Point 21: Of Repentance

Finis.

Our consent.

Conclusion 1. Repentance is the conversion of a sinner. There is a twofold conversion — passive and active. Passive conversion is an action of God whereby he converts man who is as yet unconverted. Active conversion is an action whereby man, being once turned by God, turns himself. And of this latter must this conclusion be understood. For the first conversion — considering it is a work of God turning us unto himself — is not the repentance whereof the Scripture speaks so often, but it is called by the name of regeneration. And repentance, whereby we being first turned by God do turn ourselves and do good works, is the fruit thereof.

Conclusion 2. Repentance stands specially for practice in contrition of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction in work or deed. Touching contrition, there are two kinds: legal and evangelical. Legal contrition is nothing but a remorse of conscience for sin in regard of the wrath and judgment of God, and it is no grace of God at all, nor any part or cause of repentance — but only an occasion thereof, and that by the mercy of God. For of itself it is the sting of the law and the very entrance into the pit of hell. Evangelical contrition is when a repentant sinner is grieved for his sins not so much for fear of hell or any other punishment, as because he has offended and displeased so good and merciful a God. This contrition is caused by the ministry of the Gospel, and in the practice of repentance it is always necessary and goes before as the beginning thereof. Secondly, we hold and maintain that confession is to be made, and that in sundry respects. First to God, both publicly in the congregation and also privately in our secret and private prayers. Secondly to the Church, when any person has openly offended the congregation by any crime and is therefore excommunicate. Thirdly to our private neighbor, when we have upon any occasion offended and wronged him — Matthew 5:23: If you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, go first and be reconciled to him; now reconciliation presupposes confession. Lastly, in all true repentance we hold and acknowledge there must be satisfaction made. First to God, and that is when we entreat him in our supplications to accept the death and passion of Christ as a full, perfect, and sufficient satisfaction for all our sins. Secondly it is to be made unto the Church, after excommunication for public offenses, and it stands in duties of humiliation that fitly serve to testify the truth of our repentance. Thirdly, satisfaction is to be made to our neighbor, because if he be wronged he must have recompense and restitution made — Luke 19:8 — and repentance may justly be suspected where no satisfaction is made if it lie in our power.

Conclusion 3. In repentance we are to bring forth outward fruits worthy of amendment of life. For repentance itself is in the heart and therefore must be testified in all manner of good works, whereof the principal is to endeavor day by day by God's grace to leave and renounce all and every sin, and in all things to do the will of God. And here let it be remembered that we are not patrons of licentiousness and enemies of good works. For though we exclude them from the act of our justification and salvation, yet we maintain a profitable and necessary use of them in the life of every Christian man. This use is threefold: in respect of God, of man, and of ourselves. Works are to be done in respect of God: that his commandments may be obeyed — 1 John 5:12; that his will may be done — 1 Thessalonians 4:3; that we may show ourselves to be obedient children to God our Father — 1 Peter 1:14; that we may show ourselves thankful for our redemption by Christ — Titus 2:14; that we might not grieve the Spirit of God — Ephesians 4:30 — but walk according to the same — Galatians 5:22; that God by our good works may be glorified — Matthew 5:16; that we may be good followers of God — Ephesians 5:1. Again, works are to be done in regard of men: that our neighbor may be helped in worldly things — Luke 6:38; that he may be won by our example to godliness — 1 Peter 3:14; that we may prevent in ourselves the giving of any offense — 1 Corinthians 10:32; that by doing good we may stop the mouths of our adversaries. Thirdly and lastly, they have use in respect of ourselves: that we may show ourselves to be new creatures — 2 Corinthians 5:17; that we may walk as the children of light — Ephesians 5:8; that we may have some assurance of our faith and of our salvation — 2 Peter 1:8, 10; that we may discern dead and counterfeit faith from true faith — James 2:17; that faith and the gifts of God may be exercised and continued unto the end — 2 Timothy 1:6; that the punishments of sin both temporal and eternal may be prevented — Psalm 89:32; that the reward may be obtained which God freely in mercy has promised to men for their good works — Galatians 6:9.

The difference.

We dissent not from the Church of Rome in the doctrine of repentance itself, but in the damnable abuses thereof, which are of two sorts: general and special. General abuses are those which concern repentance wholly considered, and they are these. The first is that they place the beginning of repentance partly in themselves and partly in the Holy Spirit — or in the power of their natural free will being helped by the Holy Spirit — whereas Paul indeed ascribes this work wholly unto God: 2 Timothy 2:25, proving if God at any time will give them repentance. And men that are not weak but dead in trespasses and sins cannot do anything that may further their conversion, though they be helped ever so much — no more than dead men in their graves can rise from thence. The second abuse is that they take penance — or rather repentance — for that public discipline and order of correction that was used against notorious offenders in the open congregation. For the Scripture sets down but one repentance, and that common to all men without exception, to be practiced in every part of our lives for the necessary mortification of sin. Whereas open ecclesiastical correction pertained not to all and every man within the compass of the Church, but to them alone that gave any open offense. The third abuse is that they make repentance to be not only a virtue but also a sacrament, whereas for the space of a thousand years after Christ and upward it was not reckoned among the sacraments. It seems that Lombard was one of the first that called it a sacrament, and the schoolmen after him disputed of the matter and form of this sacrament, not one of them able certainly to define what should be the outward element. The fourth abuse is touching the effect and efficacy of repentance, for they make it a meritorious cause of remission of sins and of life everlasting — flat against the word of God. Paul says notably in Romans 4:24: we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God has sent to be a reconciliation by faith in his blood. In these words the forms of speech — redemption in Christ, reconciliation in his blood, by faith, freely by grace — must be observed and considered, for they show plainly that no part of satisfaction or redemption is wrought in us or by us, but out of us only in the person of Christ. And therefore we esteem of repentance only as a fruit of faith, and the effect or efficacy of it is to testify remission of our sins and our reconciliation before God. It will be said that remission of sins and life everlasting are promised to repentance. The answer is: it is not to the work of repentance, but to the person who repents, and that not for his own merits or work of repentance but for the merits of Christ, which he applies to himself by faith. And thus are we to understand the promises of the gospel in which works are mentioned, presupposing always in them the reconciliation of the person with God to whom the promise is made. Thus we see wherefore we dissent from the Roman Church touching the doctrine of repentance.

