Article XXVIII (XIV) Church Authority
[1] The adversaries cry out violently here about the privileges and immunities of the Church estate, and they add these concluding remarks, “All things are vain which are stated in the present article against the immunity of the churches and priests.” [2] This is mere trickery, for we have argued about other things in this article. Besides, we have testified frequently that we do not find fault with political ordinances and the gifts and privileges granted by princes.
[3] If only the adversaries would hear, on the other hand, the complaints of the churches and of godly minds! The adversaries courageously guard their own dignities and wealth. Meanwhile, they neglect the condition of the churches. They do not care that the churches are rightly taught and that the Sacraments are duly administered. They let all kinds of men into the priesthood without proper selection. Afterward, they impose intolerable burdens, as though they delighted in the destruction of their fellows. They demand that their traditions be observed far more accurately than the Gospel. [4] In the most important and difficult controversies, in which people urgently desire instruction, so that they can with certainty follow something, the adversaries do not relieve minds tortured with doubt. Rather, they only call people to arms. Besides, in matters ‹against clear truth› they present decrees written in blood, which threaten horrible punishments against people unless they clearly act against God’s command. [5] On the other hand, you should see the tears of the poor and hear the pitiful complaints of many good people. God undoubtedly considers and regards them, and one day you will give an account of your stewardship.
[6] Although we have in this article embraced various topics in the Confession, the adversaries do not reply, except to say that the bishops have the power of rule and forceful correction to direct their subjects to the goal of eternal blessedness, and that the power of ruling requires the power to judge, to define, to distinguish, and to fix those things that are serviceable or lead to the results just mentioned. These are the Confutation’s words, by which the adversaries teach us that the bishops are authorized to enact laws useful for receiving eternal life. The controversy is about this article.
[7] We must keep in the Church the doctrine that we receive the forgiveness of sins freely for Christ’s sake, through faith. We must also keep the doctrine that human traditions are useless services and, therefore, neither sin nor righteousness should be placed in meat, drink, clothing, and like things. Christ wished the use of such things to be left free, since He says, “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person” (Matthew 15:11); and Paul says, “The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking” (Romans 14:17). [8] Therefore, the bishops have no right to enact traditions in addition to the Gospel, so that people must merit the forgiveness of sins, or that they think are services that God approves as righteousness. They must not burden consciences (as though it were a sin to leave such observances undone). All this is taught by that one passage in Acts 15:9, where the apostles ‹Peter› say that hearts are cleansed through faith. Then they prohibit the imposing of a yoke and show how great a danger this is, and multiply the sin of those who burden the Church. “Why do you tempt God?” they say. Our adversaries are not terrified even by this thunderbolt. They defend traditions and godless opinions with violence.
[9] The adversaries also condemned Article XV, in which we stated that traditions do not merit the forgiveness of sins. They here say that traditions lead to eternal life. Do they merit the forgiveness of sins? Are they services that God approves as righteousness? Do they enliven hearts? [10] Writing to the Colossians (2:20[–23]), Paul says that traditions do not help with respect to eternal righteousness and eternal life, because food, drink, clothing, and the like are things that perish through use. Eternal life is worked in the heart by eternal things, that is, by God’s Word and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, let the adversaries explain how traditions lead to eternal life.
[11] The Gospel clearly testifies that traditions should not be imposed upon the Church to merit the forgiveness of sins, to be services that God approves as righteousness, to burden consciences, so that leaving them out is regarded as sin. The adversaries will never be able to show that the bishops have the power to set up such services.
