De humanis legibus
De humanis legibus
Human laws are whatever is established by people. And as people now have things, some human laws are civil, while others are ecclesiastical. The civil laws, which are established by magistrates, leaders, kings, and states, are of this kind. The authority of such laws, which should be considered, is taught by Paul in Romans. For it is written: "Every soul shall be subject to higher powers; for there is no power except from God."✦ But those who hold authority are established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority resists God's ordination. But those who resist bring damnation upon themselves. For rulers aren't a terror to good conduct, but to bad. For the role of magistrates and civil laws is nothing other than to punish and to prevent injuries. In this, laws are established regarding the division of things, the forms of contracts, and the penalties for wrongdoings. For the magistrate is a minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath on the one who does wrong. Moreover, it is not permissible for a magistrate to establish laws against divine justice, nor should anyone obey laws that contradict divine justice, as stated in the Acts of the Apostles: "We must obey God rather than men." And from this, a wise reader will easily judge how much we are subject to human laws. We'll say more below about the condition of humanity, and perhaps about the authorities as well. But what about the laws established by the priests? As far as the pontiffs establish laws regarding disputes and judgments, the rulers of the world act accordingly. Otherwise, regarding disputes and judgments, divine law subjected the priests themselves to civil magistrates, kings, and princes. Now, with the rulers turning a blind eye, they have established laws for themselves that are both impious and remarkably tyrannical regarding the immunities of the churches and their revenues, among other things. Here, the duty of charity was being demanded, so that those who are very wealthy might help the public poverty with common funds and expenses, while they impose and dedicate dire taxes on anyone who asks a priest for tribute, tax, or any other kind of contribution that is collected for the common good in public necessity. But regarding these other matters, it’s enough to remind you that the laws of priests concerning civil affairs are established against love and through sheer tyranny. Neither the pontiffs, nor councils, nor the entire Church have the authority to change or establish anything regarding faith, but the articles of faith must simply conform to the prescriptions of the sacred Scriptures. It shouldn't be considered an article of faith if it hasn't been established by Scripture. First, Paul commands that nothing be changed. I say this: If anyone preaches to you a different gospel than what you received, let that person be accursed. So, who can claim to be a prophetic spirit if they disagree with Scripture? But rather, it is a lying spirit that speaks against the truth. To Timothy. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, he is proud. Moreover, many decrees are made against Scripture, which will be discussed shortly. Furthermore, it should not be considered an article of faith what men, whether the church or the pope, establish apart from Scripture, as Paul testifies in his second letter. You should not consider as an article of faith what people, whether the church or the pope, establish apart from Scripture. Hi, you should remain in what you have learned. Knowing from whom you have learned. It is considered important to know where we have learned something from. Now, what do people decide when we know where progress comes from, if it cannot be demanded from Scripture? For this is ultimately clear: it comes from the Holy Spirit. What is said beyond the Scriptures is ambiguous, whether it comes from the Spirit of God or from a deceitful spirit. Paul instructs the Thessalonians to test everything and hold on to what is good. And he also commands that spirits be tested to see whether they are from God. I ask you, how will we test the spirits unless they are measured against a certain standard and thus required by Scripture? How can we be sure that the spirit of God is the only one guiding us? Authority to establish articles of faith is granted to councils without due consideration, or under the pretense that no one in the entire council should have the Spirit of God. In Samaria, the priests of Baal prophesied, and from their oracles, everything was carried out by the kings of Israel. What’s so surprising if now the wicked also prophesy and are without the Spirit of God? The priests in Judah, who opposed Jeremiah and the Spirit of God, arrogantly said, 'Come, let us devise plans against Jeremiah; for the law will not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet.' What else could it be but what the papal church says today: the authority to decide is ours; the council is governed directly by the Holy Spirit and cannot err; the sacred scriptures are obscure and ambiguous; the right and ability to interpret them belongs to us, along with many other things. It has already been clearly stated that the leaders of the Church will go astray. The law will perish from the priest and counsel from the elders. And Matthew. XXIV: False Christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs, etc. Then, in order for the council of the church to truly possess the Spirit of God, Scripture indicates that it can still err. When a prophet has gone astray and has spoken a word, I am the Lord who has deceived that prophet.✦ And in III. (I.) Regg. , I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all the prophets. In the imprint, it is found that progress is what the Scriptures confirm. And what does it matter to many to act? Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, emphasizes the importance of living by the Spirit rather than by the flesh. I say that one should not rest in flesh and blood; should we believe in flesh and blood? I ask you, why do you believe the Council of Nicaea rather than the Council of Ariminum? Is it because the authority of the Roman pontiff has confirmed it? But for this reason, you prefer the authority of the pontiff and the council and Scripture, which is not only impious but also foolish. Why do you approve of the Antiochene synod, which condemned Paul of Samosata for denying the divinity of Christ, when everything happened without the authority of the Roman pontiff? At the Alexandrian council, where a decree was made against Sabellius regarding the three divine hypostases, there was no mention of the Roman pontiff. In the Council of Nicaea, there is no mention of the Roman pontiffs. The writers of the councils of Constantinople and Ephesus made no mention of the Roman pontiff, which suggests that either they did not participate in those councils or, at the very least, did not preside over them. It is not at all uncommon for there to be an error in those synods where the Roman pontiffs presided. Pope Stephen VI. The acts of the beautiful pontiff were annulled by the authority of the council. This is the opinion of John X. Again, he condemned at the council in Ravenna. Here, as the councils fight among themselves, one must have erred. The Council of Lyon should be considered impious because it approved the decretal books, which contain so many cruel and wicked decrees. Moreover, in the papal assemblies, we see almost nothing accomplished except for the causes of Roman tyranny, concerning the subjugation of emperors, the protection of Peter's patrimony, the increase of the wealth of priests, and the oppression of the Greek Church. Clearly, this is a heretical constitution aimed at abolishing heretics, which condemns all who speak differently about the sacraments. The Ariminense council was not a legitimate council, nor was it properly convened. JDecr. Greg. What good is it to you to have a cap? And vgl. Body. This is a placeholder for the required modern English translation. Digilized by Google, regarding human laws. Some people think they know, or they teach, what the Roman Church either teaches or observes. For they are not heretics, the Greeks who in many ways differ from the rites and traditions of the Roman Church. Those things that have been decreed about indulgences in many councils are impious. The Synod of Constantinople condemned, along with others, the most evangelical teaching regarding the distinction of works. Every good deed is either good or evil, not indifferent, according to that saying of the Gospel: "Either make the tree good..." What good is it to mention many things when there are abominable codes of pontifical laws from which you can draw as much as you want? We noted this so that we might warn against the careless acceptance of that common opinion, which is often claimed, that councils cannot err. Therefore, since it is clear that councils have often erred and can err, I ask you, reader, why should something decreed by a council without the support of Scripture be considered a matter of faith? Since it's clear that councils can err, why aren't their decrees required to align with Scripture? May it never be in a Christian mind that one should think to establish an article of faith based on something uncertain, whether it can mislead or be misled. Peter denies that Scripture is the interpretation of private, that is, human exposition. Are we going to allow people to establish articles of faith? But we follow the Scripture that leads us, as Peter says in his second letter, especially when the prophet denies the coming morning light to those who do not depend on the law and the testimony.✦ A well-known passage is found in Isaiah VI. This also pertains to Paul's passage in 1 Corinthians. In this context, where he discusses Christian doctrine, he asserts that there can be no other foundation laid than that which has already been laid, which is that there is no doctrine or necessary articles for salvation apart from Scripture. What is built upon it, he says, will be proven on the Day of the Lord. If things are to be tested on the Day of the Lord, why are they received not only by Richter II but also by undGieseler II? This means: All who partake of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. They don't fear to think or teach differently than what the holy Church proclaims and observes, and we bind them with the same perpetual anathema. Is it enough to be educated in worldly matters, or is it also necessary for salvation? The decree is about the transubstantiation of the bread into the Body of Christ in the Sacrament; it is also about the primacy of the Pope, which goes against the constitutions of the ancient synods. What good is it that certain doctrines are accepted when they lack clear support from Scripture? The apostles confirm their teaching everywhere in the Acts and through Paul, using the authority of Scripture. Christ makes faith for himself through the Scriptures when he commands us to search the Scriptures that bear witness to him; when he says that the Father supports him and that the testimony of two is to be accepted, along with many other things of this kind. In Deuteronomy 12, the Lord commands that nothing be added to His word or taken away from it; this teaching clearly shows that no one is allowed to teach anything as a matter of faith unless they know for certain that it is the divine word. The prophets, Christ, and the apostles certainly knew that what they taught was the word of God. Therefore, they wanted their own voice to be believed. These things clearly convince me that nothing should be held as an article of faith that is not plainly taught in Scripture, so that the Parisians may be shaken from their foolish and impious condemnation of Luther's principles of faith, which they call the dogmas of councils and schools. I believe in the divinity of the Son as affirmed by the Council of Nicaea, because I believe in the Scriptures, which so clearly demonstrate the divinity of Christ that even the Jews cannot twist the truth, no matter how blind they are, to deny the divinity of the Messiah. This passage is open to interpretation beyond others in chapter 23, according to Jeremiah: And this is the name they will call him, Our Just God. I believe this should be judged according to Scripture and the other councils. But what will the Church establish regarding morals, and also about ceremonies? I don't see what has been established by the pontiffs regarding morals. The theologians from Paris declared: isn't it impious for anyone who scorns the teachings of the holy Church and the sacred councils to betray their faith? Is it really possible for someone to believe in the faith of the Catholic Church while refusing to accept it? Is it really possible that laws established by synods, or perhaps those pertaining to customs, like papal laws about wars, disputes, and celibacy, could be anything less than pious if they are required by the Gospel standard? But we will speak about the ceremonies that the Papists believe belong to their kingdom. To begin with, it's not permissible for bishops to command anything beyond what has been handed down in the divine scriptures, whether moral teachings or ceremonies. For Christ sent the apostles to teach what he had entrusted to them, as it says in Matthew 28: "Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you."