(Church laws and traditions, and the Christian’s conscience before God, 1-4)
1. THE BASIC QUESTION
The second part of church power follows.F311 The Romanists wish this to consist in the making of laws. From this source have arisen innumerable human traditions—so many nets to ensnare miserable souls. For they have no more scruples than the scribes and Pharisees about laying on other men’s shoulders burdens which they would not touch with their finger [<421146>
Luke 11:46; cf. <402304>
Matthew 23:4]. I have elsewhere taught what cruel butchery their teaching about auricular confession is.F312 In their other laws such great violence does not appear; but those which seem most bearable of all tyrannously oppress consciences. I say nothing of their corrupting the worship of God, and their depriving God himself, who is the sole lawgiver, of his right.
This is the power now to be discussed, whether the church may lawfully bind consciences by its laws. In this discussion we are not dealing with the political order, but are only concerned with how God is to be duly
worshiped according to the rule laid down by him, and how the spiritual freedom which looks to God may remain unimpaired for us.
It has become common usage to call all decrees concerning the worship of God put forward by men apart from his Word “human traditions.” Our contention is against these, not against holy and useful church institutions, which provide for the preservation of discipline or honesty or peace. But the purpose of our effort is to restrain this unlimited and barbarous empire
usurped over souls by those who wish to be counted pastors of the church but are actually its most savage butchers. They say the laws they make are
“spiritual,” pertaining to the soul, and declare them necessary for eternal life.F313 But thus the Kingdom of Christ (as I have just suggestedF314) is invaded; thus the freedom given by him to the consciences of believers is utterly oppressed and cast down. I am not now discussing the great impiety with which they sanction the observance of their laws, while they teach men to seek forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and salvation from this observance, and while they establish the whole of religion and the sum of piety in it. I assert the one point that necessity ought not to be imposed upon consciences in those matters from which they have been freed by Christ; and unless freed, as we have previously taught,F315 they cannot rest with God. They should acknowledge one King, their deliverer Christ, and should be governed by one law of freedom, the holy Word of the gospel, if they would retain the grace which they once obtained in Christ. They must be held in no bondage, and bound by no bonds.
2. THE ROMAN CONSTITUTIONS ENSLAVE CONSCIENCES These Solons even fancy that their constitutions are laws of freedom, a gentle yoke, a light burden [<401130>Matthew 11:30],F316 but who does not see that this is pure falsehood? They do not feel their laws oppressive when, casting aside the fear of God, they heedlessly and actively neglect both their own and divine laws. But those men who are moved by some concern for their own salvation are far from regarding themselves as free so long as they are entangled in these snares. We see how cautiously Paul dealt with this matter, not daring in even one thing to lay a restraint upon men [<460735>
1 Corinthians 7:35]. And with good reason! He surely
foresaw how great a wound would be inflicted upon consciences if in those matters which the Lord left free, necessity were imposed. On the contrary, one can scarcely count the constitutions which these men have very
grievously decreed under pain of eternal death, and which they with the greatest severity require as necessary for salvation.F318 And among these are very many extremely difficult to observe, but all, if piled up together, are impossible, so great is the pile. How, then, can they who are so burdened with great difficulties escape being perplexed and tortured with extreme anguish and terror?
My purpose here is, therefore, to attack constitutions made to bind souls inwardly before God and to lay scruples on them, as if enjoining things necessary to salvation.
3. THE NATURE OF CONSCIENCE
This question embarrasses most men because they do not distinguish subtly enough between the outward forum (as they call it) and the forum of conscience.F319 The difficulty is increased, besides, by the fact that Paul teaches us to obey the magistrate, not only because of fear of punishment, but because of conscience [<451301>Romans 13:1 ff.]. From this it follows that consciences are also bound by civil laws. But if this were so, all that we said in the previous chapterF320 and what I am now going to say about spiritual government would fall.
To solve this difficulty, it first behooves us to grasp what conscience is.
