1

Gateway to Interpreting the Christian Tradition

Classpack

Table of Contents

How to Read a Primary Source 2

Three Early Creeds (4th and 5

th centuries) 3

Augustine, Confessions (397-400) 4

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (1265-1274) 11

Martin Luther, Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520) 16

Phillip Jakob Spener, Pia Desideria (1675) 24

F. D. E. Schleiermacher, On Religion (1799) 32

Karl Barth, “The Strange New World Within the Bible” (1916) 38

Oscar Romero, “The Political Dimension of Faith” (1980) 49

2

How to Read a Primary Source

Reading primary sources requires a critical eye. It begins with finding out as much as possible

about the source’s context: the historical circumstances during which the source was written,

relevant biographical facts about the author, and his or her motivations and purposes for writing

it. Reading primary sources also means coming to a clear understanding of what the source says,

that is, its meaning. Sometimes this is difficult, especially with older documents and with those

written by those of a culture unfamiliar to us. Finally, reading primary sources means coming to

some judgment about the importance of the source for understanding larger historical themes. In

other words, what difference does this source make for our understanding of the past?

When reading primary source documents, keep the following issues in mind:

Context:

What historical circumstances might have motivated the author to write this source?

Does the author specifically mention those circumstances, or are they implied

somewhere in the text?

Who is the author and what is his or her place in society? What evidence do you have

from the text that helps you understand who the author is?

What is at stake for the author in this text? Why do you think he or she wrote it? What

evidence in the text tells you this?

Who is the intended audience of the text? How might this influence its rhetorical

strategy? Identify specific examples from the text itself.

Meaning:

Does the work have a thesis? What -- in one sentence -- is that thesis?

How does the author make his or her case? What is its strategy for accomplishing its

goal? How does it carry out this strategy?

What presuppositions does the author have in making the argument as he or she does?

In what way, if any, is the author responding to arguments made by others (whether this

is indicated directly in the text or not)?

Do you think the author is credible and reliable?

Importance:

How does this text illustrate or illumine the broad themes of religious history under

consideration? Where have you seen this theme before?

How do the ideas and values implied in the source differ from the ideas and values of our

own age? How might these differences influence the way in which we understand the

text?

In what way does the text consider an “enduring theme” of religious history?

3

Document 1

Three Early Creeds

In an effort to resolve the theological issues raised in the Christological and Trinitarian

controversies, a creed was developed during the fourth century at two ecumenical councils. The

Council of Nicaea (325) articulated a simple creed. The efforts did not fully answer all of the

questions, however, and the Council of Constantinople (381) offered a slightly expanded creed.

Still the controversies simmered, requiring the Council of Chalcedon (451) specifically to

condemn certain theological positions on Christology and Trinity. While most churches inside

the Roman Empire accepted all three creeds as authoritative, those outside the Empire—in

Upper Egypt and Persia especially—rejected them altogether.

Nicaea (325)

We believe in one God, the Father

Almighty, Maker of all things visible and

invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the

Son of God, begotten of the Father [the

only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the

Father, God of God], Light of Light, very

God of very God, begotten, not made, being

of one substance with the Father; By whom

all things were made [both in heaven and on

earth];Who for us men, and for our

salvation, came down and was incarnate and

was made man; He suffered, and the third

day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

From thence he shall come to judge the

quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.

Constantinople (381)

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things

visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus

Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of

Light, very God of very God, begotten, not

made, being of one substance with the Father; by

whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven,

and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the

Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and

suffered, and was buried, and the third day he

rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right

hand of the Father; from thence he shall come

again, with glory, to judge the quick and the

dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who

proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father

and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. But those who say:

'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was

not before he was made;' and 'He was made out

of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or

'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned

by the holy catholic and apostolic Church. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we

acknowledge one baptism for the remission of

sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

4

Definition of Chalcedon (451)

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the

same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly

God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with

the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all

things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead,

and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God,

according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be

acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the

distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each

nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided

into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word,

the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and

the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down

to us.

Document 2

Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

Confessions (397-400)

Born into an upper-class family in Roman North Africa, Augustine was raised nominally to be a

Christian. Early he studied rhetoric and longed to be well-known as an orator and teacher. At

age 32, he had a conversion experience and soon was ordained to the priesthood. He developed

a reputation as a good preacher and debater, and in 395 was appointed Bishop of Hippo. In this

position, he wrote voluminously. The following selection comes from his spiritual

autobiography, known as the Confessions. In it he reflects on his misspent youth, his conversion

experience, and his life-long struggle against sin. “Our hearts are restless,” Augustine

confesses to God in a famous passage the beginning of his work, “until they find their rest in

you.”

Book 2

Chapter 1, 1. I wish now to review in memory my past wickedness and the carnal corruptions of

my soul—not because I still love them, but that I may love thee, O my God. For love of thy love

I do this, recalling in the bitterness of self-examination my wicked ways, that thou mayest grow

sweet to me, thou sweetness without deception! Thou sweetness happy and assured!...