✦ Therefore, he has taken away the power to establish new laws and new rites. Christ doesn't command the apostles to teach anything except the Gospel. So, what will bishops prove about their right to establish laws? So, does this statement mean that, as Luke says? He who hears you hears me. But in the tenth chapter. Matthew. He does not want to receive a false prophet, that is, someone who teaches human doctrines and traditions. Therefore, he does not want to receive a false prophet, that is, one who teaches human doctrines and traditions. For this reason, Scripture calls them dreamers. But I ask you, Solon, Papists, and others, produce even a single line from the Scriptures that gives you the authority to make laws! However, Scripture takes away the authority to make laws when it attempts to develop them. The new law sufficiently determines the external acts that are sacramental and moral, which pertain to the nature of virtue by prescribing or prohibiting them. However, it leaves the judgment of other external acts to the discretion of certain individuals and some leaders of the Church. It is declared that new laws and new rites for establishing the means of salvation have been issued. The laws of men are often flawed and can lead to confusion, but the law of God is perfect and brings clarity to our lives. He commands that nothing be added to or taken away from the law of God, and Paul, when he calls the Spirit to be the ministers of the bishops of the New Testament, affirms this. For the Spirit is the minister who condemns all hearts through the law of God and comforts them again through the Gospel, effective by the Spirit of God. What purpose do human traditions serve when they only judge external actions? Scripture often condemns traditions more than it can clarify what it thinks about them. What good is it to you if the chaff eats the wheat? What good is chaff to wheat? Lies are just lies, and dreams are just dreams. Isaiah speaks of the vomit of filth, and Ezekiel mentions fornications, the flesh of donkeys, and hippomanes; other prophets say differently; Paul speaks of smooth words or XQ (Txokoyiaq). And to omit many things, Paul indicates where human traditions come from, in 1 Timothy. In the last days, some will abandon the faith, following deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy and having their consciences seared, forbidding marriage and requiring abstinence from foods that God created. What else are the papal decrees but traditions about celibacy, the distinction of foods, and similar trivialities? But what else are the canons of the clergy, except traditions about celibacy, about the distinction of foods, and similar trifles? What is Matth.? XV: It’s in vain that they worship me with human commandments, as Christ repeats from Isaiah. So what do human traditions bind consciences to? Do they sin, those who violate human laws? I respond that the laws of the priests should be borne as we endure any injury or tyranny, according to what is written in Matthew. If someone forces you to walk a mile, go with them for a mile and two more. However, they must be tolerated to some extent, so long as the conscience is not endangered by them. We ought to obey God more than men, so that when traditions obscure the faith, and when there is an occasion for sin, they must be violated; nor does one sin who violates them without causing scandal to the judgment of the spirit. However, we will speak about scandal later. You have, however, no unclear statements in Scripture that teach you not to bind your consciences to human traditions. Everything that belongs to you is either from Paul or Apollo, but neither Paul nor Zepha has the authority to bind your consciences. Everything you have belongs to you. And it is clear in the same letter. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. But they become the servants of men, whose freedom of conscience is taken away by traditions. For just as the freedom of conscience is the freedom of the Christian, so the servitude of Christians is the servitude of conscience. The most open place is in Colossians. The Apostle writes, Since you have died with Christ, why do you still live as if you belong to the world, following its traditions? And it is said that their traditions are repeated: "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which are all destined for destruction through their use, according to the commandments and teachings of men, which have a semblance of wisdom in superstition and humility, but are not meant to spare the body, nor are they for any honor that is due to the necessity of the flesh. In Jeremiah 23, the Lord forbids that the false prophets be listened to, which undoubtedly refers to the case where consciences are put in jeopardy. Thus he says: Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you and deceive you; they speak visions from their own hearts, not from the mouth of the Lord. In this matter, I have some recent supporters, especially Gerson, who agrees with us that consciences should not be bound by human traditions, meaning that one does not sin who violates human tradition unless a case of scandal intervenes. I would have liked Bernard to judge these matters more freely, where he writes about dispensation. The Spirit will certainly judge; according to that passage. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. The Spirit judges all things, but is judged by no one. I can't possibly list all the things that have been established by councils and pontiffs, unless I want to go over the entire body of canon law and the whole history of ecclesiastical matters. However, we will repeat a few examples of such traditions, from which it can be understood what Scripture often warns: nothing is as opposed to piety as the doctrines of men. At the Nicaean Council, certain forms of penance were established. I can't say what spirit the fathers decided upon; but I see that a good part of the Gospel, indeed the true power of the Gospel, is obscured by that tradition. For from that point, satisfactions were first born, which perhaps were tolerable at the beginning, when the understanding of the Gospel was still purer within the Church; but shortly thereafter, from these satisfactions — what has become of the torment of consciences? Grace is obscured, and what the gospel of faith grants has begun to be attributed to satisfactions; what good is it, then, and is it not more impious and harmful? And certainly, the Nicene Council gave occasion to these evils. How much better it would have been to follow Paul's example in the forms of penance, who, without any satisfaction, received that Corinthian adulterer when he repented, also advising him, as it is in II. It would have been better to follow Paul's example in the forms of repentance, who received that Corinthian man back without any satisfaction after he repented, also advising, as it is in II. Moreover, the theologians of our time, following the ancient tradition of the Nicene council, have made a part of penance from satisfactions, a mistake that is clearly more harmful than any other. What good did that papist confession do for the consciences of the wicked? How many thousands of souls has that one alone lost? When Paul wanted to warn the Corinthians not to be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow, he said, 'Let that man be delivered over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.' But what do the Roman pontiffs do, whose invention is confession, except that they cruelly and miserably torment fearful and truly devout consciences? Now that Christianity is divided into so many ways of living, what good is it to Christian love and simplicity? Some are monks, others are clergy, and there are countless sects among them that might be tolerated, unless they compete with each other in studies and ambition. Then, an unbearable burden was added to certain ways of living: celibacy, which was also addressed in the Nicene Council. What benefit there is from that tradition is irrelevant to mention, since it could not have been intended for any other purpose than to indulge in common desires more freely. In the first letter to the Corinthians. VII. , where Paul discusses virginity, he dares not prescribe anything, lest he ensnare them and desires that they be chosen for that through which they can serve God without any distraction and constantly. For this reason, he says, ) the apostle. But what about those who are less diligent or even indifferent? They are more violently torn away from God than those who are consumed by the flames of the flesh. Looking at this, Paul does not call celibacy a doctrine of demons, but rather writes to Timothy about it. Satan has taken hold, and the law has been received and is widely accepted among many thousands of people, bringing great harm to the Christian cause. Now the Eucharist has been set aside for a particular group of people, the priests, and those whom Christ intended to be common to all the faithful are now usurped solely by the priests. Thus, the fruits of the Mass and the power of the Eucharist have been completely obscured, and now the Eucharist is nothing but a marketplace for priests, since it has been discovered by Satan that priests should exist to sacrifice for the people, and that Masses can be sold to the public along with other such things. The use of the Mass would have perished if the conditions for living had not been divided between priests and laypeople. The horrifying and abominable impiety that reigns today in papist Masses! So what good is it to talk about so many things? You see in these examples that there has never been such a pious tradition in appearance that hasn't brought great harm to the Christian faith. What seems to fit better than for there to be satisfactions for public sins in the church? But they obscured grace. What could be more fitting than for bishops to live a celibate life? But through him, celibacy is made a