We must take our definition from the etymology of the word. When men grasp the conception of things with the mind and the understanding they are said “to know,” from which the word “knowledge” is derived.F321 In like manner, when men have an awareness of divine judgment adjoined to them as a witness which does not let them hide their sins but arraigns them as guilty before the judgment seat—this awareness is called “conscience.”
It is a certain mean between God and man, for it does not allow man to suppress within himself what he knows, but pursues him to the point of making him acknowledge his guilt.
This is what Paul means when he teaches that conscience testifies to men, while their thoughts accuse or excuse them in God’s judgment
[<450215>Romans 2:15-16]. A simple awareness could repose in man,
bottled up, as it were. Therefore, this feeling, which draws men to God’s judgment, is like a keeper assigned to man, that watches and observes all his secrets so that nothing may remain buried in darkness. Hence that ancient proverb: conscience is a thousand witnesses.F322 By like reasoning, Peter also put “the responseF323 of a good conscience to God” [<600321>
1 Peter 3:21] as equivalent to peace of mind, when, convinced of Christ’s grace, we fearlessly present ourselves before God. And when the author of the Letter to the Hebrews states that we “no longer have any
consciousness of sin” [<581002>Hebrews 10:2], he means that we are freed or absolved so that sin can no longer accuse us.
4. BONDAGE AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE
Therefore, just as works concern men, so the conscience relates to God in such a way that a good conscience is nothing but an inward uprightness of heart. In this sense, Paul writes that “the fulfillment of the law is love, out of a pure... conscience and faith unfeigned” [<540105>1 Timothy 1:5 p.].
Afterward, in the same chapter, he shows how much it differs from
understanding, saying that certain ones “made shipwreck of faith” because they had “forsaken a good conscience” [<540119>
1 Timothy 1:19]. For by these words he indicates that it is a lively longing to worship God and a sincere intent to live a godly and holy life.
Sometimes, it is extended also to men, as when the same Paul, according to Luke, testifies that he tried to walk with a good conscience toward God and men [<442416>Acts 24:16]. But this was said because the blessings of a good conscience flow to and even reach men. But speaking properly, it refers to God alone, as I have already said.F324
Hence it happens that the law is said to bind the conscience when it simply binds man, without regard to other men, or without having any consideration for them. For example: God not only teaches us to keep our mind chaste and pure from all lust, but forbids any obscenity of speech and outward wantonness. My conscience is subject to the observance of this law, even though no man were alive in the world. Thus, he who conducts himself intemperately sins not so much because he furnishes a bad example to his brethren as in that his conscience is bound with guilt before God.
In things intrinsically indifferent there is another consideration. For we ought to abstain from them if they cause any offense, but with a free conscience. So Paul speaks of meat consecrated to idols: “If anyone raises objection,” he says, “do not touch it, for conscience’ sake; I speak not of your conscience but another’s” [<461028>1 Corinthians 10:28-29 p.]. A faithful man would sin if, previously warned, he nonetheless ate such meat. But however necessary abstention may be to him with regard to his brother, as is prescribed by God, still he does not cease to retain freedom
of conscience. We see that this law, binding only outward works, leaves the conscience free.
(Conscience in relation to human and papal laws:
God the only lawgiver, 5-8)
5. THE MEANING OF HUMAN LAWS FOR THE CONSCIENCE Now let us return to human laws. If they were passed to lay scruples upon us, as if the observance of these laws were necessary of itself, we say that something unlawful is laid upon conscience. For our consciences do not have to do with men but with God alone. This is the purport of that common distinction between the earthly forum and the forum of conscience. While the whole world was shrouded in the densest darkness of ignorance, this tiny little spark of light remained, that men recognized man’s conscience to be higher than all human judgments. Although they afterward indeed cast away what they confessed in one word, God still willed that some testimony of Christian freedom appear even then, to rescue consciences from the tyranny of men.
But the difficulty arising out of Paul’s words has not yet been disposed of.F325 For if we must obey rulers not only because of punishment but for conscience’ sake [<451305>Romans 13:5], it seems to follow from this that the rulers’ laws also have dominion over the conscience. Now, if this is true, the same also will have to be said of church laws.