Chapter 3, 6. During that sixteenth year of my age, I lived with my parents, having a holiday

from school for a time--this idleness imposed upon me by my parents' straitened finances. The

thornbushes of lust grew rank about my head, and there was no hand to root them out. Indeed,

when my father saw me one day at the baths and perceived that I was becoming a man, and was

showing the signs of adolescence, he joyfully told my mother about it as if already looking

forward to grandchildren, rejoicing in that sort of inebriation in which the world so often forgets

5

thee, its Creator, and falls in love with thy creature instead of thee—the inebriation of that

invisible wine of a perverted will which turns and bows down to infamy. But in my mother's

breast thou hadst already begun to build thy temple and the foundation of thy holy habitation—

whereas my father was only a catechumen, and that but recently. She was, therefore, startled

with a holy fear and trembling: for though I had not yet been baptized, she feared those crooked

ways in which they walk who turn their backs to thee and not their faces…

Chapter 4, 9. …There was a pear tree close to our own vineyard, heavily laden with fruit, which

was not tempting either for its color or for its flavor. Late one night—having prolonged our

games in the streets until then, as our bad habit was—a group of young scoundrels, and I among

them, went to shake and rob this tree. We carried off a huge load of pears, not to eat ourselves,

but to dump out to the hogs, after barely tasting some of them ourselves. Doing this pleased us

all the more because it was forbidden. Such was my heart, O God, such was my heart--which

thou didst pity even in that bottomless pit. Behold, now let my heart confess to thee what it was

seeking there, when I was being gratuitously wanton, having no inducement to evil but the evil

itself. It was foul, and I loved it. I loved my own undoing. I loved my error—not that for which I

erred but the error itself. A depraved soul, falling away from security in thee to destruction in

itself, seeking nothing from the shameful deed but shame itself…

Chapter 6, 12-14. What was it in you, O theft of mine, that I, poor wretch, doted on—you deed

of darkness—in that sixteenth year of my age? Beautiful you were not, for you were a theft. But

are you anything at all, so that I could analyze the case with you? Those pears that we stole were

fair to the sight because they were thy creation, O Beauty beyond compare, O Creator of all, O

thou good God--God the highest good and my true good. Those pears were truly pleasant to the

sight, but it was not for them that my miserable soul lusted, for I had an abundance of better

pears. I stole those simply that I might steal, for, having stolen them, I threw them away. My sole

gratification in them was my own sin, which I was pleased to enjoy; for, if any one of these pears

entered my mouth, the only good flavor it had was my sin in eating it. And now, O Lord my

God, I ask what it was in that theft of mine that caused me such delight; for behold it had no

beauty of its own—certainly not the sort of beauty that exists in justice and wisdom, nor such as

is in the mind, memory senses, and the animal life of man; nor yet the kind that is the glory and

beauty of the stars in their courses; nor the beauty of the earth, or the sea—teeming with

spawning life, replacing in birth that which dies and decays. Indeed, it did not have that false and

shadowy beauty which attends the deceptions of vice.

For thus we see pride wearing the mask of high-spiritedness, although only thou, O God, art high

above all. Ambition seeks honor and glory, whereas only thou shouldst be honored above all, and

glorified forever. The powerful man seeks to be feared, because of his cruelty; but who ought

really to be feared but God only? What can be forced away or withdrawn out of his power—

when or where or whither or by whom? The enticements of the wanton claim the name of love;

and yet nothing is more enticing than thy love, nor is anything loved more healthfully than thy

truth, bright and beautiful above all. Curiosity prompts a desire for knowledge, whereas it is only

thou who knowest all things supremely. Indeed, ignorance and foolishness themselves go

masked under the names of simplicity and innocence; yet there is no being that has true

simplicity like thine, and none is innocent as thou art. Thus it is that by a sinner's own deeds he is

himself harmed. Human sloth pretends to long for rest, but what sure rest is there save in the

6

Lord? Luxury would fain be called plenty and abundance; but thou art the fullness and unfailing

abundance of unfading joy. Prodigality presents a show of liberality; but thou art the most lavish

giver of all good things. Covetousness desires to possess much; but thou art already the possessor

of all things. Envy contends that its aim is for excellence; but what is so excellent as thou? Anger

seeks revenge; but who avenges more justly than thou? Fear recoils at the unfamiliar and the

sudden changes which threaten things beloved, and is wary for its own security; but what can

happen that is unfamiliar or sudden to thee? Or who can deprive thee of what thou lovest?

Where, really, is there unshaken security save with thee? Grief languishes for things lost in

which desire had taken delight, because it wills to have nothing taken from it, just as nothing can

be taken from thee.

Thus the soul commits fornication when she is turned from thee, and seeks apart from thee what

she cannot find pure and untainted until she returns to thee. All things thus imitate thee—but

pervertedly—when they separate themselves far from thee and raise themselves up against thee.

But, even in this act of perverse imitation, they acknowledge thee to be the Creator of all nature,

and recognize that there is no place whither they can altogether separate themselves from thee.

What was it, then, that I loved in that theft? And wherein was I imitating my Lord, even in a

corrupted and perverted way? Did I wish, if only by gesture, to rebel against thy law, even

though I had no power to do so actually--so that, even as a captive, I might produce a sort of

counterfeit liberty, by doing with impunity deeds that were forbidden, in a deluded sense of

omnipotence? Behold this servant of thine, fleeing from his Lord and following a shadow! O

rottenness! O monstrousness of life and abyss of death! Could I find pleasure only in what was

unlawful, and only because it was unlawful?

Chapter 9, 17. By what passion, then, was I animated? It was undoubtedly depraved and a great

misfortune for me to feel it. But still, what was it? “Who can understand his errors?” [Psalm

19:12]

We laughed because our hearts were tickled at the thought of deceiving the owners, who had no

idea of what we were doing and would have strenuously objected. Yet, again, why did I find

such delight in doing this which I would not have done alone? Is it that no one readily laughs

alone? No one does so readily; but still sometimes, when men are by themselves and no one else

is about, a fit of laughter will overcome them when something very droll presents itself to their

sense or mind. Yet alone I would not have done it--alone I could not have done it at all.

Behold, my God, the lively review of my soul's career is laid bare before thee. I would not have

committed that theft alone. My pleasure in it was not what I stole but, rather, the act of stealing.

Nor would I have enjoyed doing it alone--indeed I would not have done it! O friendship all

unfriendly! You strange seducer of the soul, who hungers for mischief from impulses of mirth

and wantonness, who craves another's loss without any desire for one's own profit or revenge—

so that, when they say, “Let's go, let's do it,” we are ashamed not to be shameless.