Special abuses concern contrition, confession, and satisfaction. The first abuse concerning contrition is that they teach it must be sufficient and perfect. They now use a distinction to help the matter — saying that the sorrow in contrition must be in the highest degree in respect of value and estimation, and not in respect of intensity. Yet the opinion of Adrian was otherwise: that in true repentance a man should be grieved according to all his endeavor. And the Roman Catechism says as much: that the sorrow conceived of our sins must be so great that none can be conceived to be greater; that we must be contrite in the same manner we love God, and that is with all our heart and strength in a most vehement sorrow; and that the hatred of sin must be not only the greatest but also most vehement and perfect, so as it may exclude all sloth and slackness. Indeed afterward it follows that true contrition may be effectual though it be imperfect — but how can this stand, if they will not only commend but also prescribe and avouch that contrition must be most perfect and vehement? We therefore only teach that God requires not so much the measure as the truth of any grace, and that it is a degree of unfeigned contrition to be grieved because we cannot be grieved for our sins as we should. The second abuse is that they ascribe to their contrition the merit of congruity. But this cannot stand with the all-sufficient merit of Christ. An ancient council says: God inspires into us first of all the faith and love of himself, no merits going before, that we may faithfully receive the sacrament of baptism and after baptism do the things that please him. And we for our parts hold that God requires contrition at our hands not to merit remission of sins, but that we may acknowledge our own unworthiness and be humbled in the sight of God and distrust all our own merits. Further, that we may make the more account of the benefits of Christ whereby we are received into the favor of God. Lastly, that we might more carefully avoid all sins in time to come, whereby so many pains and terrors of conscience are procured. And we acknowledge no contrition at all to be meritorious, save that of Christ, whereby he was broken for our iniquities. The third abuse is that they make imperfect contrition or attrition — arising from the fear of hell — to be good and profitable. And to it they apply the saying of the Prophet: the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. But servile fear of itself is the fruit of the law, which is the ministry of death and condemnation, and consequently it is the way to eternal destruction if God leaves men to themselves. And if it turns to the good of any, it is only by accident — because God in mercy makes it to be an occasion going before of grace to be given. Otherwise, remorse of conscience for sin is no beginning of repentance or the restraint of any sin, but rather is — and that properly — the beginning of unspeakable horrors of conscience and everlasting death, unless God show mercy. And yet this fear of punishment, if it be tempered and mingled with other graces and gifts of God in holy men, is not unprofitable — in whom there is not only a sorrow for punishment but also and much more for the offense. Such a kind of fear or sorrow is commanded in Malachi 1:6: If I be a father, where is my fear? If I be a Lord, where is my fear? And Chrysostom says that the fear of hell in the heart of a just man is a strong man armed against thieves and robbers to drive them from the house. And Ambrose says that martyrs in the time of their sufferings confirmed themselves against the cruelty of persecutors by setting the fear of hell before their eyes.

Abuses touching confession are these. The first is that they use a form of confession of their sins unto God uttered in an unknown language, being therefore foolish and ridiculous — and withal requiring the aid and intercession of dead men and such as be absent, whereas there is but one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ. The second is that they in practice make confession of their sins not only to God but to the saints departed, in that they make prayer to them in which they ask their intercession for the pardon of their sins. And this is not only to match them with God in seeing and knowing the heart, but also to give a part of his divine worship unto them. The third and principal abuse is that they have corrupted canonical confession by turning it into a private auricular confession, binding all men in conscience by a law made to confess all their mortal sins with all circumstances that change the kind of the sin — as far as possibly they can remember — once every year at the least, and that to a priest, unless it be in the case of extreme necessity. But in the word of God there is no warrant for this confession, nor in the writings of orthodox antiquity for the space of many hundred years after Christ, as one of their own side avouches. And the commandment of the Holy Spirit — confess one to another and pray one for another, James 5:17 — binds as well the priest to make confession unto us as any of us to the priest. And whereas it is said in Matthew 3 that many were baptized confessing their sins, and in Acts 19:18 many that believed came and confessed and showed their works — the confession was voluntary and not constrained; it was also general and not particular of all and every sin with the necessary circumstances thereof. And in this liberty of confession the Church remained 1,200 years until the Council of Lateran, in which the law of auricular confession was first enacted — a notable invention serving to discover the secrets of men and to enrich that covetous and ambitious see with the revenues of the world. It was not known to Augustine when he said: What have I to do with men that they should hear my confessions, as though they should heal all my diseases. Nor to Chrysostom, when he says: I do not compel you to confess your sins to others. And: If you are ashamed to confess them to any man because you have sinned, say them daily in your own mind. I do not bid you confess them to your fellow servant that he should mock you; confess them to God who cures them.

The abuse of satisfaction is that they have turned canonical satisfaction — which was made to the congregation by open offenders — into a satisfaction of the justice of God for the temporal punishment of their sins. Behold here a most horrible profanation of the whole gospel, and especially of the satisfaction of Christ, which of itself without any supply is sufficient every way for the remission both of fault and punishment. But of this point I have spoken before.

Hitherto I have handled and proved by induction of sundry particulars that we are to make a separation from the present Church of Rome in respect of the foundation and substance of true religion. Many more things might be added to this very purpose, but here I conclude this first point — adding only this one caution: that we make separation from the Roman religion without hatred of the persons that are maintainers of it. Nay, we join in affection more with them than they with us. They do not die for their religion, though they deserve it, but for the treasons which they intend and enterprise. We are ready to do the duties of love unto them enjoined us in the word; we reverence the good gifts of God in many of them; we pray for them, wishing their repentance and eternal salvation.

Now I mean to proceed and to touch briefly other points of doctrine contained in this portion of Scripture which I have now in hand. In the second place therefore, out of this commandment — Go out of her, my people — I gather that the true Church of God is and has been in the present Roman Church as corn in the heap of chaff. Though Popery reigned and overspread the face of the earth for many hundred years, yet in the midst thereof God reserved a people unto himself that truly worshipped him. And to this effect the Holy Spirit says that the dragon, which is the devil, caused the woman — that is, the Church — to flee into the wilderness, where he sought to destroy her but could not, and she still retains a remnant of her seed which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ — Revelation 12:17. Now this which I speak of the Church of Rome cannot be said in like manner of the congregations of Turks and other infidels — that the hidden Church of God is preserved among them — because there is no means of salvation at all. Whereas the Church of Rome has the Scriptures, though in a strange language, and baptism for the outward form, which helps God in all ages preserved that his elect might be gathered out of the midst of Babylon. This serves to stop the mouths of Papists who demand of us where our church was fourscore years ago, before the days of Luther — whereby they would insinuate to the world that our church and religion is new. But they are answered out of this very text: that our Church has ever been since the days of the Apostles, and that in the very midst of the papacy. It has always been a Church and did not first begin to be in Luther's time, but only then began to show itself, having been hidden by a universal apostasy for many hundred years together. Again, we have here occasion to consider the dealing of God with his own Church and people. He will have them for external society to be mixed with their enemies, and that for special purpose — namely, to exercise the humility and patience of his few servants. When Elijah saw idolatry spread over all Israel, he went apart into the wilderness and in grief desired to die. And David cried out: Woe is me that I am constrained to dwell in Meshech and to have my habitation in the tents of Kedar — Psalm 120:5. And just Lot must have his righteous soul vexed with seeing and hearing the abominations of Sodom.

Thirdly, by this commandment we are taught what opinion to carry of the present Church of Rome. It is often demanded whether it be a Church or no, and the answer may hence be formed on this manner. If by this Church be understood a state or regiment of the people whereof the Pope is head, and the members are all such as acknowledge him to be their head and believe the doctrine established in the Council of Trent, we take it to be no Church of God. Because Babylon — which I have proved to be the Church of Rome — is here opposed to the Church or people of God, and because we are commanded to come out of it, whereas we may not wholly forsake any people until they forsake Christ. Some will happily say the Church of Rome has the Scriptures and the sacrament of baptism. I answer first of all: they have indeed the books of holy Scripture among them, but by the rest of their doctrine they overthrow the true sense thereof in the foundation, as I have proved before. And though they have the outward form of baptism, yet they overturn the inward baptism which is the substance of all, standing in the justification and sanctification of a sinner. Again I answer that they have the word and baptism not for themselves but for the true Church of God among them — like as the lantern holds the candle, not for itself but for others. Secondly, it may be and is alleged that if the Pope be Antichrist, he then sits in the temple — that is, the Church of God — and by this means the Roman Church shall be the true Church. The answer is: he sits in the temple of God, but mark further how — as God, that is, not as a member but as a manifest usurper, like as a thief sits in the true man's house. For the Popish Church and God's Church are mingled like chaff and corn in one heap, and the Church of Rome may be said to be in the Church of God and the Church of God in the Church of Rome — as we say the wheat is among the chaff and the chaff in the wheat. Again, he is said to sit in the temple of God because the Roman Church, though falsely, takes unto itself the title of the true Catholic Church. Some go about to qualify the matter by comparing this Church to a man lying sick full of sores, having also his throat cut, yet so as body and soul are joined together and life is remaining still. But all things well considered, it is rather like a dead carcass, and is void of all spiritual life, as the Popish errors in the foundation make manifest. Indeed a known harlot may afterward remain a wife and be so termed — yet after the bill of divorcement is given she ceases to be a wife, though she can show her marriage ring. Now the Church has received the bill of her divorcement in the written word, namely 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13:11-12.