I reply: we must first distinguish here between genus and species. For even though individual laws may not apply to the conscience, we are still held by God’s general command, which commends to us the authority of magistrates. And Paul’s discussion turns on this point: the magistrates, since they have been ordained by God, ought to be held in honor
[<451301>Romans 13:1]. Meanwhile, he does not teach that the laws framed
by them apply to the inward governing of the soul, since he everywhere extols, above any decrees of men, both the worship of God and the spiritual rule of right living.F326
Another thing is also worth noting (which depends, however, upon the previous ones): human laws, whether made by magistrate or by church, even though they have to be observed (I speak of good and just laws), still
do not of themselves bind the conscience. For all obligation to observe laws looks to the general purpose, but does not consist in the things enjoined.
Far different from this order are those laws which prescribe a new form for worshiping God, and impose necessity even in matters that are free.
6. THE CHURCH HAS NO RIGHT TO SET UP INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONS TO BIND CONSCIENCES
Such, moreover, are what are called today in the papacy “ecclesiastical constitutions,” which are thrust upon men as true and necessary worship of God. And as these are innumerable, so innumerable are the traps to catch and ensnare souls. We touched upon this slightly in the explanation of the law.F327 However, because this was a more suitable place for a proper treatment of it. I shall now try to sum up the whole matter in the best order I can. And because we have recently discussed at sufficient length (as it seemed) the tyranny which the false bishops claim for themselves in the license to teach whatever they please, I shall omit that whole field. Here I shall stop only to explain the power to make laws which they say they have.
Our false bishops, therefore, burden our consciences with new laws on the pretext that they have been appointed by the Lord spiritual lawgivers, as a consequence of which the government of the church has been entrusted to them. Accordingly, they contend that whatever they command and prescribe must of necessity be observed by Christian people. Anyone who violates it they hold guilty of double disobedience, because he is a rebel against God and the church.F328
Certainly, if they were true bishops, I would grant them authority in this respect, not as much as they claim, but as much as is required duly to maintain the government of the church; now, since they are everything but what they would have themselves esteemed, they cannot take upon themselves even the least authority without stepping out of bounds.
But because this also has been looked at elsewhere,F329 let us concede to them for the present that whatever power true bishops have belongs to these men by right. Yet I deny that they have so been appointed lawgivers
over believers as to be able by themselves to prescribe a rule of life, or to force their ordinances upon the people committed to them. When I say this, I mean that they have no right to command the church to observe as obligatory what they have themselves conceived apart from God’s Word.
Since that right was both unknown to the apostles, and many times denied the ministers of the church by the Lord’s own mouth, aI marvel that anyone, contrary to the example of the apostles and against the clear prohibition of God, dared seize this right and dare defend it today!
7. ALL ARBITRARY LORDSHIP IS AN ENCROACHMENT UPON GOD’S KINGDOM
In his law the Lord has included everything applicable to the perfect rule of the good life, so that nothing is left to men to add to that summary.F330 He did this for two reasons. The first is that he wants us to regard himself as the master and guide of our life. This we shall do if all our actions conform to the standard of his will, for in it all righteous living consists.
The second is that he wants us to realize there is nothing he requires of us more than obedience. “For this reason, James says: “He who judges his brother... judges the law; he who judges the law is not a keeper of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver... who is able to save and destroy”
[<590411>
James 4:11-12 p.]. We hear that God claims this one prerogative as his very own—to rule us by the authority and laws of his Word. And he had said this previously through Isaiah, albeit a little less clearly: “The Lord is our king, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our judge; he will save us” [<233322>
Isaiah 33:22 p.]. Both passages show that the power of life and death is his who has jurisdiction over the soul. Indeed, James clearly declares this. Further, no man can take this to himself. “We ought, therefore, to acknowledge God as sole ruler of souls, with whom alone is the power to save and to destroy, as those words of Isaiah declare that he is at once ruler and judge and lawgiver and savior [<233322>Isaiah 33:22].