Chapter 10, 18. Who can unravel such a twisted and tangled knottiness? It is unclean. I hate to

reflect upon it. I hate to look on it. But I do long for thee, O Righteousness and Innocence, so

beautiful and comely to all virtuous eyes—I long for thee with an insatiable satiety. With thee is

perfect rest, and life unchanging. He who enters into thee enters into the joy of his Lord,

7

[Matthew 25:23] and shall have no fear and shall achieve excellence in the Excellent. I fell away

from thee, O my God, and in my youth I wandered too far from thee, my true support. And I

became to myself a wasteland.

Book 3

Chapter 1, 1. I came to Carthage, where a caldron of unholy loves was seething and bubbling all

around me. I was not in love as yet, but I was in love with love; and, from a hidden hunger, I

hated myself for not feeling more intensely a sense of hunger. I was looking for something to

love, for I was in love with loving, and I hated security and a smooth way, free from snares.

Within me I had a dearth of that inner food which is thyself, my God—although that dearth

caused me no hunger. And I remained without any appetite for incorruptible food--not because I

was already filled with it, but because the emptier I became the more I loathed it. Because of this

my soul was unhealthy; and, full of sores, it exuded itself forth, itching to be scratched by

scraping on the things of the senses. [Job 2:7, 8] Yet, had these things no soul, they would

certainly not inspire our love.

To love and to be loved was sweet to me, and all the more when I gained the enjoyment of the

body of the person I loved. Thus I polluted the spring of friendship with the filth of

concupiscence and I dimmed its luster with the slime of lust. Yet, foul and unclean as I was, I

still craved, in excessive vanity, to be thought elegant and urbane. And I did fall precipitately

into the love I was longing for. My God, my mercy, with how much bitterness didst thou, out of

thy infinite goodness, flavor that sweetness for me! For I was not only beloved but also I secretly

reached the climax of enjoyment; and yet I was joyfully bound with troublesome tics, so that I

could be scourged with the burning iron rods of jealousy, suspicion, fear, anger, and strife.

Editor’s note: Fifteen years after that trip to Carthage, with a mistress and an illegitimate son,

Augustine is still struggling with his sinfulness. His work as a teacher in Rome and Milan had

been an utter disappointment, and he sought the counsel of Ambrose, the bishop of Milan. He

wanted to be a Christian, but making this commitment came hard. One day, while sitting in a

garden with his friend Alypius, Augustine experienced a “conversion.”

Book 8

Chapter 11, 25. Thus I was sick and tormented, reproaching myself more bitterly than ever,

rolling and writhing in my chain till it should be utterly broken. By now I was held but slightly,

but still was held. And thou, O Lord, didst press upon me in my inmost heart with a severe

mercy, redoubling the lashes of fear and shame; lest I should again give way and that same

slender remaining tie not be broken off, but recover strength and enchain me yet more securely.

I kept saying to myself, “See, let it be done now; let it be done now.” And as I said this I all but

came to a firm decision. I all but did it—yet I did not quite. Still I did not fall back to my old

condition, but stood aside for a moment and drew breath. And I tried again, and lacked only a

very little of reaching the resolve—and then somewhat less, and then all but touched and grasped

it. Yet I still did not quite reach or touch or grasp the goal, because I hesitated to die to death and

to live to life. And the worse way, to which I was habituated, was stronger in me than the better,

8

which I had not tried. And up to the very moment in which I was to become another man, the

nearer the moment approached, the greater horror did it strike in me. But it did not strike me

back, nor turn me aside, but held me in suspense…

Chapter 12, 28-30. Now when deep reflection had drawn up out of the secret depths of my soul

all my misery and had heaped it up before the sight of my heart, there arose a mighty storm,

accompanied by a mighty rain of tears. That I might give way fully to my tears and lamentations,

I stole away from Alypius, for it seemed to me that solitude was more appropriate for the

business of weeping. I went far enough away that I could feel that even his presence was no

restraint upon me. This was the way I felt at the time, and he realized it. I suppose I had said

something before I started up and he noticed that the sound of my voice was choked with

weeping. And so he stayed alone, where we had been sitting together, greatly astonished. I flung

myself down under a fig tree—how I know not—and gave free course to my tears. The streams

of my eyes gushed out an acceptable sacrifice to thee. And, not indeed in these words, but to this

effect, I cried to thee: “And thou, O Lord, how long? How long, O Lord? Wilt thou be angry

forever? Oh, remember not against us our former iniquities.” [Psalm 6:3, 79:8] For I felt that I

was still enthralled by them. I sent up these sorrowful cries: “How long, how long? Tomorrow

and tomorrow? Why not now? Why not this very hour make an end to my uncleanness?”

I was saying these things and weeping in the most bitter contrition of my heart, when suddenly I

heard the voice of a boy or a girl I know not which--coming from the neighboring house,

chanting over and over again, “Pick it up, read it; pick it up, read it.” Immediately I ceased

weeping and began most earnestly to think whether it was usual for children in some kind of

game to sing such a song, but I could not remember ever having heard the like. So, damming the

torrent of my tears, I got to my feet, for I could not but think that this was a divine command to

open the Bible and read the first passage I should light upon. For I had heard how Anthony,

accidentally coming into church while the gospel was being read, received the admonition as if

what was read had been addressed to him: “Go and sell what you have and give it to the poor,

and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me." [Matthew 19:21] By such an

oracle he was forthwith converted to thee.

So I quickly returned to the bench where Alypius was sitting, for there I had put down the

apostle's book when I had left there. I snatched it up, opened it, and in silence read the paragraph

on which my eyes first fell: “Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness,

not in strife and envying, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to

fulfill the lusts thereof.” [Romans 13:13] I wanted to read no further, nor did I need to. For

instantly, as the sentence ended, there was infused in my heart something like the light of full

certainty and all the gloom of doubt vanished away.