path free from lust. What could be more reverent (for that's how people judge, not the spirit) than not using the Eucharist in a common way with anyone? But thus the fruit of the Mass has perished. Thus, traditions may indeed have a rationale of wisdom, but that very essence, that same deceit of the impious and wicked Jezebel, harms. Common places. * From the Gospel. ! So far, we have briefly discussed the nature of sin and the rationale behind laws, perhaps more succinctly than warranted. For we are not writing a commentary, but rather outlining a certain common form of the topics that you should follow in studying the sacred texts. Now we will discuss the Gospel and grace, from which some light also comes from the higher places. For there is a discussion about the abrogation of the law and the power of the law that extends to this point. Just as the understanding of sin is not grasped except through the principles of the law, so the power of grace cannot be known except through the description of the Gospel. And just as we've talked about human damnation or curse up to this point, now we'll discuss human restoration or blessing. There are two parts to Scripture as a whole: the law and the gospel. The law shows sin, but the gospel reveals grace. The law indicates sin, but the gospel offers a remedy. The law is a minister of death, that we may use the words of Paul, the gospel is a message of life and peace. The law is the power of sin, but the gospel is the power of salvation for everyone who believes. Scripture didn't just hand down the law and the gospel in such a way that you might think the gospel is only what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote, and that Moses' books contain nothing but the law; rather, the essence of the gospel is scattered throughout, and its promises are found in all the books of the Old and New Testaments. The laws are also scattered throughout all the books of both the Old and New Testaments. Moreover, contrary to what many think, the times of the law and the Gospel are not distinct; although at times the law and the Gospel are revealed differently. Every time that concerns our minds is a time for the law and the gospel. Just as in all times, people have been justified in the same way; sin has been revealed through the law, and grace has come through the promise or the gospel. The times of revelation vary, for sometimes it’s the law, sometimes the gospel, and at other times it’s revealed differently, as is evident from the Scriptures. You see, besides the natural law that is impressed upon human minds, there are also laws given by God to Adam, so that he wouldn’t eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and to Cain, so that he wouldn’t become angry with his brother and, in his anger, kill him. You see, besides the natural law that is impressed upon human minds, there are also laws given by God to Adam, forbidding him to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and to Cain, warning him not to be angry with his brother, lest he sin by killing him. In this way, the Spirit of God continually restored the understanding of the natural law, which was already becoming obscured in the blinded minds of humanity due to sin, so that I might almost be inclined to call the natural law not some inherent judgment or instinct inscribed in human minds, but rather laws received from our ancestors and almost handed down through the generations. Just as Adam taught his descendants about the creation of things and how to worship God, he also warned Cain not to kill his brother. But let’s return to the Gospel. Just as the law is what directs us rightly and shows us our sin, so the gospel is the promise of God's grace or mercy, and thus it is the forgiveness of sin and a testimony of God's goodwill toward us. Through this testimony, our hearts can be assured of God's kindness, believing that all our sins are forgiven, and we can rise up, love Him, praise God, rejoice, and exult in Him, as we will discuss further about the power of the gospel below. Moreover, Christ is the pledge of all those promises; therefore, all the promises of Scripture must refer to Him, who was first revealed obscurely and later more clearly. After Adam had sinned and was already destined for eternal death, he would have undoubtedly perished if the Lord had not consoled him with the promise of grace. The tyranny of sin is described when it says to the serpent in Genesis. III: Hostilities are digitized in common places. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers. And immediately victory is promised: The very seed of the woman will crush your head. In my judgment, the term is more appropriately referred to the seed than to the woman, as is read in our texts. This is the first promise, the first gospel, by which Adam, lifted up, conceived a certain hope for his salvation, and thus he was justified. Then the promise was made to Abraham, that in his seed all nations would be blessed, which certainly could not be understood except in relation to Christ. This is the embrace of Abraham, in which those who are received are kept safe; that is, they are kept safe who have believed in that promise made to Abraham. And this is the promise that Scripture proclaims everywhere in the New Testament. A diligent reader can gather all the promises about Christ in this passage. What they are, in fact, is nothing other than the Gospel, Deuter. I will raise up for them a prophet from among their brothers, like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him. But whoever wants to hear the words that he will speak in my name, I will be their avenger. In the second volume of the history of Regg. It is promised to David: 'I will raise up your offspring after you, who will come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.' He will build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. And because of this promise, the son of David is called Christ by the prophets. Indeed, Ezekiel also names David, and the prophets repeat the whole law and promise Christ, which will be beneficial to a devout mind, to note and have the promise readily available; indeed, the malignant counsel of Satan is not hidden, who has translated this most comforting passage about the Son of God through inept interpreters to refer to the Virgin Mary. For in all Latin Bibles, the pronoun is placed in the feminine gender: and she will crush. Digitized by Googli Quid evangelium. You don't know how effective divine things are for confirming and raising up consciences. And in this way, God revealed the Gospel immediately after Adam's fall and then gradually made it clearer until He revealed Christ. That is what Paul writes in his letter to the Romans. I, —: In the gospel of his Son, which he promised beforehand through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son. The writings of our evangelists do nothing else but testify that the promises have been fulfilled. And this is why it is arranged this way in Matthew. This is the book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham, and I call it the gospel of the promise of grace, blessing, and goodwill of God through Christ. In the Scriptures, besides this promise of eternal blessing, there are also promises concerning temporal things, such as the one made to Noah and many others found in the law regarding the land, wealth, and so on. These are not only figures of spiritual promises, but they also serve as testimonies of God's grace and mercy, so that they may comfort and uplift our consciences, glorifying God. And these promises will be discussed below, where we will talk about faith, what faith is, and how it justifies. You see how gently and sweetly the divine Spirit teaches the faithful in the Scriptures, so that it does nothing else but aim to save us. The whole Scripture is a law, and also the Gospel; the books of Moses convey the law, and they also convey the Gospel, so much so that the Gospel is hidden even within the law itself. What could be more gospel-like than that promise, which the Spirit of God attached to the first commandment: 'Showing mercy to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.'✦ And look at how, from the lawgiver Moses, the evangelist—who is a herald of grace and mercy—suddenly became, as he says in Exodus chapter. O Lord God, ruler, merciful and kind, patient and full of compassion, who keeps mercy for thousands, who forgives iniquity and transgression and sin, yet no one is innocent before you. Give in all things, Lord. It is more about the message of the Gospel than about the words themselves. And in this way, the law is taught in one way, and the Gospel in another, according to the books of Moses. Nothing now remains of the figures of Melaothons. , l. oei eowmutim. I speak, but about those things that the written word openly presents. For those things are especially to be observed. The examples of sacred history are also examples of the laws of the Gospel. For the case of Saul certainly pertains to the laws. According to the Gospel of David, who, despite having wronged another man's wife, still obtained grace, there was indeed a clear prophetic voice in that declaration. The Lord has taken away your sin; you will not die. In this way, judgment should be made based on similar examples. The prophets teach the law, while they criticize hypocrisy, impiety, security, and similar things. For they primarily condemn hidden vices or hypocrisy; they also denounce the Gospel whenever they raise up the shaken consciences with their most vivid promises about Christ, animating and filling them in such a way that it can truly sound like the Apostolic question: Who will separate us from the love of God?✦ The apostolic letters of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John convey both law and promises in a similar manner, providing examples of both grace and the wrath of God. The examples of Zacchaeus, the Centurion, and the Syrophoenician woman testify to God's mercy. The blindness and fury of the Pharisees serve as an example of God's wrath; however, the apostolic history differs from the ancients in that it testifies to Christ being revealed, whom the ancients had only promised. Then the promises of grace, justice, and eternal life explain more clearly than those once given in the Mosaic or prophetic letters. The Apostle Paul brought the gospel with grace, especially in his letter to the Romans, which I believe serves as a kind of index for all of Scripture. The remaining letters, although they are almost all related to the law, contain nothing that does not touch upon the principles of the Gospel. What the attentive reader will notice is this. We emphasized this primarily to uproot the widespread error regarding the distinction between the law and the Gospel. The wicked professors of a sophistical theology have claimed that Moses gave Christ a new law, which they call the gospel, and that it contains those chapters which are in Matthew. And so, between the law of Moses and the Gospel, there's a significant difference. What matters is this: while the external law of Moses requires only actions, the law of Christ demands even our inner feelings, as if the Mosaic law teaches a certain hypocrisy and Pharisaic righteousness. What else is the pretense of external works but hypocrisy? Moreover, the emotions required by the Mosaic law are testified to by the prophets, who repeatedly command us to acknowledge God, to fear God, to do justice, and to act righteously, which perhaps the Sophists taught to people before the incarnation of Christ and in their own times. What could be clearer than that statement from Jeremiah, which, whether the Sophists like it or not, must