Therefore, ‘Peter, when admonishing the shepherds as to their office, exhorts them to feed their flock, without domineering over the “clergy”
[<600502>
1 Peter 5:2-3]; by this term he means the inheritance of God, that is, the believing folk. If we duly weigh this, that it is unlawful to transfer to man what God reserves for himself, we shall understand that the whole
power of those who wish to advance themselves to command anything in the church apart from God’s Word is thus cut off.
8. DIRECTIONS TO DETERMINE WHICH HUMAN CONSTITUTIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE
The whole case rests upon this: if God is the sole lawgiver, men are not permitted to usurp this honor. Consequently, we ought at the same time to keep in mind these two reasons already mentioned why the Lord claims this for himself alone. The first is that we should have in his will the perfect rule of all righteousness and holiness, and thus in knowing him possess the perfect knowledge of the good life. The second is that he alone (when we seek the way to worship him aright and fitly) has authority over our souls, him we ought to obey, and upon his will we ought to wait.
Having noted these two reasons, we should be able with ease to
distinguish what human constitutionsF331 are contrary to the Lord’s Word.
All of these are of the sort that pretend to relate to the true worship of God, and that consciences are bound to keep, as if their observance were compulsory. Let us, therefore, remember that all human laws are to be weighed in this balance if we wish to have a sure test which will not allow us in anything to go astray.
Paul employs the former reason when he contends in the letter to the Colossians against false apostles who were trying to oppress the churches with new burdens [<510208>
Colossians 2:8]. He makes more use of the second reason in the letter to the Galatians, in a similar case
[<480501>
Galatians 5:1-12]. Accordingly, he argues in the letter to the Colossians that we are not to seek from men the doctrine of the true worship of God, for the Lord has faithfully and fully instructed us how he is to be worshiped. To prove this, he says in the first chapter that the gospel contains all the wisdom by which the man of God is made perfect in Christ [<510128>Colossians 1:28]. At the beginning of the second chapter he states that all treasurers of wisdom and understanding are hidden in Christ [<510203>Colossians 2:3]. From this he subsequently concludes that believers ought to beware lest they be seduced from Christ’s flock through empty philosophy, according to the constitutions of men
[<510208>
Colossians 2:8]. But at the end of the chapter he condemns with
greater confidence all self-made religion,F332 that is, all feigned worship, which men have devised for themselves or received from others, and all precepts they of themselves dare promulgate concerning the worship of God [<510216>
Colossians 2:16-23]. We therefore consider impious all constitutions in whose observance the worship of God is reigned to consist.
Sufficiently clear are the passages in the letter to the Galatians where Paul urges that consciences (which ought to be ruled by God alone) are not to be entangled in snares—especially chapter 5 [<480501>Galatians 5:1-12]. Let it therefore be enough to have noted them.
(Ecclesiastical constitutions authorizing ceremonies in worship are tyrannous, frivolous, and contrary to Scripture, 9-18)
9. THE ROMAN CONSTITUTIONS ARE, ACCORDING TO THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES, TO BE REJECTED
But because the whole matter will be made clearer by examples, it is worthwhile before we go any farther to apply this doctrine to our own times. We say that the constitutions (termed by them “ecclesiastical”), with which the pope and his minions burden the church, are pernicious and impious; our adversaries defend them as being holy and salutary. But they are of two kinds: some apply to ceremonies and rites; others, more to discipline. Is there, therefore, just cause for us to attack both kinds? Truly more just than we would wish!
First, do not the authors themselves define, in clear terms, that the veriest worship of God is, so to speak, contained in these very constitutions? To what end do they direct their ceremonies, except that God may be
worshiped through them? And this is not done solely by the error of the unlettered multitude, but with the approval of those who have the task of teaching. I am not yet touching on the gross abominations with which they have endeavored to overthrow all piety. But among them it would not be imagined to be such an atrocious crime to fail to observe in even the least little tradition if they did not subject the worship of God to their fictions, chow do we sin, if today we cannot bear what Paul has taught to be unbearable—that the lawful order of divine worship is reduced to men’s decision? Especially, when they command men to worship according to