Closing the book, then, and putting my finger or something else for a mark I began—now with a

tranquil countenance—to tell it all to Alypius. And he in turn disclosed to me what had been

going on in himself, of which I knew nothing. He asked to see what I had read. I showed him,

and he looked on even further than I had read. I had not known what followed. But indeed it was

this, “Him that is weak in the faith, receive.” [Romans 14:1] This he applied to himself, and told

me so. By these words of warning he was strengthened, and by exercising his good resolution

and purpose—all very much in keeping with his character, in which, in these respects, he was

9

always far different from and better than I—he joined me in full commitment without any

restless hesitation.

Then we went in to my mother, and told her what happened, to her great joy. We explained to

her how it had occurred—and she leaped for joy triumphant; and she blessed thee, who art “able

to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think.” [Ephesians 3:20] For she saw that

thou hadst granted her far more than she had ever asked for in all her pitiful and doleful

lamentations. For thou didst so convert me to thee that I sought neither a wife nor any other of

this world's hopes, but set my feet on that rule of faith which so many years before thou hadst

showed her in her dream about me. And so thou didst turn her grief into gladness more plentiful

than she had ventured to desire, and dearer and purer than the desire she used to cherish of

having grandchildren of my flesh.

Editor’s note: Augustine describes how he resigned his position as a teacher and prepared for

his baptism. His friend, Alypius, and his illegitimate son, Aedeotatus, were baptized with him.

Shortly thereafter, his mother, Monica, dies. His Confessions then turns introspective as he

reflects on a number of inter-related issues. For one thing, he explains what he hopes to gain

from writing his autobiography.

Book Ten

Chapter 1. Let me know Thee, O Lord, who knowest me: let me know Thee, as I am known.

Power of my soul, enter into it, and fit it for Thee, that Thou mayest have and hold it without

spot or wrinkle. This is my hope, therefore do I speak; and in this hope do I rejoice, when I

rejoice healthfully. Other things of this life are the less to be sorrowed for, the more they are

sorrowed for; and the more to be sorrowed for, the less men sorrow for them. For behold, Thou

lovest the truth, and he that doth it, cometh to the light. This would I do in my heart before Thee

in confession: and in my writing, before many witnesses.

Chapter 2. And from Thee, O Lord, unto whose eyes the abyss of man's conscience is naked,

what could be hidden in me though I would not confess it? For I should hide Thee from me, not

me from Thee. But now, for that my groaning is witness, that I am displeased with myself, Thou

shinest out, and art pleasing, and beloved, and longed for; that I may be ashamed of myself, and

renounce myself, and choose Thee, and neither please Thee nor myself, but in Thee. To Thee

therefore, O Lord, am I open, whatever I am; and with what fruit I confess unto Thee, I have

said. Nor do I it with words and sounds of the flesh, but with the words of my soul, and the cry

of the thought which Thy ear knoweth. For when I am evil, then to confess to Thee is nothing

else than to be displeased with myself; but when holy, nothing else than not to ascribe it to

myself: because Thou, O Lord, blessest the godly, but first Thou justifieth him when ungodly.

My confession then, O my God, in Thy sight, is made silently, and not silently. For in sound, it is

silent; in affection, it cries aloud. For neither do I utter any thing right unto men, which Thou

hast not before heard from me; nor dost Thou hear any such thing from me, which Thou hast not

first said unto me.

Chapter 3. What then have I to do with men, that they should hear my confessions--as if they

could heal all my infirmities--a race, curious to know the lives of others, slothful to amend their

10

own? Why seek they to hear from me what I am; who will not hear from Thee what themselves

are? And how know they, when from myself they hear of myself, whether I say true; seeing no

man knows what is in man, but the spirit of man which is in him? But if they hear from Thee of

themselves, they cannot say, "The Lord lieth." For what is it to hear from Thee of themselves,

but to know themselves? and who knoweth and saith, "It is false," unless himself lieth? But

because charity believeth all things (that is, among those whom knitting unto itself it maketh

one), I also, O Lord, will in such wise confess unto Thee, that men may hear, to whom I cannot

demonstrate whether I confess truly; yet they believe me, whose ears charity openeth unto me.

But do Thou, my inmost Physician, make plain unto me what fruit I may reap by doing it. For the

confessions of my past sins, which Thou hast forgiven and covered, that Thou mightest bless me

in Thee, changing my soul by Faith and Thy Sacrament, when read and heard, stir up the heart,

that it sleep not in despair and say "I cannot," but awake in the love of Thy mercy and the

sweetness of Thy grace, whereby whoso is weak, is strong, when by it he became conscious of

his own weakness. And the good delight to hear of the past evils of such as are now freed from

them, not because they are evils, but because they have been and are not. With what fruit then, O

Lord my God, to Whom my conscience daily confesseth, trusting more in the hope of Thy mercy

than in her own innocency, with what fruit, I pray, do I by this book confess to men also in Thy

presence what I now am, not what I have been? For that other fruit I have seen and spoken of.

But what I now am, at the very time of making these confessions, divers desire to know, who

have or have not known me, who have heard from me or of me; but their ear is not at my heart

where I am, whatever I am. They wish then to hear me confess what I am within; whither neither

their eye, nor ear, nor understanding can reach; they wish it, as ready to believe—but will they

know? For charity, whereby they are good, telleth them that in my confessions I lie not; and she

in them, believeth me.

