor belonging only to Christ to the saints, we can receive neither their opinions concerning the wors.h.i.+p of the saints, nor the practise of invocation. For we know that confidence is to be placed in the intercession of Christ, because this alone has G.o.d's promise. We know that the merits of Christ alone are a propitiation for us. On account of the merits of Christ we are accounted righteous when we believe in Him, as the text says, Rom. 9, 33 (cf. 1 Pet. 2, 6 and Is.

28, 16): Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Neither are we to trust that we are accounted righteous by the merits of the blessed Virgin or of the other saints.

With the learned this error also prevails namely, that to each saint a particular administration has been committed, that Anna bestows riches [protects from poverty], Sebastian keeps off pestilence, Valentine heals epilepsy, George protects hors.e.m.e.n. These opinions have clearly sprung from heathen examples. For thus, among the Romans Juno was thought to enrich, Febris to keep off fever, Castor and Pollux to protect hors.e.m.e.n, etc. Even though we should imagine that the invocation of saints were taught with the greatest prudence, yet since the example is most dangerous, why is it necessary to defend it when it has no command or testimony from G.o.d's Word? Aye, it has not even the testimony of the ancient writers. First because, as I have said above, when other mediators are sought in addition to Christ, and confidence is put in others, the entire knowledge of Christ is suppressed. The subject shows this. In the beginning, mention of the saints seems to have been admitted with a design that is endurable, as in the ancient prayers. Afterwards invocation followed, and abuses that are prodigious and more than heathenish followed invocation. From invocation the next step was to images; these also were wors.h.i.+ped, and a virtue was supposed to exist in these, just as magicians imagine that a virtue exists in images of the heavenly bodies carved at a particular time. In a certain monastery we [some of us] have seen a statue of the blessed Virgin, which moved automatically by a trick [within by a string], so as to seem either to turn away from [those who did not make a large offering] or nod to those making request.

Still the fabulous stories concerning the saints, which are publicly taught with great authority, surpa.s.s the marvelous tales of the statues and pictures. Barbara, amidst her torments, asks for the reward that no one who would invoke her should die without the Eucharist. Another, standing on one foot, recited daily the whole psaltery. Some wise man painted [for children] Christophorus [which in German means Bearer of Christ], in order by the allegory to signify that there ought to be great strength of mind in those who would bear Christ, i.e., who would teach or confess the Gospel, because it is necessary to undergo the greatest dangers [for they must wade by night through the great sea, i.e., endure all kinds of temptations and dangers]. Then the foolish monks taught among the people that they ought to invoke Chistophorus, as though such a Polyphemus [such a giant who bore Christ through the sea] had once existed. And although the saints performed very great deeds, either useful to the state or affording private examples the remembrance of which would conduce much both toward strengthening faith and toward following their example in the administration of affairs, no one has searched for these from true narratives. [Although G.o.d Almighty through His saints, as a peculiar people, has wrought many great things in both realms, in the Church and in worldly transactions; although there are many great examples in the lives of the saints which would be very profitable to princes and lords, to true pastors and guardians of souls, for the government both of the world and of the Church, especially for strengthening faith in G.o.d, yet they have pa.s.sed these by, and preached the most insignificant matters concerning the saints, concerning their hard beds their hair s.h.i.+rts, etc., which, for the greater part, are falsehoods.] Yet indeed it is of advantage to hear how holy men administered governments [as in the Holy Scriptures it is narrated of the kings of Israel and Judah], what calamities, what dangers they underwent, how holy men were of aid to kings in great dangers, how they taught the Gospel, what encounters they had with heretics. Examples of mercy are also of service, as when we see the denial forgiven Peter, when we see Cyprian forgiven for having been a magician, when we see Augustine, having experienced the power of faith in sickness steadily affirming that G.o.d truly hears the prayers of believers. It was profitable that such examples as these, which contain admonitions for either faith or fear or the administration of the state, be recited. But certain triflers, endowed with no knowledge either of faith or for governing states, have invented stories in imitation of poems, in which there are nothing but superst.i.tious examples concerning certain prayers, certain fastings, and certain additions of service for bringing in gain [where there are nothing but examples as to how the saints wore hair s.h.i.+rts, how they prayed at the seven canonical hours how they lived upon bread and water]. Such are the miracles that have been invented concerning rosaries and similar ceremonies. Nor is there need here to recite examples. For the legends, as they call them, and the mirrors of examples, and the rosaries, in which there are very many things not unlike the true narratives of Lucian, are extant.