Furthermore, in this commandment we may see a lively portraiture of the state of all mankind. Here we see two sorts of men: some are pertaining to Babylon, a people running on to their destruction; some again are a people of God severed from Babylon and reserved to life everlasting. If any ask the cause of this distinction, I answer: it is the very will of God, vouchsafing mercy to some and forsaking others by withdrawing his mercy from them, for the better declaration of his justice. Thus says the Lord in Romans 11:4: I have reserved seven thousand that never bowed the knee to Baal. And the prophet Isaiah says: Unless the Lord had reserved a remnant, we had been as Sodom and Gomorrah. By this distinction we are taught above all things to seek to be of the number of God's people, and to labor for assurance of this in our own consciences. For if all should be saved, less care would suffice — but this mercy is not common to all, and therefore the more to be thought upon.

Lastly, here I note the special care that God has over his own children. He first gives them warning to depart before he begins to execute his judgment upon his enemies with whom they live, that they might not be partakers of their sins or punishments. Thus, before God would punish Jerusalem, an angel is sent to mark in the forehead those who mourned for the abominations of the people. And in the destruction of the firstborn of Egypt, the angel passed over the houses of the Jews that had their posts sprinkled with the blood of the paschal lamb — and this passing over betokens safety and preservation in the common destruction for those who have their hearts sprinkled with the blood of Christ. This blessing of protection should move us all to become true and hearty servants of God. Men usually become members of those societies and corporations where they may enjoy many freedoms and privileges. Well, behold: in the society of the saints of God, which is the true Church, there is freedom from danger in all common destructions and from eternal vengeance at the last day. When Esther had procured safety for the Jews and liberty to avenge themselves upon their enemies, it is said that many of the people of the land became Jews. Even so, considering Christ has procured freedom from hell, death, and damnation for all that believe in him, we should labor above all things to become new creatures, joining ourselves always to the true Church of God.

Hitherto I have spoken of the commandment; now follows the reason thereof drawn from the end: that they be not partakers of her sins and that they receive not of her plagues. Here I might stand long to show what be the sins of the Church of Rome, but I will only name the principal. The first sin is atheism, and that I prove on this manner. Atheism is twofold: open and colored. Open atheism is when men both in word and deed deny God and his word. Colored atheism is not so manifest, and it has two degrees. The first degree is when men acknowledge God the creator and governor of heaven and earth, and yet deny the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus the Ephesians before they received the gospel are said to be without God — whom in their natural judgment they acknowledged — because they denied Christ, and consequently worshipped an idol of their own brain in that they worshipped God out of Christ. And in this respect, though the Samaritans worshipped the God of Abraham, yet our Savior Christ says they worshipped they knew not what. And the Psalmist says of all the Gentiles that their gods are idols. In this degree of atheism are placed Turks and Jews at this day, the anti-Trinitarians and Arians, and all that conceive and worship God outside the Trinity. The second degree is when men do rightly acknowledge the unity of the Godhead in the Trinity of persons, yet so as by other necessary consequences — partly of their doctrine and partly of the service of God — they overturn what they have well maintained. And thus I say that the very religion of the Church of Rome is a kind of atheism. For whereas it makes the merit of the works of men to concur with the grace of God, it overthrows the grace of God — Romans 11. In word they acknowledge the infinite justice and mercy of God, but by consequence both are denied. How can that be infinite justice which may any way be appeased by human satisfactions? And how shall God's mercy be infinite, when we by our own satisfactions must add a supply to the satisfaction of Christ? Again: he that has not the Son has not the Father, and he that has neither Father nor Son denies God. Now the present Roman religion has not the Son — that is, Jesus Christ, God and man, the Mediator of mankind — but has transformed him into a feigned Christ. And I show it thus. For one Jesus Christ in all things like unto us in his humanity, sin only excepted, they have framed a Christ to whom they ascribed two kinds of existing: one natural, whereby he is visible, touchable, and circumscribed in heaven; the other not only above but also against nature, by which he is substantially according to his flesh in the hands of every priest, in every host, and in the mouth of every communicant — invisible, untouchable, uncircumscribed. And thus in effect they abolish his manhood. Yes, they degrade him of his offices. For one Jesus Christ the only king, lawgiver, and head of the Church, they join unto him the Pope not only as a vicar but also as a fellow, in that they give unto him power to make laws binding conscience, to resolve and determine infallibly the sense of holy Scripture, properly to pardon sin both in respect of fault and temporal punishment, to have authority over the whole earth and a part of hell, to depose kings to whom under Christ every soul is to be subject, to absolve subjects from the oath of allegiance, and so on. For one Jesus Christ the only real priest of the New Testament, they join many secondary priests unto him who offer Christ daily in the mass for the sins of the living and the dead. For one Jesus Christ the all-sufficient Mediator of intercession, they have added many fellows unto him to make request for us — namely as many saints as be in the Pope's calendar. Lastly, for the only merits of Christ in whom alone the Father is well pleased, they have devised a treasury of the Church containing beside the merits of Christ the surplus of the merits of saints, to be dispensed to men at the discretion of the Pope. And thus we see that Christ — and consequently God himself to be worshipped in Christ — is transformed into a fantasy or idol of man's conceit. Again, there is always a proportion between the worship of God and our persuasion of him, and men in giving unto God any worship have respect to his nature, that both may be suitable and he well pleased. Let us then see what manner of worship the Roman religion affords. It is for the greatest part mere will-worship, without any allowance or commandment from God. It is a carnal service standing of innumerable bodily rites and ceremonies borrowed partly from the Jews and partly from the heathen. It is divided between God and some of his creatures, in that they are worshipped both with one kind of worship — let them paint it as they can. Thus then, if by their manner of worshipping God we may judge how they conceive of him — as we may — they have plainly turned the true God into a fantasy of their own. For God is no otherwise to be conceived than he has revealed himself in his creatures and word, and especially in Christ, who is the engraved image of the person of the Father.

The second sin is idolatry, and that as gross as was ever among the heathen. And it is to be seen in two things. First, that they worship the saints with religious worship which without exception is proper to God. Yes, they transform some of them into detestable idols, making them in truth mediators of redemption — especially the virgin Mary, whom they call a lady, a goddess, a queen whom Christ her son obeys in heaven, a mediatress, or life, hope, the medicine of the diseased. And they pray unto her thus: Prepare glory for us; defend us from our enemies, and in the hour of death receive us; loose the bonds of the guilty; bring light to the blind; drive away all devils. Show yourself to be a mother; let him receive the prayers. Again, their idolatry is manifest in that they worship God in, at, and before images — having no commandment so to do, but the contrary. They allege that they use and worship images only in remembrance of God. But this is all one as if an unchaste wife should receive many lovers into her house in the absence of her husband, and being reproved should answer that they were the friends of her husband and that she kept them only in remembrance of him. Thirdly, their idolatry exceeds the idolatry of the heathen in that they worship a bread-god, or Christ in and under the forms of bread and wine. And if Christ according to his humanity is absent from the earth — as I have proved — the Popish host is as abominable an idol as ever was.