Chapter 4. But for what fruit would they hear this? Do they desire to joy with me, when they

hear how near, by Thy gift, I approach unto Thee? and to pray for me, when they shall hear how

much I am held back by my own weight? To such will I discover myself For it is no mean fruit,

O Lord my God, that by many thanks should be given to Thee on our behalf, and Thou be by

many entreated for us. Let the brotherly mind love in me what Thou teachest is to be loved, and

lament in me what Thou teachest is to be lamented. Let a brotherly, not a stranger, mind, not that

of the strange children, whose mouth talketh of vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of

iniquity, but that brotherly mind which when it approveth, rejoiceth for me, and when it

disapproveth me, is sorry for me; because whether it approveth or disapproveth, it loveth me. To

such will I discover myself: they will breathe freely at my good deeds, sigh for my ill. My good

deeds are Thine appointments, and Thy gifts; my evil ones are my offences, and Thy judgments.

Let them breathe freely at the one, sigh at the other; and let hymns and weeping go up into Thy

sight, out of the hearts of my brethren, Thy censers. And do Thou, O Lord, he pleased with the

incense of Thy holy temple, have mercy upon me according to Thy great mercy for Thine own

name's sake; and no ways forsaking what Thou hast begun, perfect my imperfections.

This is the fruit of my confessions of what I am, not of what I have been, to confess this, not

before Thee only, in a secret exultation with trembling, and a secret sorrow with hope; but in the

ears also of the believing sons of men, sharers of my joy, and partners in my mortality, my

fellow-citizens, and fellow-pilgrims, who are gone before, or are to follow on, companions of my

11

way. These are Thy servants, my brethren, whom Thou willest to be Thy sons; my masters,

whom Thou commandest me to serve, if I would live with Thee, of Thee. But this Thy Word

were little did it only command by speaking, and not go before in performing. This then I do in

deed and word, this I do under Thy wings; in over great peril, were not my soul subdued unto

Thee under Thy wings, and my infirmity known unto Thee. I am a little one, but my Father ever

liveth, and my Guardian is sufficient for me. For He is the same who begat me, and defends me:

and Thou Thyself art all my good; Thou, Almighty, Who are with me, yea, before I am with

Thee. To such then whom Thou commandest me to serve will I discover, not what I have been,

but what I now am and what I yet am. But neither do I judge myself. Thus therefore I would be

heard.

Chapter 5. For Thou, Lord, dost judge me: because, although no man knoweth the things of a

man, but the spirit of a man which is in him, yet is there something of man, which neither the

spirit of man that is in him, itself knoweth. But Thou, Lord, knowest all of him, Who hast made

him. Yet I, though in Thy sight I despise myself, and account myself dust and ashes; yet know I

something of Thee, which I know not of myself. And truly, now we see through a glass darkly,

not face to face as yet. So long therefore as I be absent from Thee, I am more present with myself

than with Thee; and yet know I Thee that Thou art in no ways passible; but I, what temptations I

can resist, what I cannot, I know not. And there is hope, because Thou art faithful, Who wilt not

suffer us to be tempted above that we are able; but wilt with the temptation also make a way to

escape, that we may be able to bear it. I will confess then what I know of myself, I will confess

also what I know not of myself. And that because what I do know of myself, I know by Thy

shining upon me; and what I know not of myself, so long know I not it, until my darkness be

made as the noon-day in Thy countenance…

Document 3

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Summa Theologica (1265-1274)

A Dominican friar and Catholic priest, Aquinas emerged as the most important theologian of the

medieval church. His massive Summa Theologica is a model of “scholastic theology,” a

dialogical model that poses questions, answers them, poses objections, and refutes them. His

overall project is to apply Aristotelian philosophy—recently re-discovered among European

intellectuals—to Christian faith in order to make it intellectually credible for his age. Thomism

(as his theological system is called) remained dominant in the Catholic Church until the middle

of the twentieth century. In the selection he offers five proofs for the existence of God and

reflects on free will and grace.

Part 1

Question 2, Article 2: Whether it can be demonstrated the God exists…

I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a

priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is

12

called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us.

When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge

of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so

long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if

the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-

evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us…

Question 2 Article 3: Whether God exists…

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our

senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion

by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in

motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the

reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from

potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually

hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and

changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and

potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot

simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore

impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and

moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by

another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be

put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because

then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent

movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only

because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in

motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an

order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing

is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.

Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes

following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the

cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take

away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient

causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is

possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate

effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is

necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that

are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and

consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist,

for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to

13

be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now

there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by

something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have

been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in

existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist

something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity

caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which

have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes.

Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity,

and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak

of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some

more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of

different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the

maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is

hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and,

consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are

greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all

in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there

must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other

perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack

intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always,

or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not

fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot

move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and

intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being

exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God…

Part 1 of Part 2

Question 85, Article 2: Whether the entire good of human nature can be destroyed by sin…

…I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the good of nature, that is diminished by sin, is the

natural inclination to virtue, which is befitting to man from the very fact that he is a rational

being; for it is due to this that he performs actions in accord with reason, which is to act

virtuously. Now sin cannot entirely take away from man the fact that he is a rational being, for

then he would no longer be capable of sin. Wherefore it is not possible for this good of nature to

be destroyed entirely…

Question 109, Article 2: Whether man can wish or do anything good without grace…

…I answer that, Man's nature may be looked at in two ways: first, in its integrity, as it was in our

first parent before sin; secondly, as it is corrupted in us after the sin of our first parent. Now in

14

both states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or wish any good

whatsoever, as stated above (Article 1). But in the state of integrity, as regards the sufficiency of

the operative power, man by his natural endowments could wish and do the good proportionate

to his nature, such as the good of acquired virtue; but not surpassing good, as the good of infused

virtue. But in the state of corrupt nature, man falls short of what he could do by his nature, so

that he is unable to fulfil it by his own natural powers. Yet because human nature is not

altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted

nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build

dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like; yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall

short in nothing; just as a sick man can of himself make some movements, yet he cannot be

perfectly moved with the movements of one in health, unless by the help of medicine he be

cured.