The bishops, theologians, and monks applaud these monstrous and wicked stories [this abomination set up against Christ, this blasphemy, these scandalous, shameless lies, these lying preachers; and they have permitted them so long, to the great injury of consciences, that it is terrible to think of it] because they aid them to their daily bread. They do not tolerate us, who, in order that the honor and office of Christ may be more conspicuous, do not require the invocation of saints, and censure the abuses in the wors.h.i.+p of saints. And although [even their own theologians], all good men everywhere [a long time before Dr. Luther began to write] in the correction of these abuses, greatly longed for either the authority of the bishops or the diligence of the preachers, nevertheless our adversaries in the _Confutation_ altogether pa.s.s over vices that are even manifest, as though they wish, by the reception of the Confutation, to compel us to approve even the most notorious abuses.

Thus the _Confutation_ has been deceitfully written, not only on this topic, but almost everywhere. [They pretend that they are as pure as gold, that they have never muddled the water.] There is no pa.s.sage in which they make a distinction between the manifest abuses and their dogmas. And nevertheless, if there are any of sounder mind among them they confess that many false opinions inhere in the doctrine of the scholastics and canonists, and, besides, that in such ignorance and negligence of the pastors many abuses crept into the Church. For Luther was not [the only one nor] the first to complain of [innumerable] public abuses. Many learned and excellent men long before these times deplored the abuses of the Ma.s.s, confidence in monastic observances, services to the saints intended to yield a revenue, the confusion of the doctrine concerning repentance [concerning Christ], which ought to be as clear and plain in the Church as possible [without which there cannot be nor remain a Christian Church]. We ourselves have heard that excellent theologians desire moderation in the scholastic doctrine which contains much more for philosophical quarrels than for piety. And nevertheless, among these the older ones are generally nearer Scripture than are the more recent. Thus their theology degenerated more and more. Neither had many good men, who from the very first began to be friendly to Luther, any other reason than that they saw that he was freeing the minds of men from these labyrinths of most confused and infinite discussions which exist among the scholastic theologians and canonists, and was teaching things profitable for G.o.dliness.

The adversaries, therefore, have not acted candidly in pa.s.sing over the abuses when they wished us to a.s.sent to the Confutation. And if they wished to care for the interests of the Church [and of Buffeted consciences, and not rather to maintain their pomp and avarice]

especially on that topic, at this occasion they ought to exhort our most excellent Emperor to take measures for the correction of abuses [which furnish grounds for derision among the Turks, the Jews, and all unbelievers], as we observe plainly enough that he is most desirous of healing and well establis.h.i.+ng the Church. But the adversaries do not act as to aid the most honorable and most holy will of the Emperor, but so as in every way to crush [the truth and]

us. Many signs show that they have little anxiety concerning the state of the Church. [They lose little sleep from concern that Christian doctrine and the pure Gospel be preached.] They take no pains that there should be among the people a summary of the dogmas of the Church. [The office of the ministry they permit to be quite desolate.] They defend manifest abuses [they continue every day to shed innocent blood] by new and unusual cruelty. They allow no suitable teachers in the churches. Good men can easily judge whither these things tend. But in this way they have no regard to the interest either of their own authority or of the Church. For after the good teachers have been killed and sound doctrine suppressed, fanatical spirits will rise up, whom the adversaries will not be able to restrain, who both will disturb the Church with G.o.dless dogmas, and will overthrow the entire ecclesiastical government, which we are very greatly desirous of maintaining.