The third sin is the maintenance of adultery, and that is manifest in two things. First, in the toleration of houses of prostitution, flat against the commandment of God. Deuteronomy 23:17: There shall be no prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a male prostitute of the sons of Israel. And this toleration is an occasion of uncleanness to many young men and women who otherwise would abstain from all such kind of filthiness. And what an abomination is this, when brother and brother, father and son, nephew and uncle shall come to one and the same harlot, one before or after the other. Secondly, their law beyond the fourth degree allows the marriage of any persons, and by this means they sometimes allow incest. For in the unequal collateral line, the person next the common stock is a father or mother to the brothers' or sisters' posterity, as the following example shows.

John had two children: Nicholas and Anne. Nicholas had children Thomas and Lewes. Anne had children Roger, Anthony, and James. Here Anne and Nicholas are brother and sister, making Anne in the stead of a mother to all descended from Nicholas.

Here Anne and Nicholas are brother and sister, and Anne is distant from James six degrees, he being her great-nephew. The marriage between them is allowed by the Church of Rome, they not being within the compass of four degrees. Nevertheless this is against the law of nature, for Anne being the sister of Nicholas is in the stead of a mother to all that are begotten of Nicholas, even to James and James's posterity. Yet thus much I grant: that the daughter of Anne may lawfully marry James or Anthony, the case being altered, because they are not to one another as parents and children.

The fourth sin is magic, sorcery, or witchcraft — in the consecration of the host in which they make their bread-god; in exorcisms over holy bread, holy water, and salt; in the casting out or driving away of devils by the sign of the cross, by solemn conjurations, by holy water, by the ringing of bells, by lighting tapers, by relics, and such like. For these things have not their supposed force either by creation or by any institution of God in his holy word, and therefore if anything be done by them it is from the secret operation of the devil himself.

The fifth sin is that in their doctrine they maintain perjury. Because they teach with one consent that a Papist examined may answer doubtfully against the direct intention of the examiner, framing another meaning to himself in the ambiguity of his words. As for example, when a man is asked whether he said or heard Mass in such a place: though he did, they affirm he may say no and swear unto it — because he was not there to reveal it to the examiner. Whereas in the very law of nature, he that takes an oath should swear according to the intention of him that has power to minister an oath, and that in truth, justice, and judgment. Let them clear their doctrine from all defense of perjury if they can.

The sixth sin is that they reverse many of God's commandments, making that no sin which God's word makes a sin. Thus they teach that if any man steal some little thing that is thought not to cause any notable hurt, it is no mortal sin. That the officious lie and the lie made in sport are venial sins. That to pray for our enemies in particular is no precept but a counsel, and that none is bound to greet his enemy in the way of friendship — flat against the rule of Christ in Matthew 5:47. That rash judgment, though consent come thereto, is regularly but a venial sin. That it is lawful sometimes to feign holiness. That the painting of the face is ordinarily but a venial sin. That it is not lawful to forbid begging, whereas the Lord forbade there should be any beggar in Israel. Again, they teach that men in their anger, when they are quarreling and swear oaths of violence, are not indeed blasphemers.

Lastly, their writers use manifest lying to justify their doctrine. They plead falsely that all antiquity is on their side, whereas it is as much against them as for them, and as much for us as for them. Again, their manner has been and is still to prove their opinions by forged and counterfeit writings of men, some of which I will name.

Among the forged writings used by Rome to prove their opinions are these: the Liturgy of Saint James; the Canons of the Apostles; the books of Dionysius the Areopagite, namely his work on ecclesiastical hierarchy; the Decretal Epistles of the Popes; the works of Pope Clement; some of the epistles of Ignatius; Origen's book on repentance, his homilies on various saints, commentaries on Job, and his book on Lamentation; the Liturgy of Chrysostom; the Liturgy of Basil and his Ascetica; various works falsely attributed to Augustine; the Questions and Answers of Justin Martyr; the epistle of Athanasius to Pope Felix; Bernard's sermons on the Lord's Supper; Jerome's epistle to Demetrias savoring of Pelagius; Tertullian's work on monogamy; Cyprian on chrism and on the washing of feet; in the Council of Sardica the third, fourth, and fifth canons are forged; in the Council of Nicea all canons save twenty are forged; certain Roman councils under Silvester are forged, for he was at this time dead and therefore could not confirm them; to the sixth canon of the Council of Nicea are patched these words: that the Roman Church has always had the supremacy; and lastly, Pope Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine falsified the canons of the Council of Nicea to prove appeals from all places to Rome, so that the bishops of Africa were forced to send for the true copies of the said Council from Constantinople and the churches of Greece.

I might here rehearse many other sins which with the former call for vengeance upon the Roman Church, but it shall suffice to have named a few of the principal.

Now in this reason our Savior Christ prescribes another main duty to his own people, and that is to be careful to shun all the sins of the Church of Rome, that they may withal escape her deserved plagues and punishments. And from this prescribed duty I observe two things. The first is that every good servant of God must carefully avoid contracts of marriage with professed Papists — that is, with such as hold the Pope for their head and believe the doctrine of the Council of Trent. For in such matches men hardly keep faith and good conscience, and hardly avoid communion with the sins of the Roman Church. A further ground of this doctrine I thus propound. In God's word there is mentioned a double league between man and man, country and country. The first is the league of concord, when one kingdom binds itself to live in peace with another for the maintenance of trade without disturbance, and this kind of league may stand between God's Church and the enemies thereof. The second is the league of amity, which is when men, people, or countries bind themselves to defend each other in all causes and to make the wars of the one the wars of the other — and this league may not be made with those that be enemies of God. Jehoshaphat, otherwise a good king, made this kind of league with Ahab and is therefore reproved by the prophet, saying: Would you help the wicked and love them that hate the Lord? — 2 Chronicles 19:2. Now the marriages of Protestants with Papists are private leagues of amity between person and person, and therefore are not to be allowed. Again, in Malachi 2:11 the Lord says: Judah has defiled the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and has married the daughters of a strange god — where is flatly condemned marriages made with the people of a false god. Now the Papists by the consequences of their doctrine and religion turn the true Jehovah into an idol of their own brain, as I have shown, and the true Christ revealed in the written word into a feigned Christ made of bread. Yet if such a marriage be once made and finished it may not be dissolved. For such parties sin not simply in that they marry, but because they marry not in the Lord, being of different religions. The fault is not in the substance of marriage but in the manner of making it. And for this cause the Apostle commands the believing party not to forsake or refuse the unbelieving party — being a very infidel, which no Papist is — if he or she will abide: 1 Corinthians 7:13.

The second thing is that every servant of God must take heed how he travels into such countries where Popish religion is established, lest he partake in the sins and punishments thereof. Indeed to go upon embassy to any place, or to travel for this end — that we may perform the necessary duties for our special or general callings — is not unlawful. But to travel out of the precincts of the Church only for pleasure's sake and to see strange fashions has no warrant. And hence it is that many men who go forth in good order and well-minded come home with damaged consciences. The best traveler of all is he who, living at home or abroad, can go out of himself and depart from his own sins and corruptions by true repentance.