And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural

strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in

the state of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works

of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine

help, that he may be moved to act well…

Question 114, Article 1: Whether a man may merit anything of God…

…I answer that, Merit and reward refer to the same, for a reward means something given anyone

in return for work or toil, as a price for it. Hence, as it is an act of justice to give a just price for

anything received from another, so also is it an act of justice to make a return for work or toil.

Now justice is a kind of equality, as is clear from the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 3), and hence justice

is simply between those that are simply equal; but where there is no absolute equality between

them, neither is there absolute justice, but there may be a certain manner of justice, as when we

speak of a father's or a master's right (Ethic. v, 6), as the Philosopher says. And hence where

there is justice simply, there is the character of merit and reward simply. But where there is no

simple right, but only relative, there is no character of merit simply, but only relatively, in so far

as the character of justice is found there, since the child merits something from his father and the

slave from his lord.

Now it is clear that between God and man there is the greatest inequality: for they are infinitely

apart, and all man's good is from God. Hence there can be no justice of absolute equality

between man and God, but only of a certain proportion, inasmuch as both operate after their own

manner. Now the manner and measure of human virtue is in man from God. Hence man's merit

with God only exists on the presupposition of the Divine ordination, so that man obtains from

God, as a reward of his operation, what God gave him the power of operation for, even as natural

things by their proper movements and operations obtain that to which they were ordained by

God; differently, indeed, since the rational creature moves itself to act by its free-will, hence its

action has the character of merit, which is not so in other creatures…

Part 3

15

Question 1, Article 2: Whether it was necessary for the restoration of the human race that the

Word of God should become incarnate…

I answer that, A thing is said to be necessary for a certain end in two ways. First, when the end

cannot be without it; as food is necessary for the preservation of human life. Secondly, when the

end is attained better and more conveniently, as a horse is necessary for a journey. In the first

way it was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature.

For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways. But

in the second way it was necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of

human nature. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 10): "We shall also show that other ways

were not wanting to God, to Whose power all things are equally subject; but that there was not a

more fitting way of healing our misery."

Now this may be viewed with respect to our "furtherance in good." First, with regard to faith,

which is made more certain by believing God Himself Who speaks; hence Augustine says (De

Civ. Dei xi, 2): "In order that man might journey more trustfully toward the truth, the Truth

itself, the Son of God, having assumed human nature, established and founded faith." Secondly,

with regard to hope, which is thereby greatly strengthened; hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii):

"Nothing was so necessary for raising our hope as to show us how deeply God loved us. And

what could afford us a stronger proof of this than that the Son of God should become a partner

with us of human nature?" Thirdly, with regard to charity, which is greatly enkindled by this;

hence Augustine says (De Catech. Rudib. iv): "What greater cause is there of the Lord's coming

than to show God's love for us?" And he afterwards adds: "If we have been slow to love, at least

let us hasten to love in return." Fourthly, with regard to well-doing, in which He set us an

example; hence Augustine says in a sermon (xxii de Temp.): "Man who might be seen was not to

be followed; but God was to be followed, Who could not be seen. And therefore God was made

man, that He Who might be seen by man, and Whom man might follow, might be shown to

man." Fifthly, with regard to the full participation of the Divinity, which is the true bliss of man

and end of human life; and this is bestowed upon us by Christ's humanity; for Augustine says in

a sermon (xiii de Temp.): "God was made man, that man might be made God."

So also was this useful for our "withdrawal from evil." First, because man is taught by it not to

prefer the devil to himself, nor to honor him who is the author of sin; hence Augustine says (De

Trin. xiii, 17): "Since human nature is so united to God as to become one person, let not these

proud spirits dare to prefer themselves to man, because they have no bodies." Secondly, because

we are thereby taught how great is man's dignity, lest we should sully it with sin; hence

Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xvi): "God has proved to us how high a place human nature

holds amongst creatures, inasmuch as He appeared to men as a true man." And Pope Leo says in

a sermon on the Nativity (xxi): "Learn, O Christian, thy worth; and being made a partner of the

Divine nature, refuse to return by evil deeds to your former worthlessness." Thirdly, because, "in

order to do away with man's presumption, the grace of God is commended in Jesus Christ,

though no merits of ours went before," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17). Fourthly, because

"man's pride, which is the greatest stumbling-block to our clinging to God, can be convinced and

cured by humility so great," as Augustine says in the same place. Fifthly, in order to free man

from the thraldom of sin, which, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 13), "ought to be done in such

a way that the devil should be overcome by the justice of the man Jesus Christ," and this was

16

done by Christ satisfying for us. Now a mere man could not have satisfied for the whole human

race, and God was not bound to satisfy; hence it behooved Jesus Christ to be both God and man.

Hence Pope Leo says in the same sermon: "Weakness is assumed by strength, lowliness by

majesty, mortality by eternity, in order that one and the same Mediator of God and men might

die in one and rise in the other--for this was our fitting remedy. Unless He was God, He would

not have brought a remedy; and unless He was man, He would not have set an example."

Document 4

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520)

As professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg, Luther set ablaze a fire of controversy

with three treatises published in 1520. His sharp criticism of the Catholic Church—especially its

theology and practice of the sacraments—struck at the heart of the church’s power. His most

strident criticisms come in his Babylonish Captivity of the Church, from which the following

except comes. Drawing on the biblical image of Israel’s exile under the dominion of a foreign

power, Luther claims that ordinary Christian laypeople are held captive by the corrupt clergy of

the Catholic Church. These views led quickly to his trial for heresy in 1521.