Therefore, most excellent Emperor Charles for the sake of the glory of Christ, which we have no doubt that you desire to praise and magnify, we beseech you not to a.s.sent to the violent counsels of our adversaries, but to seek other honorable ways of so establis.h.i.+ng harmony that G.o.dly consciences are not burdened, that no cruelty is exercised against innocent men, as we have hitherto seen, and that sound doctrine is not suppressed in the Church. To G.o.d most of all you owe the duty [as far as this is possible to man] to maintain sound doctrine and hand it down to posterity, and to defend those who teach what is right. For G.o.d demands this when He honors kings with His own name and calls them G.o.ds, saying, Ps. 82, 6: I have said, Ye are G.o.ds, namely, that they should attend to the preservation and propagation of divine things, i.e., the Gospel of Christ, on the earth, and, as the vicars of G.o.d, should defend the life and safety of the innocent [true Christian teachers and preachers].

Part 27

Article XXII (X): _Of Both Kinds in the Lord's Supper._

It cannot be doubted that it is G.o.dly and in accordance with the inst.i.tution of Christ and the words of Paul to use both parts in the Lord's Supper. For Christ inst.i.tuted both parts, and inst.i.tuted them not for a part of the Church, but for the entire Church. For not only the presbyters, but the entire Church uses the Sacrament by the authority of Christ, and not by human authority, and this, we suppose, the adversaries acknowledge. Now, if Christ has inst.i.tuted it for the entire Church, why is one kind denied to a part of the Church?

Why is the use of the other kind prohibited? Why is the ordinance of Christ changed, especially when He Himself calls it His testament?

But if it is not allowable to annul man's testament, much less will it be allowable to annul the testament of Christ. And Paul says, 1 Cor. 11, 23 ff., that he had received of the Lord that which he delivered. But he had delivered the use of both kinds, as the text, 1 Cor. 11, clearly shows. This do [in remembrance of Me], he says first concerning His body; afterwards he repeats the same words concerning the cup [the blood of Christ]. And then: Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. [Here he names both.] These are the words of Him who has inst.i.tuted the Sacrament. And, indeed, he says before that those who will use the Lord's Supper should use both. It is evident, therefore, that the Sacrament was inst.i.tuted for the entire Church. And the custom still remains in the Greek churches, and also once obtained in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Jerome testify. For thus Jerome says on Zephaniah: The priests who administer the Eucharist, and distribute the Lord's blood to the people, etc. The Council of Toledo gives the same testimony. Nor would it be difficult to acc.u.mulate a great mult.i.tude of testimonies. Here we exaggerate nothing; we but leave the prudent reader to determine what should be held concerning the divine ordinance [whether it is proper to prohibit and change an ordinance and inst.i.tution of Christ].

The adversaries in the _Confutation_ do not endeavor to [comfort the consciences or] excuse the Church, to which one part of the Sacrament has been denied. This would have been becoming to good and religious men. For a strong reason for excusing the Church, and instructing consciences to whom only a part of the Sacrament could be granted, should have been sought. Now these very men maintain that it is right to prohibit the other part, and forbid that the use of both parts be allowed. First, they imagine that, in the beginning of the Church, it was the custom at some places that only one part was administered. Nevertheless they are not able to produce any ancient example of this matter. But they cite the pa.s.sages in which mention is made of bread, as in Luke 24, 35 where it is written that the disciples recognized Christ in the breaking of bread. They quote also other pa.s.sages, Acts 2, 42. 46; 20, 7, concerning the breaking of bread. But although we do not greatly oppose if some receive these pa.s.sages as referring to the Sacrament, yet it does not follow that one part only was given, because, according to the ordinary usage of language, by the naming of one part the other is also signified. They refer also to Lay Communion which was not the use of only one kind, but of both; and whenever priests are commanded to use Lay Communion [for a punishment are not to consecrate themselves, but to receive Communion, however, of both kinds from another], it is meant that they have been removed from the ministry of consecration.