be referred to the law of Moses? He says, however, that it is necessary. I did not speak to your ancestors, nor did I command them on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them: 'Listen to my voice, and I will be your God, and you will be my people.' Tell me, Thomas, what comes to mind about why you teach that the Mosaic Law requires nothing beyond Pharisaical observance, which means external actions, when Moses repeatedly demands nothing but vague feelings? And to omit many places, doesn’t it forbid desiring what belongs to someone else, etc.? The Book of Exodus, Chapter 20. The work had already been forbidden before, when it prohibited stealing and committing adultery. Therefore, you will be warned by these words about your desires: You shall not covet your neighbor's house, nor shall you desire his wife, nor his servant, etc. And Deuteronomy. And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you, except to fear the Lord your God and walk in His ways? CVII; vgl. It must be said that all the distinctions made between the new law and the old are understood in terms of the perfect and the imperfect. It must be said that all the distinctions made between the new law and the old are understood in terms of the perfect and the imperfect. The precepts of any law are given regarding the actions of virtues. Those who are still imperfect and lack the habit of virtue are inclined to perform virtuous acts in a different way than those who are perfect through the habit of virtue. Those who do not yet have the habit of virtue are inclined to perform virtuous acts for some external reason, such as the threat of punishment, etc. However, those who possess virtue are inclined to perform virtuous acts out of love for virtue itself, not for any external punishment or reward. You must love him and serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and you shall keep the commandments of the Lord and his ceremonies, which I command you today, so that it may go well with you. And again: Circumcise the foreskin of your heart and your neck, so that you don't harden yourselves. You will find this kind of thing in six hundred places in Moses, so that nothing is obscure, and both feelings and actions are required by Moses. Therefore, Christ explains the law; for grace cannot be proclaimed without the law, and He criticizes the interpretations of the Pharisees and scribes, since He says from the beginning that they will not enter the kingdom of heaven unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and scribes. This is how the Pharisees interpreted the law: they believed it was enough not to kill someone as long as you didn’t do it with your own hands; and they thought it was acceptable not to commit adultery as long as you didn’t physically violate another man’s wife. Christ teaches that the law requires the affection of the heart, not just an outward show of actions; for the law forbids even the desire to covet. The law also forbade revenge and required that enemies be loved. Levit. You must not hate your brother in your heart, but publicly rebuke him and do not bear a grudge against him for his sin; do not seek revenge or hold a grudge against the children of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I don't know why Jerome preferred to translate it as 'friend'; for in our manuscripts it reads that way, since the Hebrew word signifies 'relative' more accurately, and the LXX translators rendered it differently. Paul quotes this exhortation from the law. This is the essence of that Mosaic teaching: that among themselves, the Jews should love both their friends and their enemies, so that they may earn good from those who do evil. This is the essence of that Mosaic command, that the Jews should love both their friends and their enemies, so that they may do good even to those who do evil. It clearly forbids seeking revenge and demands love even for your enemies. And the Proverbs say, don't hold a grudge against that sin. Don't seek revenge, and don't hold onto the injuries done to you by your fellow citizens. You shall love your friend as yourself. What good is it to you to be digitized by Google? Don't say, 'I will repay evil for evil'; wait for the Lord, and He will deliver you. Now, as far as I know, you won't find these words in the law: 'You shall hate your enemy'; rather, it seems clear that Christ referred not to the law's intent but to the Pharisaic tradition, in order to condemn it. The Jews received a command regarding the Canaanites, to destroy them, as stated in Exodus. XXIII: Some think that Christ came to address the issue of pursuing enemies, as it is said in Matthew. If this is true, what else can we say that Christ intended but that, through the revealed Gospel and the dismantling of barriers, as Paul says in Ephesians, He wanted us to be united? II. , and with the distinction between the nations and the Jews removed, just as it was previously commanded to the Jews to love the Jews, both friends and enemies, so we too should love both the nations and the Jews, both friends and enemies. What about the command that was given regarding the Canaanites, even those who were not Israelites? What about the fact that even strangers are commanded to be loved? This pertains to the decree regarding interest, which is to be charged to outsiders, not to relatives. Now that there are no outsiders, all are relatives; in general, lending is prohibited. Now, since there are no outsiders, all are relatives; in general, lending is forbidden. Cher; E. XX, fgg. It was ethical reasons that drove them. What good is it to you if you know all the Scriptures and the teachings of the saints, but you lack love and grace? Although it cannot be denied that Christ introduced some changes in the law, such as those regarding divorce; likewise, it is stated that when the Jews were commanded to defend the law with the sword, the Gospel does not instruct that Christ should be defended with arms, as Peter is told in Matthew. XXVI: Put the sword back in its place. Whoever takes up the sword will perish by the sword. However, it is not primarily the role of Christ to establish the law, but to grant grace. Moses is the lawgiver and judge, but Christ is the Savior, as He Himself testifies about Himself in John. God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but to save the world through him. The law condemns, since it cannot be satisfied by us; Christ grants grace for sin to those who believe. Christ often preaches the law, saying that without the law, sin cannot be recognized; and unless we feel this, we won't understand the power and breadth of grace. Therefore, both the law and the gospel must be preached together; both sin and grace need to be shown. There were two cherubim placed on the ark, representing both the law and the gospel; therefore, it cannot be that you teach the gospel without the law, or the law without the gospel, correctly or successfully. Just as Christ joined the law with the gospel, so too the prophets connected the gospel with the law. You have examples of this matter even in the sermons of the apostles in the Acts; especially in all the letters of Paul, in which he first discusses the nature of the gospel and later gives instructions.
Read the original Latin
Leges humanae sunt, quaecunque tandem ab hominibus constituuntur.
Et ut nunc habent hominum res, legum humanarum aliae sunt civiles, aliae pontificiae.
Civiles, quas in republica sanciunt magistratus, principes, reges, civitates.
Hujusmodi legum auctoritas quae censeri debeat, docet Paulus ad Rom.
Xin, —, cum inquit: Omnis ani r»na potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit; non est enim potestas, nisi a Deo.
Quae vero sunt potestates, a Deo ordinär tae sunt.
Itaque qui resistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit.
Qui autem resistunt, ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt.
Nam principes non sunt timori boni operis, sed mali.
Nam magistratuum et legum civilium non est aliud officium, nisi punire et arcere injurias.
In hoc sanciuntur leges de rerum divisione, de contrahendi formis, de poenis maleficiorum.
Dei enim minister est magistratus, ultor ad iram ei, qui deliquerit.
Porro non licet magistratui statuere adversus Djgitized by Google jus divinum, nec obtemperari adversus jus divinum debet juxta illud in Actis Apostolicis V,: Oportet Deo magis obedire quam hominibus.
Et ex bac sentenia facile aestimabit prudens lector, quatenus humanis legibus obnoxii simus.
Dicemus autem infra, ubi de hominum conditione agetur, fortasse de magistratibus plura.
Quid autem de pontificiis legibus?
Quatenus pontifices statuunt de litibus et judiciis, plane mundi principes agunt.
Alioqui, quod ad lites et judicia pertinebat, et ipsos sacerdotes subjecit jus divinum magistratibus civilibus, regibus ac princibus.
Nunc conniventibus principibus ipsi sibi jura condiderunt et' impia et egregie tyrannica de immunitatibus ecclesiarum, de reditibus suis etc.
Hic postulabat caritatis officium, ut, qui sunt opulentissimi, publicam inopiam communi pecunia et sumptu juvarent, cum proscribunt et diris devovent, quisquis postulet a sacerdote tributum, vectigal aut hoc genus alia, quae in commune pro publica necessitate conferuntur.
Sed de his alias; satis sit monuisse, sacerdotum leges de civilibus rebus contra caritatem et per meram tyrannidem conditas esse.
De fide non habent jus neque pontifices neque concilia neque universa ecclesia, quidquam mutandi aut statuendi, sed simpliciter ad praescriptum sacrarum literarum exigendi sunt articuli fidei.
Nec habendum est pro articulo fidei, quod citra Scripturam proditum est.
Primum, ne quid mutetur, Paulus jubet ad Gal.
I,, cum ait: Si quis vobis praedicaverit aliud, quam quod accepistis, anathema sit.
Item: qui potest spiritus esse propheticus, qui dissidet a Scriptura?
Quin potius spiritus mendax est, qui pronunciat adversus veritatem.
ad Tim.
VI,: Si quis aliter docet et non acquiescit sanis sermonibus Jesu Christi, superbus est.
Porro contra Scripturam impie multa decreta sunt, de quibus paulo post.
Deinde non esse habendum pro fidei articulo, quod homines, seu ecclesia seu pontifex statuit, praeter Scripturam, testatur Paulus II.
adTim.
HI,: Tu permane in his, quae didicisti.
sciens, a quo didiceris.
Referre censet scire, Digitized by Googlo unde didicerimus.
Jam quod homines decernunt, qui sciemus unde sit profectum, si ad Scripturam exigi non potest?
Nam hoc demum constat a Spiritu sancto ).
Quod praeter Scripturas proditur, ambiguum est, utrum a spiritu Dei an a spiritu mendaci proficiscatur.
Thessalonicensibus praecipit Paulus I,,: ut omnia probent, quod bonum est, teneant.
Et alias jubet probari spiritus, utrum ex Deo sint.
Quaeso te, quomodo probabimus spiritus, nisi ad certam aliquam regulam adeoque ad Scripturam exigantur?
quam solam certo constat spiritu Dei conditam esse?
Temere tribuitur conciliis auctoritas condendi articulos fidei, vel hoc nomine, quod fieri potest, ut in toto senatu concilii nemo sit, qui spiritum Dei habeat.
In Samaria prophetabant sacerdotes Baal et ex eorum oraculis omnia gerebantur a regibus Israel.
Quid mirum, si nunc quoque prophetent impii et expertes spiritus Dei?
Arrogabant idem sibi sacerdotes in Juda, qui adversabantur Hieremiae et spiritu ) Dei, tum dicerent XVffl,: Venite et cogitemus contra Hieremiam cogitationes; non enim peribit lex a sacerdote neque consilium a sapiente nec sermo a propheta.
Quod quid aliud est, quam quod hodie dicit ecclesia papistica: penes nos est auctoritas statuendi; concilium regitur immediate a Spiritu sancto nec potest errare; sacrae literae sunt obscurae et ambiguae; penes nos est earum interpretandarum jus et facultas et hoc genus multa.