End.

Our consent.

Conclusion 1. Repentance is the conversion of a sinner. Conversion is of two kinds — passive and active. Passive conversion is an action of God by which He converts the one who is as yet unconverted. Active conversion is the action by which a person, once turned by God, turns himself. This conclusion must be understood of the latter — the active — kind. The first conversion, being God's work of turning us to Himself, is not the repentance Scripture so often speaks about. It goes by the name of regeneration. Repentance, by which we — having first been turned by God — turn ourselves and do good works, is the fruit of regeneration.

Conclusion 2. Repentance consists, in its practical expression, in contrition of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction in works or deeds. Regarding contrition, there are two kinds: legal and evangelical. Legal contrition is nothing but a guilty conscience over sin in view of God's wrath and judgment. It is no grace of God at all, nor any part or cause of repentance — only an occasion for it, and that through God's mercy alone. In itself it is the sting of the law and the very entrance into the pit of hell. Evangelical contrition is when a repentant sinner grieves over his sins not so much from fear of hell or punishment, but because he has offended and grieved so good and merciful a God. This contrition is produced by the ministry of the Gospel, and in the practice of repentance it is always necessary — coming first, as the beginning of repentance. Second, we hold and affirm that confession must be made, and this in several ways. First, to God — both publicly in the congregation and privately in our personal prayers. Second, to the church, when any person has openly offended the congregation through some wrongdoing and has been excommunicated. Third, to our neighbor, when we have offended or wronged him in any way — Matthew 5:23: 'If you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother.' Reconciliation presupposes confession. Finally, in all genuine repentance we hold and acknowledge that satisfaction must be made. First, to God — by entreating Him in our prayers to accept the death and passion of Christ as a full, perfect, and sufficient satisfaction for all our sins. Second, satisfaction is to be made to the church, after excommunication for public offenses, through acts of humiliation that fittingly testify to the sincerity of our repentance. Third, satisfaction must be made to our neighbor — for if he has been wronged, he must receive recompense and restitution (Luke 19:8). Where no satisfaction is made when it is within our power to make it, the reality of repentance may justly be questioned.

Conclusion 3. In repentance we are to produce outward fruits worthy of an amended life. Repentance itself is in the heart and must therefore be expressed through every kind of good work — the chief of which is striving, day by day by God's grace, to forsake and renounce every sin and in all things to do the will of God. Here let it be remembered: we are not promoters of lawlessness or enemies of good works. Though we exclude works from the act of our justification and salvation, we maintain their useful and necessary place in the life of every Christian. This usefulness is threefold — in relation to God, to others, and to ourselves. Works are to be done in relation to God: that His commandments may be obeyed (1 John 5:12); that His will may be done (1 Thessalonians 4:3); that we may show ourselves obedient children to God our Father (1 Peter 1:14); that we may show ourselves thankful for our redemption by Christ (Titus 2:14); that we may not grieve the Spirit of God (Ephesians 4:30) but walk according to Him (Galatians 5:22); that God may be glorified through our good works (Matthew 5:16); and that we may be imitators of God (Ephesians 5:1). Works are also to be done in relation to other people: that our neighbor may be helped in practical ways (Luke 6:38); that he may be won by our example to godliness (1 Peter 3:14); that we may avoid giving offense (1 Corinthians 10:32); and that by doing good we may silence our opponents. Third and finally, good works are useful in relation to ourselves: that we may show ourselves to be new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17); that we may walk as children of light (Ephesians 5:8); that we may have assurance of our faith and salvation (2 Peter 1:8, 10); that we may distinguish dead and counterfeit faith from genuine faith (James 2:17); that faith and God's gifts may be exercised and continued to the end (2 Timothy 1:6); that the punishments of sin — both temporal and eternal — may be avoided (Psalm 89:32); and that we may obtain the reward which God has freely promised in His mercy to those who do good works (Galatians 6:9).

The difference.

Our disagreement with the Roman Church is not with the doctrine of repentance itself, but with its damnable abuses — which are of two kinds: general and specific. The general abuses concern repentance considered as a whole, and they are as follows. The first is that they locate the beginning of repentance partly in themselves and partly in the Holy Spirit — that is, in the power of natural free will as assisted by the Holy Spirit. Paul, however, attributes this work entirely to God: 2 Timothy 2:25 speaks of 'if perhaps God may grant them repentance.' People who are not merely weak but dead in their sins and offenses cannot do anything to further their own conversion, however much they might be assisted — no more than a dead man in his grave can rise from it on his own. The second abuse is that they treat penance — or rather repentance — as that public discipline and order of correction used against notorious offenders in the open congregation. But Scripture sets out only one repentance, and it applies to all people without exception, to be practiced throughout every stage of life for the necessary putting to death of sin. Open ecclesiastical correction, on the other hand, applied not to all church members but only to those who had given open offense. The third abuse is that they make repentance not only a virtue but also a sacrament — even though for more than a thousand years after Christ it was not counted among the sacraments. Lombard appears to have been one of the first to call it a sacrament. The scholastic theologians who followed him debated its matter and form, yet not one of them could clearly define what the outward element should be. The fourth abuse concerns the effect and efficacy of repentance — for they make it a meritorious cause of the forgiveness of sins and of eternal life. This is directly contrary to God's word. Paul says clearly in Romans 4:24 that we are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith. The phrases here — 'redemption in Christ,' 'propitiation by His blood,' 'by faith,' 'freely by grace' — must be carefully observed, for they show plainly that no part of satisfaction or redemption is worked in us or by us, but only outside of us, in the person of Christ. Therefore we regard repentance only as a fruit of faith. Its effect and purpose is to testify to the forgiveness of our sins and our reconciliation before God. It may be said that forgiveness of sins and eternal life are promised to repentance. The answer is that the promise is not made to the work of repentance, but to the person who repents — and not for his own merit or act of repentance, but for the merits of Christ, which he applies to himself by faith. This is how we must understand all the Gospel promises in which works are mentioned — always presupposing in them the reconciliation of the person with God to whom the promise is made. This is why we dissent from the Roman Church on the doctrine of repentance.