Neither are the adversaries ignorant of this, but they abuse the ignorance of the unlearned, who, when they hear of Lay Communion, immediately dream of the custom of our time, by which only a part of the Sacrament is given to the laymen.

And consider their impudence. Gabriel recounts among other reasons why both parts are not given that a distinction should be made between laymen and presbyters. And it is credible that the chief reason why the prohibition of the one part is defended is this, namely, that the dignity of the order may be the more highly exalted by a religious rite. To say nothing more severe, this is a human design; and whither this tends can easily be judged. In the _Confutation_ they also quote concerning the sons of Eli that after the loss of the high-priesthood, they were to seek the one part pertaining to the priests, 1 Sam. 2, 36 [the text reads: Every one that is left in thine house shall come and crouch him for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priest's offices (German: _Lieber, la.s.s mich zu einem Priesterteil_) that I may eat a piece of bread]. Here they say that the use of one kind was signified. And they add: "Thus, therefore, our laymen ought also to be content, with one part pertaining to the priests, with one kind." The adversaries [the masters of the _Confutation_ are quite shameless, rude a.s.ses, and] are clearly trifling when they are transferring the history of the posterity of Eli to the Sacrament. The punishment of Eli is there described.

Will they also say this, that as a punishment the laymen have been removed from the other party [They are quite foolish and mad.] The Sacrament was inst.i.tuted to console and comfort terrified minds when they believe that the flesh of Christ given for the life of the world, is food, when they believe that, being joined to Christ [through this food], they are made alive. But the adversaries argue that laymen are removed from the other part as a punishment. "They ought,"

they say, "to be content." This is sufficient for a despot. [That, surely, sounds proud and defiant enough.] But [my lords, may we ask the reason] why ought they? "The reason must not be asked but let whatever the theologians say be law." [Is whatever you wish and whatever you say to be sheer truth? See now and be astonished how shameless and impudent the adversaries are: they dare to set up their own words as sheer commands of lords, they frankly say: The laymen must be content. But what if they must not?] This is a concoction of Eck. For we recognize those vainglorious words, which if we would wish to criticize, there would be no want of language. For you see how great the impudence is. He commands, as a tyrant in the tragedies: "Whether they wish or not, they must be content." Will the reasons which he cites excuse, in the judgment of G.o.d, those who prohibit a part of the Sacrament, and rage against men using an entire Sacrament? [Are they to take comfort in the fact that it is recorded concerning the sons of Eli: They will go begging? That will be a shuffling excuse at the judgment-seat of G.o.d.] If they make the prohibition in order that there should be a distinguis.h.i.+ng mark of the order, this very reason ought to move us not to a.s.sent to the adversaries, even though we would be disposed in other respects to comply with their custom. There are other distinguis.h.i.+ng marks of the order of priests and of the people, but it is not obscure what design they have for defending this distinction so earnestly. That we may not seem to detract from the true worth of the order, we will not say more concerning this shrewd design.

They also allege the danger of spilling and certain similar things, which do not have force sufficient to change the ordinance of Christ.

[They allege more dreams like these for the sake of which it would be improper to change the ordinance of Christ.] And, indeed, if we a.s.sume that we are free to use either one part or both, how can the prohibition [to use both kinds] be defended? Although the Church does not a.s.sume to itself the liberty to convert the ordinances of Christ into matters of indifference. We indeed excuse the Church which has borne the injury [the poor consciences which have been deprived of one part by force], since it could not obtain both parts; but the authors who maintain that the use of the entire Sacrament is justly prohibited, and who now not only prohibit, but even excommunicate and violently persecute those using an entire Sacrament, we do not excuse. Let them see to it how they will give an account to G.o.d for their decisions. Neither is it to be judged immediately that the Church determines or approves whatever the pontiffs determine, especially since Scripture prophesies concerning the bishops and pastors to effect this as Ezekiel says, 7, 28: The Law shall perish from the priest [there will be priests or bishops who will know no command or law of G.o.d].