Jam et palam praedictum est, fore, ut errent principes ecclesiae Ezech.
VII,: Lex peribit a sacerdote et consilium a senioribus.
Et Matth.
XXIV,: Surgent pseudochristi et pseudoprophetae ct dabunt signa magna etc.
Deinde, ut maxime spiritum Dei habeat senatus conciliorum, errare tamen posse indicat Sciptura Ezech.
XIV,: Propheta cum erraverit et locutus fuerit verbum, ego Dominus, qui decepi prophetam illum.
Et in III.
(I.) Regg. ,: Egrediar et ero spiritus mendax in ore omnium pjophctarum.
im Abdrucke findet: profectum esse, quod Scripturae confirmant.
Et qtrid attinet multis rem agere?
PaulüB Gal.
I, ait, se non acquievisse carni et sanguini; nos cami et sanguini credamus?
Quaeso te, cur Nicaenae synodo potius quam Ariminensi credis?
Num quia eam Romani pontificis comprobavit auctoritas )?
At hac ratione pontificis auctoritatem et concilio et Scripturae praefers, quod non modo impium, sed et stultum est.
Cur enim Antiochenam synodum probas, quae Paulum Samosatenum negantem Christi divinitatem damnavit, cum res omnis citra Romani ponti* * ficis auctoritatem gesta sit?
In Alexandrino concilio, ubi de tribus hypostasibus divinis decretum est adversus Sabel* lium, nulla fuit mentio Romani pontificis.
In concilio Nicaeno Romani pontifices nusquam fuisse leguntur.
Constantinopolitanae synodi scriptores Graeci, item Ephesinae nullam fecerunt Romani pontificis mentionem, ut verisimile sit, aut non interfuisse synodis illis aut certe non praefuisse.
Neque vero raro erratum est et in iis synodis, quibus praefuere Romani pontifices.
Stephanus VI.
Formosi pontificis acta rescidit auctoritate concilii.
Hujus sententiam Joannes X.
rursus damnavit Ravennae comitiis.
Hic cum pugnent inter se synodi, necesse est alteram errasse.
Lugdunense concilium, quia libros decretalium comprobavit, prö impio haberi debet, nempe quod in illis tam multa crudelia et impia constituta Bunt.
Porro papisticis comitiis paene nihil videmus actum praeter causas tyrannidis Romanae, de subigendis imperatoribus, de tuendo patrimonio Petri, de augendis sacerdotum opibus, de opprimenda Graeca ecclesia.
Palam haeretica est constitutio, Ad abolendam de haereticis ), quae execratur omnes, qui de sacramentis aliter Druckort vor —: Ariminense conciliabulum fuit, non concilium, * neque legitime congregatum.
JDecr.
Greg.
cap. ; vgl.
Corp.
ca», ed.
Digilized by Google, r De humanis legibus.
Q sentiunt aut docent, quam vel docet vel observat ecclesia Romana.
Nec enim sunt haeretici Graeci, qui in plerisque variant a Romanae ecclesiae ritibus et traditionibus.
Impia sunt, quae de indulgentiis decreta sunt in plerisque conciliis.
Damnavit Constantiensis Synodus cum alia tum sententiam evangelicissimam de discrimine operum.
Omne opus bonum esse aut malum, non indifferens, juxta illud evangelii: Aut facite arborem bonam etc.
Et quid attinet multa commemorare, cum extent abominabiles pontificiarum legum codices, e quibus decerpe quantum voles.
Haec ideo ad notavimus, ut moneremus, temere receptam esse opinionem illam vulgarem, quae jactari solet, concilia non posse errare.
Proinde cum constet luce meridiana clarius et errasse saepe concilia et errare posse, quaeso te, lector, cur tandem pro fidei articulo haberi debet, quod a concilio citra Scripturae suffragium decretum est?
Quandoquidem perspicuum est errare posse concilia, cur non exiguntur eorum decreta ad Scripturam?
’ Absit a Christiana mente, ut articulum fidei condere arbitretur eum, quem non sit certum fallere aut falli non posse.
Negat Petrus privatae, hoc est, humanae expositionis esse Scripturae interpretationem.
Nos hominibus permittemus articulos fidei condere?
Quin Scripturam praeeuntem et, ut Petrus II,, ait, l v%vov yectvopza iy vvXWQV sequimur, maxime, cum neget propheta futuram lucem matutinam iis, qui nön e legis et testimonii judicio pendent.
Notus locus est in Esaia VIH,.
Huc etiam Pauli locus pertinet in I ad Cor.
HI,, ubi de doctrina Christiana disserit: Fundamentum aliud poni non posse, praeter id, quod positum est, hoc est, ad salutem nullam doctrinam, nullos articulos necessarios esse praeter Scripturam.
Quae superstruuntur, ait, diem Domini probaturum.
Qnod si probanda sunt in die Domini, cur recipiuntur non modo Richter II, undGieseler II,,.
Daheisst es: Universos, qui de sacramento corporis et- sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi etc.
aliter sentire aut docere non metuunt, quam sacrosancta Bomana ecclesia praedicat et observat, pari vincuk) perpetui anathematis innodamus.
Dlgilized by Google pro probae monetae doctrina, sed pro necessaria etiam ad salutem?
Decretum est de transsubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi in sacramento; decretum est de Papae primatu idque contra veterum synodorum constitutiones.
Quae cum citra certum Scripturae suffragium prodita sint ) — quid est, cur pro certis dogmatis recipiantur?
Apostoli in Actis et ubique Paulus doctrinam suam auctoritate Scripturae comprobant.
Christus sibi fidem perScripturas facit, cum jubet, ut srutemur Scripturas, quae de se testimonium perhibent; cum ait patrem sibi suffragari et duorum testimonium recipiendum esse et hoc genus multa.
In Deuteronomio XII, praecipit Dominus, ne addatur ad verbum suum aut detrahatur; quae sententia palam docet, nemini fas esse, id pro articulo fidei docere, quod non certo sciat divinum verbum esse.
Prophetae, Christus, apostoli certo sciebant, Dei verbum esse id, quod docebant.
Ideo sibi, immo suae voci credi volebant.
Haec mihi plane persuadent, nihil pro articulo fidei habendum esse, quod non palam Scriptura docet, ut rumpantur interim Parisienses, qui in sua illa inepta et impia condemnatione Lutheri principia fidei vocant conciliorum et scholarum dogmata ).
De divinitate filii credo Nicaeno concilio, quia Scripturae credo, quae Christi divinitatem tam clare nobis probat, ut ne Judaei quidem tergiversari possint, quantumvis caeci, quo minus Messiae divinitatem tribuant.
Locus est apertus praeter alios in capitae XXIII, apud Hieremiam: Et hoc est nomen quod vocabunt eum, Deus justus noster.
Sic judicandum puto per Scripturam et de reliquis synodis.
At de moribus constituet ecclesia, item de ceremoniis?
De moribus non video, quid sit constitutum a pontificibus ) Die Pariser Theologen hatten ausgerufen: nonne impium se prodet et infidelem, quisquis orthodoxae fidei, sanctis Ecclesia e doctoribus ac sacris conciliis credere dedignatur?
Is nempe cui credet, qui catholicae Ecclesiae fidem habere detrectat?
Digilized by Google aut a synodis, nisi fortasse ad mores pertinent leges papisticae de bellis, litibus, coelibata; quae si ad regulam evangelicam exigantur, quid minus pium vel a Scythis potuit constitui?
Sed de ceremoniis dicemus, quas suum regnum putant Papistae.
Principio, ut uno fasce complectar et moralia et ceremonias, non licet episcopis quidquam mandare praeter ea, quae divinis literis prodita sunt lil ).
Misit enim Christus apostolos docere, quae ipse tradiderat, Matthaei XXVIII,: Docentes eos servare omnia, quae mandavi vobis.
Ademit igitur potestatem, novas leges, novos ritus condendi.
Non praecipit Christus apostolis docere nisi evangelium.
Unde igitur probabunt episcopi jus sibi esse condendi leges?
An ex hac sententia, cum ait Luc.
X,: Qui vos audit, me audit.
At in decimo cap.
Matth.
prophetam vult nomine prophetae recipi.
Non vult igitur recipi pseudoprophetam, hoc est, eum, qui humana commenta, traditiones hominum docet.
Nam hos Scriptura vocat somniatores.
Quaeso autem vos, Solones Papistae ac vofiodhai, vel syllabam e Scripturis producite, quae vobis auctoritatem faciat condendi leges!
Adimit autem Scriptura facultatem condendi leges, cum zu entwickeln versucht; so quaest.
CVIII, art. : Lex nova exteriores actus sacramentales et morales, qui de se ad rationem virtutis pertinent, praecipiendo vel prohibendo sufficienter determinavit; caeterorum vero actuum exteriorum, quosdam singulorum hominum, quosdam ecclesiae praesulum reliquit arbitrio.
ausspricht: ademit potestatem novas leges, novos ritus condendi, sariae ad salutem ausgegeben wurden.