The specific abuses concern contrition, confession, and satisfaction. The first abuse regarding contrition is that they teach it must be sufficient and perfect. To navigate this, they now use a distinction — saying that the sorrow of contrition must be greatest in terms of value and estimation, but not necessarily in terms of intensity. Yet Adrian held a different view: that in true repentance a person must grieve with all his effort. The Roman Catechism says as much: that the sorrow conceived for our sins must be so great that no greater can be imagined; that we must be contrite in the same measure we love God — that is, with all our heart and strength in the most intense sorrow; and that the hatred of sin must be not only the greatest but also the most intense and perfect, so as to exclude all sluggishness and slackness. But then they add that true contrition can be effective even if imperfect — how can this stand, if they prescribe and insist that contrition must be most perfect and intense? We teach only that God requires not the fullness of any grace so much as its genuineness, and that it is itself a degree of sincere contrition to be grieved that we cannot grieve for our sins as we should. The second abuse is that they attribute the merit of congruity to their contrition. But this cannot stand alongside the all-sufficient merit of Christ. An ancient council declares: 'God inspires in us first of all the faith and love of Himself — no merits going before — so that we may faithfully receive the sacrament of baptism and afterward do the things that please Him.' We hold that God requires contrition from us not to merit forgiveness, but so that we may acknowledge our own unworthiness and be humbled before God and distrust all our own merits — and so that we may value all the more the benefits of Christ by which we are received into God's favor — and so that we may more carefully avoid all sin going forward, by which so many torments and terrors of conscience are brought upon us. We acknowledge no contrition to be meritorious at all, except Christ's own contrition, by which He was crushed for our iniquities. The third abuse is that they treat imperfect contrition, or attrition — arising from the fear of hell — as good and profitable. They apply to it the saying: 'The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.' But servile fear in itself is a fruit of the law — which is the ministry of death and condemnation — and is consequently the road to eternal destruction if God leaves people to themselves. If it turns to anyone's good, it is only incidentally, because God in mercy uses it as an occasion before the giving of grace. Otherwise, remorse of conscience for sin is not the beginning of repentance or the restraint of any sin — it is, properly speaking, the beginning of unspeakable horrors of conscience and eternal death, unless God shows mercy. And yet this fear of punishment, when tempered and mixed with other graces and gifts of God in holy people, is not without profit — for in such people there is sorrow not only for punishment but even more for the offense itself. This kind of fear or sorrow is commanded in Malachi 1:6: 'A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?' Chrysostom says that the fear of hell in the heart of a righteous person is like an armed man defending against thieves and robbers, driving them from the house. Ambrose says that martyrs during their sufferings strengthened themselves against the cruelty of their persecutors by placing the fear of hell before their eyes.

The abuses touching confession are as follows. The first is that they use a form of confession to God spoken in an unknown language — which is therefore foolish and ridiculous — and they call on the aid and intercession of the dead and of those who are absent, when in fact there is only one mediator between God and man: the man Christ Jesus. The second is that in practice they confess their sins not only to God but also to the departed saints, in that they pray to those saints asking for their intercession for the pardon of their sins. This not only equals them with God in seeing and knowing the heart, but also gives a portion of His divine worship to creatures. The third and chief abuse is that they have corrupted what was once open, public confession by turning it into private, auricular confession — binding all people in conscience by a law requiring them to confess all their mortal sins with every circumstance that changes the nature of the sin, as far as they can possibly remember, at least once a year to a priest — unless in a case of extreme necessity. But there is no warrant for this kind of confession in the word of God, nor in orthodox Christian writings for many centuries after Christ, as one of their own side acknowledges. The Holy Spirit's command — 'confess your sins to one another and pray for one another' (James 5:17) — binds the priest to confess to us just as much as it binds any of us to confess to the priest. And where Matthew 3 records that many were baptized while confessing their sins, and Acts 19:18 records that many who believed came and openly confessed their deeds — the confession was voluntary, not compelled; it was also general, not a detailed enumeration of every sin with all its necessary circumstances. The church remained in this freedom of confession for 1,200 years until the Fourth Lateran Council, in which the law of auricular confession was first enacted — a notable invention serving to uncover people's secrets and enrich that greedy and ambitious see with the revenues of the world. Augustine was not aware of it when he said: 'What do I have to do with people that they should hear my confessions, as if they could heal all my diseases?' Nor was Chrysostom, when he says: 'I do not compel you to confess your sins to others.' And: 'If you are ashamed to confess them to any person because you have sinned, say them daily in your own heart. I do not tell you to confess them to your fellow servant, so he might mock you — confess them to God, who heals them.'

The abuse of satisfaction is this: they have turned what was once canonical satisfaction — made to the congregation by open offenders — into a satisfaction of God's justice for the temporal punishment of sins. This is a most horrible profanation of the entire Gospel, and especially of Christ's satisfaction, which is in itself, without any supplement, fully sufficient for the remission of both guilt and punishment. But I have already addressed this point earlier.

To this point I have examined and demonstrated, by working through a number of specific topics, that we must separate from the present Church of Rome in regard to the foundation and substance of true religion. Much more could be added on this point, but I conclude here — with only this one caution: that we make this separation from Roman religion without any hatred toward the persons who hold and defend it. Indeed, we extend more affection toward them than they do toward us. They do not die for their religion — though their actions may warrant it — but for the treasons they plan and carry out. We are prepared to perform every act of love toward them that the word requires of us. We respect the good gifts of God in many of them. We pray for them, genuinely desiring their repentance and eternal salvation.

Now I intend to move forward and briefly address other points of doctrine contained in the portion of Scripture I have been working through. From this commandment — 'Come out of her, my people' — I draw a second conclusion: the true church of God is and has been present within the Roman Church, as grain within a heap of chaff. Though the Roman Catholic religion ruled and spread across the face of the earth for many centuries, God preserved a people for Himself in the midst of it who truly worshipped Him. To this effect the Holy Spirit says that the dragon — that is, the devil — caused the woman — that is, the church — to flee into the wilderness, where he sought to destroy her but could not. And she still retained a remnant of her offspring who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus Christ (Revelation 12:17). What I am saying about the Roman Church cannot be said in the same way about the congregations of Muslims and other unbelievers — that the hidden church of God is preserved among them — because there is no means of salvation present at all. The Roman Church, on the other hand, has the Scriptures — though in a foreign language — and baptism in its outward form. Through these means God in every age preserved the means by which His elect could be gathered out of the midst of Babylon. This silences the Roman Catholics who demand of us where our church was eighty years ago, before Luther's time — as if to suggest to the world that our church and religion are new. The answer comes from this very text: our church has existed since the days of the apostles, including in the very midst of the papacy. It was always a church and did not first come into existence in Luther's time — it only began to be visible then, having been hidden by a universal apostasy for many centuries. This also gives us occasion to reflect on how God deals with His own church and people. He wills that they be outwardly mixed with their enemies — and that for a specific purpose — namely, to exercise the humility and patience of His few servants. When Elijah saw idolatry spread over all Israel, he withdrew to the wilderness and in grief asked to die. David cried out: 'Woe is me, for I sojourn in Meshech, for I dwell among the tents of Kedar' (Psalm 120:5). And righteous Lot had his soul tormented day after day by seeing and hearing the wickedness of Sodom.

Third, this commandment teaches us what to think of the present Church of Rome. It is often asked whether it is a church or not, and the answer may be framed as follows. If by this church we mean the institution and organization headed by the Pope — whose members are all who acknowledge him as their head and believe the doctrine established at the Council of Trent — we do not regard it as a church of God. This is because Babylon — which I have demonstrated to be the Church of Rome — is here set in opposition to the people of God, and we are commanded to come out of it. We may not completely forsake any people until they have first forsaken Christ. Some will perhaps say that the Church of Rome has the Scriptures and the sacrament of baptism. My first reply is that while they do have the books of Holy Scripture among them, the rest of their teaching overturns the true meaning of Scripture at its foundation, as I have shown. And while they have the outward form of baptism, they overturn the inward baptism that is its substance — namely, the justification and sanctification of a sinner. Furthermore, they have the word and baptism not for themselves, but for the sake of the true church of God within them — as a lantern holds a candle not for its own benefit but for others. Second, it is objected that if the Pope is Antichrist, then he sits in the temple — that is, in the church of God — and therefore the Roman Church must be the true church. The answer is that he sits in the temple of God, but notice how: as if he were God — not as a member, but as an open usurper, just as a thief sits in an honest man's house. The Roman Church and God's true church are mixed together like chaff and grain in one pile. The Church of Rome may be said to be in God's church, and God's church to be in the Church of Rome — just as we say the wheat is among the chaff and the chaff is among the wheat. Moreover, he is said to sit in the temple of God because the Roman Church, though falsely, claims for itself the title of the true catholic church. Some try to soften the matter by comparing this church to a man lying sick and covered with sores, his throat also cut, yet still alive — body and soul remaining joined. But on honest reflection, it is more like a dead body — entirely empty of spiritual life, as the foundational errors of the Roman Catholic system make plain. It is true that a known adulteress may afterward remain a wife and be called one — but after the bill of divorce is given, she ceases to be a wife, even if she can show her marriage ring. Now the Roman Church has received its bill of divorce in the written word — namely 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13:11-12.