Part 28

Article XXIII (XI): _Of the Marriage of Priests._

Despite the great infamy of their defiled celibacy, the adversaries have the presumption not only to defend the pontifical law by the wicked and false pretext of the divine name, but even to exhort the Emperor and princes, to the disgrace and infamy of the Roman Empire, not to tolerate the marriage of priests. For thus they speak.

[Although the great, unheard-of lewdness, fornication, and adultery among priests, monks, etc., at the great abbeys, in other churches and cloisters, has become so notorious throughout the world that people sing and talk about it, still the adversaries who have presented the _Confutation_ are so blind and without shame that they defend the law of the Pope by which marriage is prohibited, and that, with the specious claim that they are defending a spiritual state.

Moreover, although it would be proper for them to be heartily ashamed of the exceedingly shameful, lewd, abandoned loose life of the wretches in their abbeys and cloisters, although on this account alone they should not have the courage to show their face in broad daylight, although their evil, restless heart and conscience ought to cause them to tremble, to stand aghast, and to be afraid to lift their eyes to our excellent Emperor, who loves uprightness, still they have the courage of the hangman, they act like the very devil and like all reckless, wanton people, proceeding in blind defiance and forgetful of all honor and decency. And these pure chaste gentlemen dare to admonish His Imperial Majesty, the Electors and Princes not to tolerate the marriage of priests _ad infamiam et ignominiam imperti_, that is, to ward off shame and disgrace from the Roman Empire. For these are their words, as if their shameful life were a great honor and glory to the Church.]

What greater impudence has ever been read of in any history than this of the adversaries? [Such shameless advocates before a Roman Emperor will not easily be found. If all the world did not know them, if many G.o.dly, upright people among them, their own canonical brethren, had not complained long ago of their shameful, lewd, indecent conduct, if their vile, abominable, unG.o.dly, lewd, heathenish, Epicurean life, and the dregs of all filthiness at Rome were not quite manifest, one might think that their great purity and their inviolate virgin chast.i.ty were the reason why they could not bear to hear the word woman or marriage p.r.o.nounced, and why they baptize holy matrimony, which the Pope himself calls a sacrament, _infamiam imperil_.] For the arguments which they use we shall afterwards review. Now let the wise reader consider this, namely, what shame these good-for-nothing men have who say that marriages [which the Holy Scriptures praise most highly and command] produce infamy and disgrace to the government, as though, indeed, this public infamy of flagitious and unnatural l.u.s.ts which glow among these very holy fathers, who feign that they are Curii and live like baccha.n.a.ls, were a great ornament to the Church! And most things which these men do with the greatest license cannot even be named without a breach of modesty. And these their l.u.s.ts they ask you to defend with your chaste right hand, Emperor Charles (whom even certain ancient predictions name as the king of modest face, for the saying appears concerning you: "One modest in face shall reign everywhere"). For they ask that, contrary to divine law, contrary to the law of nations, contrary to the canons of Councils you sunder marriages, in order to impose merely for the sake of marriage atrocious punishments upon innocent men, to put to death priests, whom even barbarians reverently spare, to drive into exile banished women and fatherless children. Such laws they bring to you, most excellent and most chaste Emperor, to which no barbarity, however monstrous and cruel, could lend its ear. But because the stain of no disgrace or cruelty falls upon your character, we hope that you will deal with us mildly in this matter, especially when you have learned that we have the weightiest reasons for our belief derived from the Word of G.o.d to which the adversaries oppose the most trifling and vain opinions.

