to minister the sacraments. For with this commandment Christ sent forth his apostles, saying, 'As my Father hath sent me, even so I send you.' 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained.' (John xx.) Also, in the gospel according to Mark, he says, 'Go, preach the gospel to every creature,' &c. (Mark xvi.) This power is to be exercised only in teaching or preaching the word, and by administering the sacraments either to many or few, as the case may be; for here are granted, not corporal things but eternal things, as eternal righteousness, the Holy Ghost, eternal life. These things cannot come but by the ministration of the word and sacraments. As Paul saith, The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth,' (Rom. i.) Therefore, since the power of the church granteth eternal things, and is exercised only by the ministration of the word, it does not interfere with civil administration, just as the art of singing hinders not civil or political administration; for political administration is occupied about other things than the gospel. For the magistrate does not defend minds, but bodies and corporal things, against manifest injuries, and restrains men with the sword and corporal punishment, for the maintenance of justice and peace. Therefore the power of the church and the civil power should not be mixed and confounded together: the ecclesiastical has its own commandments to teach the gospel and to administer the sacraments. Let it not therefore break into another's office-let it not transfer the kingdoms of the world-let it not abrogate the laws of princes-let it not take away lawful obedience-let it not interrupt judgments in any civil ordinances or contracts—let it not prescribe laws to governors concerning the form of the commonwealth; since Christ said, 'My kingdom is not of this world,' (John xviii.) Also, in another place, he saith, ' Who made me a judge or a divider over you?' (Luke xii.) And Paul saith to the Philippians, 'Our conversation is in heaven,' (Phil. iii.) And to the Corinthians, The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of thoughts,' &c. (2 Cor. x.) In like manner, our teachers distinguish the offices of both these powers, and teach to honour them both, and to acknowledge that each of them is a gift and benefit of God.

If bishops have any power of the sword, that power they have not as bishops by the commandment of the gospel, but by the law of man, bestowed upon them by kings and emperors, for the civil administration of their own goods. So that this is different from that of the administration of the gospel. Therefore, whensoever any question is made of the jurisdiction of bishops, the temporal power ought to be separated from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, according to the gospel, and as they say, de jure divino, no power belongs to the bishops as bishops, that is, to those to whom is committed the ministration of the word and sacraments, save only this power to remit sins, also to judge of doctrines, and to reject a doctrine contrary to the gospel, and to exclude from the communion of the church wicked men whose wickedness is known, and this by the word, without the secular arm. In this the churches are bound by the law of God to render obedience, according to that, 'He that heareth you, heareth me,' (Luke x.)

But when they teach any thing against the gospel, then the churches have a commandment of God prohibiting obedience, as this, Beware of false prophets;' (Matt. vii.) and Paul to the Galatians, If an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed,' (Gal. i.) Also to the Corinthians, 'We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth,' (2 Cor. xiii.) Also, in another place he saith, Power is given to us for edification, and not for destruction.' So also do the canon laws command, 2 q. 7 cap. Sacerdotes, et cap. oves. And St. Austin, in reply to the epistle of Petilia, says, "If catholic bishops be deceived any where by chance, and think any thing against the canonical scriptures of God, we ought not to consent to them.' If bishops have any other power, or jurisdiction, in determining of certain causes, as of matrimony or of tithes, they have it by man's law; where, when the ordinarics fail in the discharge of their duties, because

of their subjects, for the continuance of peace among them, princes are bound, whether they will or not, to see the law administered. Moreover, it is disputed, whether bishops or pastors have the right to ordain ceremonies in the churches, and to make laws of meats, of holy days, and degrees of ministers or orders, &c. Those that suppose that power is vested in bishops, allege this testimony: 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now, but when the Spirit of truth is come, he shall teach you all truth,' (John xvi.) They allege also the example of the apostles, who made a prohibition that the people should abstain from blood and things strangled; (Acts xv.) They allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord's day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it appears; neither is there any example more boasted of than the changing of the Sabbathday. Great, say they, is the power and authority of the church, since it dispensed with one of the ten commandments.