This commandment also gives us a vivid picture of the condition of all humanity. We see two kinds of people: some belong to Babylon, rushing toward their own destruction; others are a people of God, separated from Babylon and kept for eternal life. If anyone asks the cause of this distinction, I answer: it is the very will of God, choosing to show mercy to some and withholding it from others — not continuing mercy to them — for the greater display of His justice. The Lord says in Romans 11:4: 'I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.' And Isaiah says: 'Unless the Lord of hosts had left us a few survivors, we would be like Sodom and Gomorrah.' This distinction teaches us above all things to seek to be among God's people, and to strive for assurance of this in our own consciences. If all were to be saved, less urgency would be needed — but this mercy is not common to all, and therefore it deserves all the more thought.

Finally, I note here the special care God has over His own children. He first gives them warning to depart before He begins to execute His judgment on the enemies among whom they live — so that they might not be partakers of their sins or punishments. Before God punished Jerusalem, an angel was sent to mark on the forehead those who mourned for the abominations of the people. And in the destruction of the firstborn in Egypt, the angel passed over the homes of the Jews whose doorposts were sprinkled with the blood of the Passover lamb — and this passing over signifies safety and preservation in the midst of common destruction for those whose hearts are sprinkled with the blood of Christ. This blessing of protection should move us all to become genuine and wholehearted servants of God. People commonly seek membership in societies and organizations where they can enjoy privileges and freedoms. Look: in the company of God's saints — the true church — there is freedom from danger in every common catastrophe and from eternal vengeance at the last day. When Esther had secured the safety of the Jews and permission for them to defend themselves against their enemies, many people of the land became Jews. In the same way, since Christ has secured freedom from hell, death, and condemnation for all who believe in Him, we should strive above all things to become new creatures — always joining ourselves to the true church of God.

So far I have addressed the commandment; now follows the reason given for it — drawn from its purpose: that they not share in her sins and that they not receive her plagues. I could spend much time here showing what the sins of the Church of Rome are, but I will name only the principal ones. The first sin is atheism, and I demonstrate it as follows. Atheism is of two kinds: open and concealed. Open atheism is when people deny God and His word in both word and deed. Concealed atheism is less obvious, and it has two degrees. The first degree is when people acknowledge God as creator and governor of heaven and earth, yet deny the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Ephesians before receiving the Gospel are said to have been without God — though in their natural reasoning they acknowledged Him — because they denied Christ. Consequently they worshipped an idol of their own imagination when they worshipped God outside of Christ. In the same way, though the Samaritans worshipped the God of Abraham, our Savior Christ said they worshipped what they did not know. And the Psalmist says of all the Gentiles that their gods are idols. In this degree of atheism stand Muslims and Jews today, along with anti-Trinitarians and Arians, and all who conceive of and worship God outside of the Trinity. The second degree is when people rightly acknowledge the unity of God in the Trinity of persons, yet by the necessary consequences of their doctrine and worship, they overturn what they have correctly stated. In this sense I say that the religion of the Church of Rome is itself a form of atheism. By making the merit of human works cooperate with God's grace, it overthrows the grace of God (Romans 11). In words they acknowledge the infinite justice and mercy of God, but in practice both are denied. How can God's justice be infinite if it can be appeased in any way by human satisfactions? And how can God's mercy be infinite if our own satisfactions must supplement the satisfaction of Christ? Furthermore: he who does not have the Son does not have the Father, and he who has neither Father nor Son denies God. But the present Roman religion does not have the Son — that is, Jesus Christ, God and man, the Mediator of humanity — but has fashioned a false Christ. Here is how I show it. In place of one Jesus Christ, fully human like us in every way except sin, they have constructed a Christ to whom they ascribe two modes of existence: one natural, by which He is visible, tangible, and located in heaven; the other not merely above nature but contrary to it — by which He is physically present, according to His flesh, in the hands of every priest, in every consecrated host, and in the mouth of every communicant — invisible, intangible, and without location. In this way they effectively abolish His humanity. They also strip Him of His offices. In place of one Jesus Christ, the only king, lawgiver, and head of the church, they attach the Pope to Him — not merely as a deputy but as an equal — by giving the Pope power to make laws binding on conscience, to determine the meaning of Holy Scripture infallibly, to properly pardon sin with respect to both guilt and temporal punishment, to exercise authority over the entire earth and a portion of hell, to depose kings to whom every soul is subject under Christ, to release subjects from their oath of allegiance, and so on. In place of one Jesus Christ, the only real priest of the New Testament, they add to Him many secondary priests who daily offer Christ in the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead. In place of one Jesus Christ, the all-sufficient Mediator of intercession, they have added many companions to Him who make requests on our behalf — as many saints as are in the Pope's calendar. Finally, in place of the sole merits of Christ — in whom alone the Father is well pleased — they have devised a treasury of the church containing, alongside the merits of Christ, the surplus merits of the saints, to be distributed to people at the Pope's discretion. And so we see that Christ — and consequently God Himself, to be worshipped in Christ — has been transformed into a fantasy or idol of human invention. There is always a correspondence between a person's worship of God and their understanding of Him. In whatever worship they offer to God, they have in mind some sense of His nature, so that the worship may be fitting and pleasing to Him. Let us then look at what kind of worship Roman religion provides. It is for the most part mere will-worship — invented by human beings without any allowance or command from God. It is an outward, bodily religion consisting of countless ceremonies borrowed partly from the Jews and partly from the pagans. It is divided between God and some of His creatures, who are worshipped together with a similar kind of honor — let them dress it up however they will. If we may judge by their manner of worshipping God what they actually believe about Him — and we may — they have plainly turned the true God into a fantasy of their own making. For God is not to be conceived of in any way except as He has revealed Himself in creation and in His word — and especially in Christ, who is the exact image of the Father's person.

The second sin is idolatry — as gross as anything ever practiced among the pagans. It can be seen in two things. First, they worship the saints with religious worship that is, without exception, proper to God alone. They go so far as to transform some of them into abominable idols, making them in reality mediators of redemption — especially the Virgin Mary, whom they call a lady, a goddess, a queen whom Christ her Son obeys in heaven, a mediatress, life itself, hope, and the healer of the sick. They pray to her: 'Prepare glory for us; defend us from our enemies; receive us at the hour of death; loose the bonds of the guilty; bring light to the blind; drive away all demons. Show yourself to be a mother; let him receive our prayers.' Second, their idolatry is evident in that they worship God in, at, and before images — without any commandment to do so, and in fact contrary to explicit command. They claim they use and venerate images only to remind them of God. But this is like an unfaithful wife who brings many lovers into her home during her husband's absence and, when rebuked, answers that these are her husband's friends and she keeps them there only to remind herself of him. Third, their idolatry exceeds even that of the pagans — for they worship a bread-god, worshipping Christ in and under the form of bread and wine. And if Christ in His humanity is absent from the earth — as I have demonstrated — the Roman consecrated host is as abominable an idol as any that has ever existed.