And nevertheless they do not seriously defend celibacy. For they are not ignorant how few there are who practise chast.i.ty, but [they stick to that comforting saying which is found in their treatise, _Si non caste, tamen caue_ (If not chastely, at least cautiously) and] they devise a sham of religion for their dominion, which they think that celibacy profits, in order that we may understand Peter to have been right in admonis.h.i.+ng, 2 Ep. 2, 1, that there will be false teachers who will deceive men with feigned words. For the adversaries say, write, or do nothing truly [their words are merely an argument _ad hominem_], frankly, and candidly in this entire case, but they actually contend only concerning the dominion which they falsely think to be imperiled, and which they endeavor to fortify with a wicked pretense of G.o.dliness [they support their case with nothing but impious, hypocritical lies; accordingly, it will endure about as well as b.u.t.ter exposed to the sun].

We cannot approve this law concerning celibacy which the adversaries defend, because it conflicts with divine and natural law and is at variance with the very canons of the Councils. And that it is superst.i.tious and dangerous is evident. For it produces infinite scandals, sins, and corruption of public morals [as is seen in the real towns of priests, or, as they are called, their residences].

Our other controversies need some discussion by the doctors; in this the subject is so manifest to both parties that it requires no discussion. It only requires as judge a man that is honest and fears G.o.d. And although the manifest truth is defended by us, yet the adversaries have devised certain reproaches for satirizing our arguments.

First. Gen. 1, 28 teaches that men were created to be fruitful, and that one s.e.x in a proper way should desire the other. For we are speaking not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that appet.i.te which was to have been in nature in its integrity [which would have existed in nature even if it had remained uncorrupted], which they call physical love. And this love of one s.e.x for the other is truly a divine ordinance. But since this ordinance of G.o.d cannot be removed without an extraordinary work of G.o.d, it follows that the right to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows.

The adversaries cavil at these arguments; they say that in the beginning the commandment was given to replenish the earth but that now since the earth has been replenished, marriage is not commanded.

See how wisely they judge! The nature of men is so formed by the word of G.o.d that it is fruitful not only in the beginning of the creation, but as long as this nature of our bodies will exist just as the earth becomes fruitful by the word Gen. 1, 11: Let the earth bring forth gra.s.s, yielding seed. Because of this ordinance the earth not only commenced in the beginning to bring forth plants, but the fields are clothed every year as long as this natural order will exist. Therefore, just as by human laws the nature of the earth cannot be changed, so, without a special work of G.o.d the nature of a human being can be changed neither by vows nor by human law [that a woman should not desire a man, nor a man a woman].

Secondly. And because this creation or divine ordinance in man is a natural right, jurists have accordingly said wisely and correctly that the union of male and female belongs to natural right. But since natural right is immutable, the right to contract marriage must always remain. For where nature does not change, that ordinance also with which G.o.d has endowed nature does not change, and cannot be removed by human laws. Therefore it is ridiculous for the adversaries to prate that marriage was commanded in the beginning, but is not now. This is the same as if they would say: Formerly, when men were born, they brought with them s.e.x; now they do not.

Formerly, when they were born, they brought with them natural right, now they do not. No craftsman (Faber) could produce anything more crafty than these absurdities, which were devised to elude a right of nature. Therefore let this remain in the case which both Scripture teaches and the jurist says wisely, namely, that the union of male and female belongs to natural right. Moreover, a natural right is truly a divine right, because it is an ordinance divinely impressed upon nature. But inasmuch as this right cannot be changed without an extraordinary work of G.o.d, it is necessary that the right to contract marriage remains, because the natural desire of s.e.x for s.e.x is an ordinance of G.o.d in nature, and for this reason is a right; otherwise, why would both s.e.xes have been created? And we are speaking, as it has been said above, not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that desire which they call physical love [which would have existed between man and woman even though their nature had remained pure], which concupiscence has not removed from nature, but inflames, so that now it has greater need of a remedy, and marriage is necessary not only for the sake of procreation, but also as a remedy [to guard against sins]. These things are clear, and so well established that they can in no way be overthrown.