But as touching this question our divines thus teach, that bishops have no power to decree and ordain any thing against the gospel, as is shewed above. The canon laws teach the same thing, (ix. dist.) Moreover, it is contrary to scripture to make traditions, or to exact obedience to them, that by that observance we may satisfy for sin, or deserve grace or righteousness. For thus the glory of the merit of Christ is injured, when by such observances we go about to deserve justification. Now it is evident, that because of this persuasion, traditions have grown almost to an infinite number in the church; and the doctrine of faith, and righteousness of faith, in the mean while, hath been oppressed. For still more holy days were made, and fasting days commanded; new ceremonies, and new honourings of saints, were instituted. For the devisers and actors of such things thought to get remission of sins and justification by these works. So formerly penitential canons increased, or which we still see some remains in these satisfactions. Likewise the authors of traditions act contrary to the command of God, when they place sin in meats, days, and such like things; and burden the church with the bondage of the law, as if there ought to be among Christians, for the meriting of righteousness, a worship of God like unto that of which we read in Leviticus, the ordering whereof God committed, as they say, to the apostles and bishops. And the pontiffs appear to be deceived by the example of Moses's law: hence those burdens, that certain meats defile and pollute the conscience, and that it is deadly sin to omit and leave unsaid canonical hours; that fastings deserve remission of sins, and that they are necessary to the righteousness of the New Testament; that sin, in a case reserved, cannot be forgiven without the authority of the reserver, where, indeed, the canons themselves speak only of the reservation of the canonical penalty, and not of the reservation of sin. From whence and of whom have the bishops the power and authority to impose these traditions upon the church, to wound consciences? For there are clear testimonies which prohibit the making of such traditions either to deserve remission of sins, or as necessary to the righteousness of the New Testament, or to salvation. For Paul to the Colossians saith, Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day,' &c. Also, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (touch not, taste not, &c.) after the commandments and doctrines of men?' Also to Titus he openly prohibited traditions, warning, 'that they should not give heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth;' and Christ, speaking of them that enforce traditions, says in this wise, Let them alone, they are blind, leaders of the blind.' and he reproves such modes of worship, saying, 'Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.'

་

If bishops have the power of lading churches with infinite traditions, and grieving consciences, why doth scripture so often prohibit the making and following traditions? -and why doth it call them doctrines of devils ?-did the Holy Ghost forewarn us of these things in vain? Wherefore it must needs follow, that since ordinances, instituted as things necessary, or with an opinion to deserve remission of sin, are