Loci comma®*#.
praecipit, ne qnid Tel addatur rel detrahatur legi Dei Adimit et Paulus, cum vocat spiritus ministros episcopos Novi Testamenti.
Nam minister spiritus est, qui per legem Dei omnium corda damnat et consolatur rursus per evangelium, efficax spiritu Dei.
Ad eam functionem quid quaeso faciunt traditiones humanae, quae de externis tantum operibus judicant?
Damnat traditiones Scriptura saepius, quam ut obscurum esse possit, quid de eis sentiat.
Hieremias XXIII, paleas roeat.
Quid paleis ad triticum?
Item mendacium, item somnia.
Esaias: vomitum sordium, scoriam; Ezechiel: fornicationes, carnes asininas, hippomanes: alii prophetae aliter; Paulus blandiloquentias seu XQ (Txokoyiaq.
Et ut multa omittam, indicat Paulus, unde proficiscantur traditiones humanae, in I ad Tim.
IV,; h novissimis temporibus discedent quidam a fide, ultendentes spiritibus erroris et doctrinis daemoniorum, in hypocrisi torquentium mendacium et cauteriatam habentium suam conscientiam, prohibentium nubere, abstinere a cibis, quos Deus creavit etc.
Viden, spiritnm fallacem auctorem esse traditionum de coelibatu, de discrimine ciborum etc.
At quid aliud sunt pontificii canones, nisi traditiones de coelibatu, de ciborum discrimine et de similibus nugis.
Matth.
XV,: Frustra colunt me mandatis hominum, quem locum ex Esaia repetit Christus.
Quid igitur, quomodo obstringunt conscientias traditiones humanae?
peccantne, qni violant hominum constitutiones?
Respondeo, ita ferendas esse pontificum leges, ut ferimus quamcunque injuriam aut tyrannidem, juxta illud Matth.
V,: Qui te adegerit ad mille passus, cade cum illo et alia duo.
Sunt autem eatenus ferendae, quatenos non periclitatur conscientia per eas, Act.
V,: Oportet Deo magis obedirt quam hominibus, ut, cum fidem obscurant traditiones, cnm occasio sunt peccato, violandae sunt, nec peccat, qui citra scandalum judicio spiritus violat.
Dicemus autem de scandalo postea.
Habes autem non obscuras sententia« Scripturae, quae docent, non obstringi conscientias traditionibus humanis, L Corintb.
III,: Omnia vestra sunt, Digitized by Google sive Paulus sive Apollo, id est, nec Paulus nec Zepha habet auroritatem ) obligandi conscientias!
vestras.
Et clare in eadem epist.
VII,: Pretio empti estis, nolite fieri hominum servi.
At fiunt hominum servi, quorum conscientiis libertas per traditiones est erepta.
Nam ut christiaua libertas est concientiae libertas, ita Christianorum servitus est conscientiae servitas.
Apertissimus locus est in Coloss.
epist.
II,: Siquidem una cum Christo commortui estis, quid adhuc tanquam viventes mundo traditionibus vexamini?
Et subiicit, pupTjtixd); illorum traditiones repetens: Ne tetigeritis, ne gustaveritis, ne contrectaveritis, quae sunt omnia in interitum ipso usu, secundum praecepta et doctrinas hominum, quae sunt rationem quidem habentia sapientiae in superstitione et humilitate, et non ad parcendum corpori, non in honore aliquo, qui debetur necessitati carnis.
Hieremiae XXIII, vetat Dominus, ne audiantur pseudoprophetae s quod haud dubie ad eum casum referri debet, ubi conscientiae periclitantur.
Sic autem inquit: Nolite audire verba prophetarum, qui prophetant vobis et decipiunt vos; visionem cordis sui loquuntur, non de ore Domini; habeo in hoc loco adstipulatores etiam recentiores quosdam et potissimum Gersonem, qui nobiscum sentit, non obstringi conscientias humanis traditionibus, hoc est, non peccare eum, qui traditionem humanam violat, nisi intercedat casus scandali.
Vellem Bemardum de his paulo liberius judicasse, ubi de dispensatione scribit.
Judicabit autem certissime spiritus; juxta illud II.
III,: Ubi spiritus Domini, ibi libertas) Et I.
II,: Spiritus omnia dijudicat et ipse a nemine dijudicatur.
Qualia sint, quae constituta sunt a conciliis, a pontificibus, non possim equidem recensere, ni velim repetere et universum jus canonicum et totam rerum ecclesiasticarum historiam.
Verum pauca exempla hujusmodi traditionum repetemus, e quibus aestimari possit, id quod toties monet Scriptura: nihil perinde pietati adversari, atque hominum doctrinas.
In synodo Nicaena constitutae sunt quaedam poenitentiae formae.
Non pronuncio, quo spiritu decreverint patres; at video bonam evangelii partem immo vim germanam evangelii obscuratam esse ea traditione.
Nam inde primum natae sunt satisfactiones, quae principio fortasse tolerabiles erant, cum adhuc purior esset evangelii intellectus penes ecclesiam; sed paulo post ex satisfactionibus — quae conscientiarum carnificina facta est?
Obscurata gratia est et, quod evangelium fidei tribuit, coeptum est satisfactionibus tribui; quo quid est et impium magis et perniciosius?
Et his malis certe occasionem dedit Nicaena synodus.
Quanto satius fuerat, sequi Pauli exemplum in formis poenitentiae, qui citra omnem satisfactionem moechum illum Corinthium, ubi resipuit, recepit, monens etiam, ut est in II.
ad Corinthios (II, ) sufficere objurgationem.
Porro nostrorum temporum theologastri, secuti priscam traditionem synodi Nicaenae fecerunt ex satisfactionibus partem poenitentiae, quo errore plane non est alius nocentior.
Quid negotii fecit etiam piorum conscientiis confessio illa papistica?
quot millia animarum illa sola perdidit?
Cum Paulus Corinthios cavere voluerit, ne nimia tristitia affligeretur moechus ille!
At pontifices Romani, quorum inventum confessio est, quaeso, quid aliud agunt, quam ut miserrime et crudelissime divexent pavidas et vere pias conscientias?
Jam in tot genera vivendi scissus Christianismus, quid refert christianae caritatis et simplicitatis?
Alii laii ll ), monachi, alii clerici sunt et in his innumerae sectae sunt, quae tolerari possent fortasse, nisi et studiis et ambitione certaretur.
Deinde quibusdam vivendi generibus addita est intolerabilis sarcina, coelibatus, actum que de coelibatu est etiam in Nicaena synodo.
Quid autem per eam traditionem Digitized profectum sit, nihil attinet referre, quando non alio consilio vulgari libidines indulgentius potuere.
In I ad Cor.
VII. ,, ubi de virginitate disserit Paulus, nihil audet praecipere, ne laqueum injiceret vultque hoc deligi, per quod possint servire Deo absque ulla distractione et assiduo, fvnQOfredqoy T(o Kvqioj xai aTteQicrndfftcog.
Sic enim inquit (ibid.
) apostolus.
At, qui minus assidui seu evn^oaedqoi sunt, qui vehementius a Deo divelluntur, quam quos urunt flammae carnis?
Haec prospiciens Paulus, non ) coelibatum, immo ad Timotheum I,, scribens doctrinam daemoniorum vocat traditionem de coelibatu.
Yicit Satan et recepta lex et est vulgata in tot hominum millia magna cum pernicie rei Christianae.
Jam et eucharistia ablegata est ad peculiare quoddam genus hominum, ad sacerdotes, et qui communis esse volebat omnium piorum Christus, jam a solis sacerdotibus usurpatur atque ita et missae fructus et vis eucharistiae prorsus obscurata est nec aliud nunc est eucharistia nisi nundinatio sacerdotum, cum repertum est a Satana, oportere sacerdotes esse, qui pro ) pro populo sacrificent, missas vulgo vendi posse et hujusmodi alia.
Non perisset missae usus, ni scissae fuissent vivendi conditiones in sacerdotes et laicos.
horrendam abominabilem impietatem, quae regnat hodie in papisticis missis!
Et quid attinet multa commemorare?
Vides in his exemplis, nullam fuisse tam piam traditionem in speciem, quae non magno malo fuerit rei Christianae.
Quid enim videtur magis convenire, quam ut sint in ecclesia publicorum scelerum satisfactiones?
At illae obscurarunt gratiam.
Quid decentius, quam episcopos coelibes degere?
At per eum coelibatum via libidinibus facta est.
Quid reverentius (sic enim judicant homines, non spiritus), quam non vulgari usum eucharistiae in quosvis?
At ita missae fructus periit.
Ita fit, ut traditiones habeant quidem rationem sapientiae, sed ea ipsa species, ille ipse impiae ac consceleratae Iezabelae fucus laedit.
Loci communes.
* ^ h DE EVANGELIO. !
Hactenus peccati formam et legum rationem brevius fortasse, quam pro re, tractavimus.
Non enim commentar rium scribimus, sed vulgarem quandam locorum formam adumbramus, quos in discendis sacris literis sequaris.
Nunc de evangelio et gratia disputabimus, e quibus locis nonnihil accedit lucis etiam superioribus.
Nam de legis abrogatione, de vi legis dilata disputatio est in hunc usque locum.