I must deny that there are seven Sacraments, and must lay it down, for the time being, that there

are only three—baptism, penance, and the bread—and that by the Court of Rome all these have

been brought into miserable bondage, and the Church despoiled of all her liberty…

CONCERNING THE LORD'S SUPPER

There are two passages which treat in the clearest manner of this subject, and at which we shall

look: the statements in the Gospels respecting the Lord's Supper, and the words of Paul (1

Corinthians 11). Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree that Christ gave the whole sacrament to

all His disciples; and that Paul taught both parts of it is so certain, that no one has yet been

shameless enough to assert the contrary…

But suppose me to be standing on the other side and questioning my lords the papists. In the

Supper of the Lord, the whole sacrament, or the sacrament in both kinds, was either given to the

presbyters alone, or at the same time to the laity. If to the presbyters alone (for thus they will

have it to be), then it is in no wise lawful that any kind should be given to the laity; for it ought

not to be rashly given to any, to whom Christ did not give it at the first institution. Otherwise, if

we allow one of Christ's institutions to be changed, we make the whole body of His laws of no

effect; and any man may venture to say that he is bound by no law or institution of Christ. For in

dealing with Scripture one special exception does away with any general statement. If on the

other hand it was given to the laity as well, it inevitably follows, that reception in both kinds

ought not to be denied to the laity; and in denying it to them when they seek it, we act impiously,

and contrary to the deed, example, and institution of Christ.

17

I confess that I have been unable to resist this reasoning, and have neither read, heard of, nor

discovered anything to be said on the other side, while the words and example of Christ stand

unshaken…

But what strikes me most forcibly of all, and thoroughly convinces me, is that saying of Christ:

“This is my blood, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins.” Here you see

most clearly that the blood is given to all for whose sins it is shed. Now who will dare to say that

it was not shed for the laity? Do you not see who it is that He addresses as He gives the cup?

Does He not give it to all? Does He not say that it was shed for all?...

Rise up then in one body, all ye flatterers of the Pope, be active, defend yourselves from the

charge of impiety, tyranny, and treason against the Gospel, and wrongful calumniation of your

brethren, ye who proclaim as heretics those who cannot approve of the mere dreams of your

brains, in opposition to such plain and powerful Scriptures. If either of the two are to be called

heretics and schismatics, it is not the Bohemians, not the Greeks, since they take their stand on

the Gospels; but you Romans who are heretics and impious schismatics, you who presume upon

your own figments alone, against the manifest teaching of the Scriptures of God…

I conclude, then, that to deny reception in both kinds to the laity is an act of impiety and tyranny,

and one not in the power of any angel, much less of any Pope or Council whatever. Nor do I care

for the Council of Constance, for, if its authority is to prevail, why should not also that of the

Council of Basle, which decreed on the other hand that the Bohemians should be allowed to

receive in both kinds? a point which was carried there after long discussion, as the extant annals

and documents of that Council prove. This fact that ignorant flatterer brings forward on behalf of

his own dreams, so wisely does he handle the whole matter.

The first bondage, then, of this sacrament is as regards its substance or completeness, which the

tyranny of Rome has wrested from us. Not that they sin against Christ, who use one kind only,

since Christ has not commanded the use of any, but has left it to the choice of each individual,

saying: "This do ye, as oft as ye shall do it, in remembrance of me;" but they sin who forbid that

both kinds should be given to those who desire to use this freedom of choice, and the fault is not

in the laity, but in the priests. The sacrament does not belong to the priests, but to all; nor are the

priests lords, but servants, whose duty it is to give both kinds to those who seek them, as often as

they seek them. If they have snatched this right from the laity, and forcibly denied it to them,

they are tyrants, and the laity are free from blame, whether they go without one or both kinds; for

meanwhile they will be saved by their faith, and by their desire for a complete sacrament. So too

the ministers themselves are bound to grant baptism and absolution to him who seeks them; if

they do not grant them, the seeker has the full merit of his own faith, while they will be accused

before Christ as wicked servants. Thus of old the holy Fathers in the desert passed many years

without communicating in either kind of the sacrament.

I am not, therefore, advocating the seizing by force on both kinds, as if we were of necessity

commanded and compelled to receive them, but I am instructing the conscience, that every man

may endure the tyranny of Rome, knowing that he has been forcibly deprived of his right in the

sacrament on account of his sins. This only I would have, that none should justify the tyranny of

Rome, as if she had done right in denying one kind to the laity, but that we should abhor it, and

withhold our consent from it, though we may bear it, just as if we were in bondage with the Turk,

18

where we should not be at liberty to use either kind. For this reason I have said that it would be a

fine thing, in my opinion, if this bondage were done away with by the decree of a general

council, and Christian liberty restored to us out of the hands of the tyrant of Rome; and if to each

man were left his own free choice about seeking and using it, as it is left in the case of baptism

and penance. Now, however, by the same tyranny, he compels one kind to be received year by

year; so extinct is the liberty granted us by Christ, and such are the deserts of our impious

ingratitude.

The other bondage of the same sacrament is a milder one, inasmuch as it regards the conscience,

but one which it is by far the most perilous of all things to touch, much more to condemn...