The third sin is the promotion of sexual immorality, which is evident in two things. First, in the toleration of houses of prostitution — directly contrary to the commandment of God. Deuteronomy 23:17: 'None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute.' This toleration is an occasion of sexual immorality for many young men and women who would otherwise abstain from all such filth. And what an abomination it is when brothers, fathers and sons, nephews and uncles, come to the same prostitute, one after another. Second, their law permits the marriage of any persons beyond the fourth degree — and by this means they sometimes allow what amounts to incest. In the unequal collateral line, the person nearest the common ancestor stands in the relationship of a parent to the descendants of that ancestor's sibling, as the following example shows.

John had two children: Nicholas and Anne. Nicholas had children Thomas and Lewes. Anne had children Roger, Anthony, and James. Here Anne and Nicholas are brother and sister, making Anne in the position of a mother to all who are descended from Nicholas.

Anne and Nicholas are brother and sister, and Anne is six degrees removed from James — he being her great-nephew. The Church of Rome permits the marriage between them, since they fall outside the four-degree limit. Nevertheless this is contrary to the law of nature — for since Anne is Nicholas's sister, she stands in the position of a mother to all of Nicholas's descendants, including James and James's descendants. I do grant this much: that Anne's daughter may lawfully marry James or Anthony — that case is different, because they are not to each other in the relationship of parent and child.

The fourth sin is magic, sorcery, and witchcraft — seen in the consecration of the host, by which they make their bread-god; in exorcisms performed over holy bread, holy water, and salt; in the casting out or driving away of demons by the sign of the cross, solemn conjurations, holy water, the ringing of bells, the lighting of candles, relics, and similar means. These things have no actual power, either from creation or from any institution of God in His word — and therefore, if anything is accomplished by them, it comes from the secret operation of the devil himself.

The fifth sin is that their doctrine promotes perjury. They teach with one voice that a Roman Catholic under examination may give deliberately ambiguous answers contrary to what the examiner is asking — by privately assigning a different meaning to his words. For example: if a man is asked whether he said or heard Mass at a particular place — though he did — they say he may answer no and swear to it, because he was not there to disclose it to the examiner. Yet by the very law of nature, a person taking an oath must swear according to the intention of the one authorized to administer it, and must do so in truth, justice, and judgment. Let them clear their teaching of all support for perjury, if they can.

The sixth sin is that they reverse many of God's commandments — treating as no sin what God's word calls sin. They teach that stealing a small thing that is not thought to cause serious harm is no mortal sin. That a lie told in someone's interest, or a lie made in jest, is only a venial sin. That praying for our enemies specifically is not a commandment but only a counsel — and that no one is bound to greet an enemy in a friendly manner. This is directly contrary to Christ's rule in Matthew 5:47. They also teach that a rash judgment, even when consented to, is ordinarily only a venial sin; that it is sometimes lawful to pretend to be holy; that wearing face paint is ordinarily only a venial sin; and that it is not lawful to forbid begging, even though the Lord commanded that there should be no poor person in Israel. They further teach that men who swear oaths of violence in the heat of anger are not true blasphemers.

Finally, their writers resort to outright lying to defend their doctrine. They falsely claim that all of Christian antiquity is on their side — when in fact the ancient writers are as much against them as for them, and as much for us as for them. Furthermore, they have a practice — continuing to this day — of supporting their positions by forged and counterfeit writings attributed to respected men. I will name several of these.

Among the forged writings used by Rome to prove their positions are these: the Liturgy of Saint James; the Canons of the Apostles; the books of Dionysius the Areopagite, including his work on ecclesiastical hierarchy; the Decretal Epistles of the Popes; the works of Pope Clement; some of the epistles of Ignatius; Origen's book on repentance, his homilies on various saints, commentaries on Job, and his book on Lamentations; the Liturgy of Chrysostom; the Liturgy of Basil and his Ascetica; various works falsely attributed to Augustine; the Questions and Answers of Justin Martyr; the epistle of Athanasius to Pope Felix; Bernard's sermons on the Lord's Supper; Jerome's epistle to Demetrias, which smacks of Pelagius; Tertullian's work on monogamy; Cyprian on chrism and on the washing of feet. In the Council of Sardica, the third, fourth, and fifth canons are forged. In the Council of Nicea, all canons except twenty are forged. Certain Roman councils under Silvester are forged, since he was dead at the time and could not have confirmed them. To the sixth canon of the Council of Nicea, the words 'the Roman Church has always had the supremacy' were inserted. And finally, Popes Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine falsified the canons of the Council of Nicea to prove that appeals could be made from all places to Rome — so that the bishops of Africa were forced to send for the true copies of that council from Constantinople and the churches of Greece.

I could rehearse many other sins which, together with those already named, call for judgment upon the Roman Church — but it will suffice to have named a few of the chief ones.

In this reason our Savior Christ prescribes another important duty to His own people — to take care to avoid all the sins of the Church of Rome, so that they may escape its deserved plagues and punishments. From this prescribed duty I draw two observations. The first is that every faithful servant of God must carefully avoid marriage with committed Roman Catholics — that is, with those who acknowledge the Pope as their head and believe the doctrine of the Council of Trent. In such marriages, people find it very hard to maintain faith and a good conscience, and very hard to avoid sharing in the sins of the Roman Church. I ground this further on the following reasoning. Scripture speaks of two kinds of alliances between persons, or between nations. The first is a league of peace — when one kingdom binds itself to live peacefully with another for the sake of undisturbed trade. This kind of alliance may exist between God's church and its enemies. The second is a league of friendship — when people, communities, or nations bind themselves to defend each other in all causes, making each other's wars their own. This kind of alliance may not be made with enemies of God. Jehoshaphat, otherwise a good king, made this kind of alliance with Ahab and was accordingly rebuked by the prophet: 'Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?' (2 Chronicles 19:2). Marriages between Protestants and Roman Catholics are private leagues of friendship between individuals — and therefore are not to be permitted. Furthermore, Malachi 2:11 says: 'Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord which He loves and has married the daughter of a foreign god' — where marriage with the people of a false god is plainly condemned. The Roman Catholics, as I have shown, by the consequences of their doctrine and religion, have turned the true God into an idol of their own imagination, and the true Christ revealed in the written word into a fabricated Christ made of bread. That said, if such a marriage has already been made and completed, it may not be dissolved. The parties sin not simply in being married, but in marrying outside the Lord — being of different religions. The fault is not in the substance of the marriage but in the manner of entering into it. For this reason the apostle commands the believing party not to abandon or refuse the unbelieving party — even if that person were a pagan, which no Roman Catholic is — if that party is willing to remain (1 Corinthians 7:13).

The second observation is that every servant of God must take care when traveling to countries where Roman Catholicism is the established religion — lest he share in its sins and punishments. To go as an ambassador to any place, or to travel in order to fulfill the necessary duties of one's particular or general calling, is not unlawful. But to travel outside the bounds of the church purely for pleasure and to observe foreign fashions has no warrant. This is why many people who depart in good order and with right intentions return home with damaged consciences. The best traveler of all is the one who — whether at home or abroad — can journey out of himself and depart from his own sins and corruptions through genuine repentance.