contrary to the gospel that it is not lawful for any bishop to institute such. For it is necessary that the doctrine of Christian liberty be kept still in the churches, which is, that the bondage of the law is not necessary to justification, as it is written in the Epistle to the Galatians, Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.' The pre-eminence of the gospel must still be retained, which declares, that we obtain remission of sins and justification freely by faith in Christ, and not for certain observations or rites devised by men. What shall we think then of the Lord's day, and the like rites of the temples? To this our learned men respond, that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances, that things be done orderly in the church; not that we should purchase by them remission of sins, or that we can satisfy for sins, or that consciences are bound to judge them necessary, or to think that they sin, who, without offending others, break them. So Paul ordains that in the congregation women should cover their heads, and that interpreters and teachers be heard in order in the church. It is convenient that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of charity and tranquillity, that so one should not offend another, that all things may be done in the churches in order, and without tumult, but yet so that the conscience be not charged, as to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin, who, without hurting others, break them. As that no one should say that a woman sins, who goeth abroad bareheaded, offending none. Even such is the observation of the Lord's day, of Easter, of Pentecost, and the like holy days and rites. For they that judge that by the authority of the church the observing of Sunday, instead of the Sabbath-day, was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. The scripture permits and grants that the keeping of the Sabbath-day is now free, for it teaches that the ceremonies of Moses's law, since the revelation of the gospel, are not necessary. And yet because it was needful to ordain a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the church did appoint Sunday, which day, as it appears, pleased them rather than the Sabbath-day, even for this cause, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping and observance of either Saturday, or of any other day, is not necessary. There are wonderful disputations concerning the changing of the law the ceremonies of the new law-the changing of the Sabbath-day,—which all have sprung from a false persuasion and belief of men, who thought that there must needs be in the church an honouring of God, like the Levitical law, and that Christ committed to the apostles, and bishops, authority to invent and find out ceremonies necessary to salvation. These errors crept into the church when the righteousness of faith was not clearly taught. Some dispute that the keeping of the Sunday is not fully, but only in a certain manner, the ordinance of God. They prescribe of holy days, how far it is lawful to work. Such manner of disputations whatever else they be, are but snares of consciences. For although they busy themselves to modify and qualify their traditions, tempering the rigour of them with favourable declarations; yet notwithstanding as long as the opinion that they are necessary doth remain (which must needs remain where righteousness of faith and Christian liberty are not known), this equity and favour can never be perceived nor known. The apostles commanded to abstain from blood; who doth now observe and keep it? And yet they that do not keep it, sin not; for undoubtedly the apostles would not burden the conscience with such bondage, but they prohibited it for a time, for avoiding of slander; for the perpetual will and mind of the gospel is to be considered in a decree. Scarcely any canons are diligently kept, and many daily go out of use, even with those who defend traditions. Neither can consciences be assisted or consulted, unless this equity is observed, that is, that we know that canons and decrees are to be kept without the opinion of necessity, and that consciences are not hurt, though traditions be forgotten and be utterly set aside. Certainly bishops might easily preserve lawful obedience, if they would not compel men to keep traditions, which cannot be kept with a good conscience. They command priests to live unmarried; they receive none,

unless they swear in effect that they will not teach the pure doctrine of the gospel. Our churches do not require that bishops should repair and re-establish concord at the expense of their honour (and yet it would become good pastors so to do), but they only require that they would release unjust burdens which are novelties, being received contrary to the custom of the catholic church. We will not deny, but that in the beginning some constitutions were grounded upon reasonable and probable causes, which yet are not now agreeable nor suited to later times. It appears, also, that some were wrongfully received; wherefore it might please the gentleness of the pontificate now to mitigate and release them, since such change would not break the unity of the church. For many traditions have, in process of time, been changed, as the canons themselves testify. But if it cannot be obtained that those observations should be released which cannot, without sin, be complied with; we must needs follow the rule of the apostles, which commands rather to obey God than men. Peter forbids bishops to be lords and emperors over the church. Now, it is not intended by us to take away jurisdiction from the bishops, but this one thing we require of them, that they would suffer the gospel to be purely taught, and that they would release a few certain ordinances, which cannot be observed without sin. But if they will not remit or release any thing, let them look to their charge how they shall render their accounts to God, in that they, by reason of their obstinacy, are the cause of this schism.

CONCLUSION.

The foregoing are the principal subjects of dispute between us. it were indeed easy to enumerate many other abuses and errors, but for the sake of brevity we have omitted them. Much complaint, for example, has existed concerning indulgences, pilgrimages, and the abuse of excommunication. The clergy have also had endless disputes with the monks about confession and numberless other subjects. These things we have omitted, in order that those of greater importance may be the more carefully weighed.

(Signed)

JOHN, the Elector of Saxony.
GEORGE, Earl of Brandenburg.
ERNEST, Duke of Luneberg.
PHILIP, Landgrave of Hesse.

JOHN FREDERICK, Duke of Saxony.

FRANCIS, Duke of Luneberg.

WOLFGANG, Prince of Anhalt.

THE SENATE and MAGISTRACY of NUREMBERG.

THE SENATE of Reutlingen.

No. II.

* As this new creed is of great importance in our controversy with the papal church, the original, copied verbatim et literatim from the authorized document, is likewise given.