Porro ut peccati ratio nisi ex legum formulis non intelligitur, ita nec gratiae vis nisi ex evangelii descriptione cognosci potest.
Et ut hactenus egimus de hominis damnatione seu maledictione, ita nunc agemus de hominis instauratione seu benedictione.
Duae in universum Scripturae partes snnt, lex et evangelium.
Lex peccatum ostendit, evangelium gratiam.
Lex morbum indicat, evangelium remedium.
Lex mortis ministra est, ut Pauli verbis utamur, evangelium vitae ac pacis.
Lex virtus peccati est, evangelium virtus salutis omni credenti.
Neque vero ita legem et evangelium tradidit Scriptura, ut evangelium id modo putes, quod scripserunt Matthaeus, Marcus, Lucas et Joannes, Mosi libros nihil nisi legem; sed sparsa est evangelii ratio, sparsae sunt promissiones in omnes libros Veteris ac Novi Testamenti.
Rursum leges etiam sparsae sunt in omnia tum Veteris tum Novi Testamenti volumina.
Nec, ut vulgo putant, discriminata sunt legis et evangelii tempora, quanquam alias lex, alias evangelium subinde aliter revelata sunt.
Omne tempus, quod ad mentes nostras attinet, est legis atque evangelii tempus.
Sicut omnibus temporibus eodem modo homines justificati sunt, peccatum per legem ostensum est, gratia per promissionem seu evangelium.
Revelationis tempora variant, nam alias lex, alias evangelium, et subinde aliter revelata sunt, id quod e Scripturis constat.
Vides enim, praeter naturalem legem, quae impressa est mentibus humanis, ut opinor, etiam leges latas esse a Deo Adamo, ne delibaret poma arboris scientiae boni ac mali; Caino, ne irasceretur fratri suo et eidem, peccaturum, qui se occideret.
Digilized by Google Quid evangelium.
In hunc modum legis naturae cognitionem instaurabat praedicatione continua spiritus Dei, quae jam obscurabatur excaecatis pecoato mentibus humanis, ita ut mihi paene libeat vocare legem naturae non aliquod congenitum judicium seu insitum et insculptum^ natura mentibus hominum, sed leges acceptas a patribus et quasi per manus traditas subinde posteritati^ *).
Ut de creatione rerum, de colendo Deo docuit posteros Adam, sic Cainum monuit, ne fratrem occideret etc.
Sed ad evangelium redeamus.
Sicut lex est, qua recta mandantur, qua peccatum ostenditur, ita evangelium est promissio gratiae seu misericordiae Dei adeoque condonatio peccati et testimonium benevolentiae Dei erga nos, quo testimonio certi animi nostri de benevolentia Dei credant sibi condonatam omnem culpam et erecti ament, laudent Deum, exhilarentur et exultent'in Deo, ut infra de vi evangelii dicemus.
Porro illarum promissionum omnium pignus est Christus; quare in eum referendae sunt omnes Scripturae promissiones, qui obscure primum, postea subinde clarius revelatus est.
Posteaquam Adam deliquerat et jam morti aeternae destinatus erat, perisset haud dubie, ni Dominus eum promissione gratiae consolatus fuisset.
Tyrannis peccati describitur, cum inquit ad serpentem Gen.
III,: Inimicilias Digltized \ Loci commanes.
ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius.
Et statim victoria promittitur: Ipsum semen mulieris conculcabit caput tuum.
Rectius enim meo judicio refertur pronomen eo loco ad semen, quam ad mulierem, ut in nostris codicibus legitur ).
Ea prima promissio est, primum evangelium, quo sublevatus Adam concepit certam suae salutis spem adeoque et justificatus est.
Deinde facta est promissio Abrabae, futurum, ut in ipsius semine benedicerentur omnes gentes, quae certe nisi de Christo intelligi non potuit.
Estque hic Abrahae sinus, in quem qui recepti sunt, servati sunt, id est, servati sunt, qui promissioni illi, quae Abrahae facta est, crediderunt.
Atque haec promissio est, quam ubique jactat Scriptura Novi Testamenti.
Poterit diligens lector omnes promissiones de Christo in hunc locum congerere.
Quae plane non aliud sunt, nisi evangelium, Deuter.
XVIII,: Prophetam suscitabo eis de medio fratrum suorum, similem tui et ponam verba mea in ore ejus loqueturque ad eos omnia, quae praecepero illi.
Qui autem verba ejus, quae loquetur in nomine meo, audire voluerit, ego ultor existam.
In secundo volumine historiae Regg.
VII, ) promittitur Davidi Christus: Suscitabo semen tuum post te, quod egredietur de utero tuo et firmabo regnum ejus.
Ipse aedificabit domum nomini meo et stabiliam thronum regni ejus usque in sempiternum.
Et ob hanc promissionem filius David Christus appellatur a prophetis.
Immo Davidem etiam Ezechiel nominat, prophetae in totum et legem repetunt et Christum promittunt proderitque piae menti, subnotare et in promptu habere promissio immo non exsecretur Satanae malignum consilium, qui hunc locum plenissimum consolationis de Filio Dei per ineptos interpretes transtulit ad Mariam virginem?
Nam in omnibus Latinis Bibliis ponitur pronomen in feminino genere: et ipsa conteret.
Digitized by Googli Quid evangelium.
nes divinas, quod ad confirmandas erigendasque conscientias mire efficaces sunt.
Et in liunc modum revelavit Deus evangelium statim postAdae lapsum et subinde clarius aperuit, donec exhibuit Christum.
Id est, quod scribit Paulus ad Rom.
I, —: In evangelium filii sui, quod iam ante promisit per prophetas, in Scripturis sanctis, de filio suo.
Et literae nostrorum evangelistarum non aliud agunt, nisi ut testentur exhibitas esse promissiones.
Atque id est, cur sic ordiatur Matth.
I,: Liber generationis Jesu Christi, filii David, filii Abraham, vocoque evangelium promissionem gratiae, benedictionis, benevolentiae Dei per Christum.
Sunt in Scripturis praeter hanc promissionem aeternae benedictionis etiam promissiones rerum temporalium, qualis est ea, quae facta est Nohae, quales pleraeque sunt in lege de terra, de opulentia etc. , quae non modo figurae sunt spiritualium promissionum, sed per sese sunt testimonia gratiae et misericordiae Dei, ita ut consolentur et erigant conscientias nostras, ut Deum glorificent.
Et de his quidem promissionibus infra agetur, ubi de fide dicemus, quae fides et quomodo iustificet.
Vides, consilium divini spiritus in Scripturis quam suaviter, quam blande erudiat pios, ut nihil aliud agat, quam ut salvemur.
Tota Scriptura alias lex est, alias evangelium; libri Mosi alias legem tradunt, alias evangelium adeoque evangelium intra ipsam etiam legem abditum est.
Quid enim magis evangelicum reperias, quam promissio illa est, quam spiritus Dei pro aitioloylqc primi praecepti subiecit: Faciens misericordiam in millia his, qui diligunt me et custodiunt praecepta mea.
Et vide ex legislatore Mose, quomodo evangelista, hoc est gratiae et misericordiae praeco, subito factus sit, cum inquit in Exodo cap.
XXXIV,: Dominator Domine Deus, miserator et clemens, patiens et multae miserartionis ac verax, qui custodis misericordiam in millia, qui aufers iniquitatem et scelera atque peccata nullusque apud te per se innocens est.
Da in omnibus N.
literis magis evangelicam concionem.
Et ad hunc modum alias legem, alias evangelium Mosaici libri docent.
Nihil iam de figuris Melaothons Loci. , l. oei eowmutim.
loquor, sed de iis, quae palam litera prae se fert.
Nam illa potissimum spectanda sunt.
Historiae sacrae alias legum^ alias evangelii exempla sunt.
Nam ad leges haud dubie pertinet horrendus Saulis casus.
Ad evangelium David, qui cum oppressisset alienam uxorem, tamen gratiam impetravit fuitque plane evangelica vox illa prophetae denunciatio, IT.
XII,: Dominus sustulit peccatum tuum; non morieris.
Ad eum modum de similibus exemplis iudieandum est.
Prophetae legem docent, cum insectantur hypocrisin, cum impietatem, securitatem et hoc genus alia.
Nam obscura vitia seu hypocrisin potissimum reprehendunt; evangelium quoque denunciant, quoties illis suis vivacissimis promissionibus de Christo erigunt labefactatas conscientias, animant atque ita implent, ut plane id Apostolicum sonare possit: Quis separabit nos a dilectione Dei?
Literae apostolicae Matthaei, Marci, Lucae, Joannis ad eundem modum alias legem, alias promissiones tradunt et in his exempla tum gratiae, tum irae Dei.
Zacchei, Centurionis, Syrophoenissae exempla misericordiam testantur.
Pharisaeorum caecitas et furor exemplum esi irae Dei; quanquam hoc differunt historiae apostolicae a veteribus, quod testantur exhibitum Christum, quem veteres tantum promiserant.
Deinde promissiones de gratia, iustitia, vita aeterna clarius explicant, quam illae quondam Mosaicae aut propheticae literae.