Thirdly. Paul says, 1 Cor. 7, 2: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. This now is an express command pertaining to all who are not fit for celibacy. The adversaries ask that a commandment be shown them which commands priests to marry. As though priests are not men! We judge indeed that the things which we maintain concerning human nature in general pertain also to priests. Does not Paul here command those who have not the gift of continence to marry?

For he interprets himself a little after when he says, v. 9: It is better to marry than to burn. And Christ has clearly said Matt. 19, 11: All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

Because now, since sin [since the fall of Adam], these two things concur, namely, natural appet.i.te and concupiscence, which inflames the natural appet.i.te, so that now there is more need of marriage than in nature in its integrity, Paul accordingly speaks of marriage as a remedy, and on account of these flames commands to marry. Neither can any human authority, any law, any vows remove this declaration: It is better to marry than to burn, because they do not remove the nature or concupiscence. Therefore all who burn, retain the right to marry. By this commandment of Paul: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, all are held bound who do not truly keep themselves continent; the decision concerning which pertains to the conscience of each one.

For as they here give the command to seek continence of G.o.d, and to weaken the body by labors and hunger, why do they not proclaim these magnificent commandments to themselves? But, as we have said above, the adversaries are only playing; they are doing nothing seriously.

If continence were possible to all, it would not require a peculiar gift. But Christ shows that it has need of a peculiar gift; therefore it does not belong to all. G.o.d wishes the rest to use the common law of nature which He has inst.i.tuted. For G.o.d does not wish His ordinances, His creations to be despised. He wishes men to be chaste in this way, that they use the remedy divinely presented, just as He wishes to nourish our life in this way, that we use food and drink. Gerson also testifies that there have been many good men who endeavored to subdue the body, and yet made little progress.

Accordingly, Ambrose is right in saying: Virginity is only a thing that can be recommended, but not commanded; it is a matter of vow rather than of precept. If any one here would raise the objection that Christ praises those which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, Matt. 19, 12, let him also consider this, that He is praising such as have the gift of continence, for on this account He adds: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

For an impure continence [such as there is in monasteries and cloisters] does not please Christ. We also praise true continence.

But now we are disputing concerning the law and concerning those who do not have the gift of continence. The matter ought to be left free and snares ought not to be cast upon the weak through this law.

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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d's wrath and eternal d.a.m.nation]. 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 superst.i.tion, [not because of its sanct.i.ty, as from ignorance], since they see that it is not generally observed, nevertheless they diffuse superst.i.tious 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 G.o.d, i.e., it is a matter that is permitted and approved by the Word of G.o.d, as Scripture abundantly testifies. For Christ calls marriage a divine union, when He says, Matt. 19, 6: What G.o.d hath joined together [let not man put asunder. Here Christ says that married people are joined together by G.o.d. Accordingly, it is a pure, holy, n.o.ble, praiseworthy work of G.o.d]. And Paul says of marriage, of meats and similar things, I Tim. 4, 6: It is sanctified by the Word of G.o.d and prayer, i.e., by the Word, by which consciences become certain that G.o.d approves; and by prayer, i.e., by faith, which uses it with thanksgiving as a gift of G.o.d. 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 pa.s.sage 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 cla.s.s of mothers. Therefore he requires especially faith [that they should have G.o.d'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 G.o.d on account of faith. Thus the duties of the woman please G.o.d 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 G.o.d, marriages are pure, because they have been approved by the Word of G.o.d. And Paul says of lawful things, t.i.tus 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 G.o.dless, so in the G.o.dly marriage is pure on account of the Word of G.o.d 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 chast.i.ty].

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 G.o.d 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 surpa.s.ses another, as prophecy surpa.s.ses eloquence, the science of military affairs surpa.s.ses agriculture, and eloquence surpa.s.ses architecture, so virginity is a more excellent gift than marriage. And nevertheless, just as an orator is not more righteous before G.o.d 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 G.o.d.