[12] Besides, we have declared in the Confession what kind of power the Gospel assigns to bishops. Those who are now bishops do not perform the duties of bishops according to the Gospel. Indeed, they may be bishops according to canonical polity, which we do not condemn. But we are speaking of a bishop according to the Gospel. [13] We are pleased with the ancient division of power into (a) power of the order and (b) power of jurisdiction. Therefore, the bishop has the power of the order, that is, the ministry of the Word and Sacraments. He also has the power of jurisdiction. This means the authority to excommunicate those guilty of open crimes and again to absolve them if they are converted and seek absolution [John 20:23]. [14] But their power is not to be tyrannical, without a fixed law. Nor is it to be regal, above the law. Rather, they have a fixed command and a fixed Word of God, according to which they should teach and exercise their jurisdiction. Even though they should have some temporal jurisdiction, it does not mean that they are able to set up new services. Spiritual services have nothing to do with temporal jurisdiction. They have the Word, the command, and how far they should exercise jurisdiction, if anyone did anything contrary to that Word they have received from Christ.
[15] In the Confession we also have discussed to what extent they may legitimately enact traditions, not as necessary services, but only for the sake of order in the Church and for peace. These traditions should not entrap consciences, as though to require necessary services. Paul teaches when he says, “Stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1). [16] The use of such ordinances should be left free, so long as offenses are avoided and they are not determined to be necessary services. In the same way the apostles themselves ordained many things that have been changed with time. Neither did they hand them down in such a way that they never could be changed. They did not depart from their own writings, in which they greatly labored should the Church be burdened with the opinion that human rites are necessary services.
[17] This is the simple way of interpreting traditions: they are services that are not necessary. Yet, for the sake of avoiding offense, we should observe them in the proper place. [18] Many learned and great people in the Church have understood it this way. Nor do we see what can be said against this. Clearly, the expression “the one who hears you hears Me” (Luke 10:16) is not speaking about traditions, but is directed primarily against traditions. It is not a bestowal of unlimited authority (a mandatum cum libera), as they call it, but it is a caution about something prescribed (a cautio de rato). Regarding the special command [Luke 10:16], that is, the testimony given to the apostles that we believe them with respect to the word of another, not their own. Christ wishes to assure us, as was necessary, that we should know that the Word delivered by human beings is powerful, and that no other Word should be sought from heaven. [19] “The one who hears you hears Me” cannot be understood of traditions. Christ requires that they teach in such a way that He Himself is heard because He says, “The one … hears Me.” Therefore, He wishes His own voice, His own Word, to be heard, not human traditions. So a saying that clearly supports us and contains the most important comfort and doctrine is distorted by these stupid men into the most silly matters: the distinctions of food, vestments, and the like.
[20] The adversaries also quote Hebrews 13:17, “Obey your leaders.” This passage requires obedience to the Gospel. It does not establish a dominion for the bishops apart from the Gospel. Neither should the bishops enact traditions contrary to the Gospel or interpret their traditions contrary to the Gospel. When they do this, obedience is prohibited, according to Galatians 1:9, “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”
[21] We make the same reply to Matthew 23:3, “So practice and observe whatever they tell you,” because clearly a universal command is not given that we should receive all things, since elsewhere Scripture asks us to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Therefore, they teach wicked things; they should not be heard. These are wicked things: human traditions are services of God, they are necessary services, and they merit the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
[22] The adversaries object, arguing that public offenses and turmoil have arisen under the appearance of our doctrine. [23] We briefly reply to these. If all the scandals were combined, still the one article about the forgiveness of sins—that for Christ’s sake through faith we freely receive the forgiveness of sins—brings so much good it hides all evils. [24] In the beginning, this gained for Luther not only our approval, but also that of many who are now fighting against us. “Former favor ceases, and mortals are forgetful,” says Pindar. Yet, we neither desire to desert truth necessary for the Church, nor can we agree with the adversaries in condemning it. [25] For “we must obey God rather than men” [Acts 5:29]. Those who earlier condemned clear truth, and are now persecuting it with the greatest cruelty, will give an account for the schism that has arisen [Matthew 12:36]. Are there no scandals among the adversaries? [26] How much evil is there in the sacrilegious profanation of the Mass performed for profit! What a disgrace is celibacy! But let us leave out comparisons. For now, this is our response to the Confutation. [27] Now we leave it to the discernment of all the godly whether the adversaries are right in bragging that they have actually, from the Scriptures, refuted our Confession.