Paulus Apostolus dtdccxrtxcog evangelium cum gratia contulit, potissimum in epistola ad Romanos, quam ego puto universae Scripturae velut indicem quendam esse xcd xccvwei.
Reliquae epistolae cum paene nctQcuveTixctl sint, ad legem pertinent, quanquam nulla sit, in qua non alicubi attingat evangelii rationes.
Id quod per sese diligens lector animadvertet.
* Haec monuimus ob hoc potissimum, ut vulgatum illum errorem convelleremus, quem de discrimine legis et evangelii V.
prodiderunt impii sophisticae theologiae professores, Mosi Christum Buccessisse novamque legem dedisse, quae nova lex evangelium vocetur contineaturque iis capitibus, quae sunt Matth.
et VI; inter Mosi legem ac Digitized by Goot Quid evangelium.
Christi hoc interesse, quod Mosi lex externa tantmn opera, Christi lex etiam adfectus exigat, quasi vero Mosaica lex doceat quandam hypocriticam et pharisaicam iusfcitiam ll ).
Quid enim est aliud operum externorum simulatio, quam pharisaismus?
Porro exigi a lege Mosaica adfectus vel prophetae testantur, qui toties praecipiunt agnoscere Deum, timere Deum, facere indicium et iustitiam, quae dabunt mihi fortasse Sophistae ante Christi incarnationem et suorum temporum homines docuisse.
Quid autefn illa Hieremiae sententia apertius, quam, velint nolint Sophistae, referri oportet ad Mosi legem.
Ait autem cap.
VII, ss. : Non svm locutus cum patribus vestris et non praecepi eis in die, qua eduxi eos de terra Aegypti, de verbo holocaustomatum et victimarum; sed hoc verbum praecepi eis, dicens: Audite vocem meam et ero vobis Deus et vos eritis mihi populus.
Dic, Thoma, quid in mentem venerit, cur doceres, Mosaica lege nihil exigi praeter pharisaismum, hoc est externa opera, cum toties etiam Moses exigat nihil obscuris verbis adfectus?
Et ut multos locos omittam, nonne vetat concupiscere rem alterius etc.
Exodi XX,.
Opus iam ante interdixerat, cum furari, cum moechari prohiberet.
Dabis igitur, de adfectu caveri his verbis: Non concupisces domum proximi tui nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum etc.
Et Deuteron.
X,: Et nunc Israel quid Dominus Deus tuus petit a te, nisi ut timeas Dominum Deum tuum et ambules in viis eius Gesetze besonders II, quaest.
CVII; vgl.
art. : dicendum est, quod omnes differentiae, quae assignantur inter novam legem et veterem, accipiuntur secundum perfectum et imperfectum.
Praecepta enim legis cujuslibet dantur de actibus virtutum.
Ad facienda autem virtutum opera aliter inclinantur imperfecti, qui nondum habent virtutis habitum, et aliter illi, qui sunt per habitum virtutis perfecti.
Illi enim, qui nondum habent habitum virtutis, inclinantur ad agendum virtutis opera ex aliqua causa extrinseca, puta ex comminatione poenarum etc. , — illi autem, qui habent virtutem, inclinantur ad virtutis opera agenda propter amorem virtutis, non propter aliquam poenam aut remunerationem extrinsecam.
et diligas eum ac servias Domino Deo tuo, in toto corde tuo et in tota anima tua custodiasque mandata Domini et ceremonias eius, quas ego hodie praecipio tibi, ut bene sit tibi.
Et rursus: Circumcidite praeputium cordis vestri et cervicem vestram ne induretis etc.
Hoc genus in Mose sexcentos locos reperias, ut nihil sit obscurum et adfectus et opera a Mose exigi.
Proinde exponit legem Christus; non enim potest praedicari gratia sine lege, et Pharisaeorum ac scribarum interpretationem reprehendit, cum a principio ait, non ingressuros in regnum coelorum, ni nostra iustitia superet Pharisaeorum ac scribarum iustitiam.
Sic interpretabantur Pharisaei, satisfactum legi, non occides, si manu caedem non faceres; legi, non moecheberis, si alterius uxorem non comprimeres.
Christus docet, cordis adfectus exigi a lege, non externam tantum operum simulationem; vetat enim lex concupiscere.
Vindictam lex etiam prohibebat adeoque exigebat inimicos diligi.
Levit.
XIX,: Non oderis fratrem tuum in corde tuo, sed publice argue eum nec portes adversum illum peccatum; ne vindica nec memor esto iniuriae filiorum populi tui, diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum.
Quod nescio cur maluerit Hieronymus vertere amicum ll ); sic enim in nostris codicibus legitur, cum vox hebraea magis cognatum significet, et LXX interpretes verterint: nXqotov, quos secutus est ad Rom.
XIH, Paulus, ubi hanc ex lege paraenesin citat.
Est autem haec summa Mosaicae illius sententiae, ut inter se Judaei ament tum amicos tum inimicos, ut bene mereantur etiam de male merentibus.
Accedit huc caput EsaiaeLVHI.
quod plane vetat vindicari et exigit amorem etiam inimicorum.
Et Proverbiorum argue eum, ne habeas super illo peccatum.
Non quaeras ultionem nec memor eris injuriae civium tuorum.
Diliges amicum tuum (TO sicut te ipsum.
Digitized by Google Quid evangelinro.
XX,: Ne dicas: reddam mah/m pro malo; exspecta Dominum et liberabit te.
Jam in lege, quod ego sciam, nusquam reperias haec verba: Odio habebis inimicum tuum; ut satis appareat, non legis sententiam, sed pharisaicam traditionem Christum retulisse, ut damnaret.
De Cananaeis acceperant Iudaei praeceptum, ut eos perderent, Exod.
XXIII: quorsum adlusisse Christum nonnulli opinantur, cum ait, dictum esse de persequendis inimicis Matth.
Quod si verum est, quid aliud dicemus voluisse Christum, quam ut revelato evangelio et diruto interstitio maceriae, ut Paulus ait Eph.
II. , et sublato inductoque discrimine gentium ac Judaeorum, sicut antea Judaeis Judaeos diligere, tum amicos tum inimicos, mandatum fuerat, ita nos tum gentes tum Judaeos, cum amicos tum inimicos diligeremus?
Quid autem, quod de solis etiam Cananaeis Israeli praeceptum fuit?
Quidquod advenas etiam jubentur diligere )?
Huc pertiuet, quod de foenore decretum est, exteris foenerandum, non cognatis.
Nunc cum nulli sint exteri, omnes cognati, in universum interdictum est foenus ).
* lassen wollte, vor Allem die volkstümliche Gestaltung des erstebeantwortet bleiben.
cher; E.
XX, fgg.
Ethische Gründe waren es, die sie trieben.
Dlgltized by Google Loci com munes.
Quanquam negari non potest, quin aliqua in lege novarit Christus, quale illud est de divortio; quale item est, quod cum Judaeis praeceptum fuerit gladio legalia defendere, evangelium non jubet Christus armis defendi, imino Petro ait Matth.
XXVI,: Converte gladium in locum suum.
Qui gladium acceperit, gladio peribit.
Tamen non est Christi primarium^ ac proprium officium legem condere, sed gratiam donare.
Moses legumlator est et judex, Christus salvator, sicut ipse de sese testatur Joh.
III,: Non misit Deus filium suum in mundum, ut judicet mundum; sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum.
Lex damnat, quandoquidem per nos ei satisfieri nequit; Christus gratiam peccati donat credentibus.
Saepe quidem legem etiam Christus praedicat, quod sine lege peccatum cognosci non possit, quod nisi sentiamus, vim gratiae et amplitudinem non intelligemus.
Proinde simul et lex etj evangelium praedicari debet, ostendi debent et peccatum et gratia.
Duo Cherubim arcae impositi erant, lex et evangelium; quare fieri nequit, ut evange pfafien, Doctoren vnd münchen exempel vnd leer verfürt, so er Digitized lium sine lege, legem sine evangelio recte aut feliciter doceas.
Et ut cum evangelio Christus legem conjunxit, ita cum lege evangelium prophetae.
Habes hujus rei exempla etiam in apostolorum concionibus in Actis; inprimis autem epistolas Pauli omnes, in quibus fere primum de ratione evangelii disserit, postea paraeneses praescribit.
Scripture echoes
- ↩Rom.13.1 — Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God, and the authorities that exist have been appointed by God.
- ↩Ezek.14.9 — And if a prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the LORD, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from among my people Israel.
- ↩2Pet.1.19 — And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
- ↩Matt.28.20 — teaching them to observe everything I commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
- ↩Exod.20.6 — and showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments
- ↩Rom.8.35 — Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?
Loci Communes Rerum Theologicarum companion
Pair doctrine with daily prayer
Chosen Portion gives your study a devotional anchor: one historic prayer and reading each day, free on iOS
Melanchthon insisted doctrine should end in piety; Chosen Portion supplies the daily devotional practice that study like this is meant to feed.
- A 10-minute daily devotional rhythm to carry alongside your 5-week study
- Prayers and texts from the same centuries you're reading about
- Free install; day one's portion is waiting when you finish this plan's first reading