Formerly, when I was imbibing the scholastic theology, my lord the Cardinal of Cambray gave

me occasion for reflection, by arguing most acutely, in the fourth book of the Sentences, that it

would be much more probable, and that fewer superfluous miracles would have to be introduced,

if real bread and real wine, and not only their accidents, were understood to be upon the altar,

unless the Church had determined the contrary. Afterwards, when I saw what the church was,

which had thus determined, namely, the Thomistic, that is, the Aristotelian Church, I became

bolder, and whereas I had been before in great straits of doubt, I now at length established my

conscience in the former opinion, namely, that there were real bread and real wine, in which

were the real flesh and real blood of Christ, in no other manner and in no less degree than the

other party assert them to be under the accidents. And this I did, because I saw that the opinions

of the Thomists, whether approved by the Pope or by a council, remained opinions, and did not

become articles of the faith, even were an angel from heaven to decree otherwise. For that which

is asserted without the support of the Scriptures, or of an approved revelation, it is permitted to

hold as an opinion, but it is not necessary to believe…

The Church, however, kept the right faith for more than twelve centuries, nor did the holy

Fathers ever or anywhere make mention of this transubstantiation (a portentous word and dream

indeed), until the counterfeit Aristotelian philosophy began to make its inroads on the Church

within these last three hundred years, during which many other erroneous conclusions have also

been arrived at, such as, that the Divine essence is neither generated nor generates; that the soul

is the substantial form of the human body; and other like assertions, which are made absolutely

without reason or cause, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself confesses.

They will say, perhaps, that we shall be in peril of idolatry if we do not admit that bread and

wine are not really there. This is truly ridiculous, for the laity have never learnt the subtle

philosophical distinction between substance and accidents; nor, if they were taught it, could they

understand it; and there is the same peril, if we keep the accidents, which they see, as in the case

of the substance, which they do not see. For if it is not the accidents which they adore, but Christ

concealed under them, why should they adore the substance, which they do not see?

But why should not Christ be able to include His body within the substance of bread, as well as

within the accidents? Fire and iron, two different substances, are so mingled in red-hot iron, that

every part of it is both fire and iron. Why may not the glorious body of Christ much more be in

every part of the substance of the bread?...

19

The third bondage of this same sacrament is that abuse of it—and by far the most impious—by

which it has come about that at this day there is no belief in the Church more generally received

or more firmly held than that the mass is a good work and a sacrifice. This abuse has brought in

an infinite flood of other abuses, until faith in the sacrament has been utterly lost, and they have

made this divine sacrament a mere subject of traffic, huckstering, and money-getting contracts.

Hence communions, brotherhoods, suffrages, merits, anniversaries, memorials, and other things

of that kind are bought and sold in the Church, and made the subjects of bargains and

agreements; and the entire maintenance of priests and monks depends upon these things…

We must also get rid of another scandal, which is a much greater and a very specious one; that is,

that the mass is universally believed to be a sacrifice offered to God. With this opinion the words

of the canon of the mass appear to agree, such as “These gifts; these offerings; these holy

sacrifices;” and again, “this oblation.” There is also a very distinct prayer that the sacrifice may

be accepted like the sacrifice of Abel. Hence Christ is called the victim of the altar. To this we

must add the sayings of the holy Fathers, a great number of authorities, and the usage that has

been constantly observed throughout the world.

To all these difficulties, which beset us so pertinaciously, we must oppose with the utmost

constancy the words and example of Christ…Now in these words there is nothing about a work

or sacrifice. Again, we have the example of Christ on our side. When Christ instituted this

sacrament and established this testament in the Last Supper, he did not offer himself to God the

Father, or accomplish any work on behalf of others, but, as he sat at the table, he declared the

same testament to each individual present and bestowed on each the sign of it. Now the more any

mass resembles and is akin to that first mass of all which Christ celebrated at the Last Supper,

the more Christian it is. But that mass of Christ was most simple; without any display of

vestments, gestures, hymns, and other ceremonies; so that if it had been necessary that it should

be offered as a sacrifice, His institution of it would not have been complete…

CONCERNING THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to the riches of His

mercy has at least preserved this one sacrament in His Church uninjured and uncontaminated by

the devices of men, and has made it free to all nations and to men of every class. He has not

suffered it to be overwhelmed with the foul and impious monstrosities of avarice and

superstition; doubtless having this purpose, that He would have little children, incapable of

avarice and superstition, to be initiated into this sacrament, and to be sanctified by perfectly

simple faith in His word. To such, even at the present day, baptism is of the highest advantage. If

this sacrament had been intended to be given to adults and those of full age, it seems as if it

could have hardly preserved its efficacy and its glory, in the presence of that tyranny of avarice

and superstition which has supplanted all divine ordinances among us. In this case too, no doubt,

fleshly wisdom would have invented its preparations, its worthinesses, its reservations, its

restrictions, and other like nets for catching money; so that the water of baptism would be sold

no cheaper than parchments are now.

Yet, though Satan has not been able to extinguish the virtue of baptism in the case of little

children, still he has had power to extinguish it in all adults; so that there is scarcely any one

20

nowadays who remembers that he has been baptized, much less glories in it; so many other ways

having been found of obtaining remission of sins and going to heaven. Occasion has been

afforded to these opinions by that perilous saying of St. Jerome, either misstated or

misunderstood, in which he calls penitence the second plank of safety after shipwreck; as if

baptism were not penitence. Hence, when men have fallen into sin, they despair of the first

plank, or the ship, as being no longer of any use, and begin to trust and depend only on the

second plank, that is, on penitence. Thence have sprung those infinite loads of vows, religious

dedications, works, satisfactions, pilgrimages, indulgences, and systems; and from them those

oceans of books and of human questionings, opinions, and traditions, which the whole world

nowadays cannot contain. Thus this tyranny possesses the Church of God in an incomparably

worse form than it ever possessed the synagogue, or any nation under heaven…

The first thing then we have to notice in baptism is the divine promise, which says: He who

believes and is baptized shall be saved. This promise is to be infinitely preferred to the whole

display of works, vows, religious orders, and whatever has been introduced by the invention of

man. On this promise depends our whole salvation, and we must take heed to exercise faith in it,

not doubting at all that we are saved, since we have been baptized. Unless this faith exists and is

applied, baptism profits us nothing; nay, it is hurtful to us, not only at the time when it is

received, but in the whole course of our after life. For unbelief of this kind charges the divine

promise with falsehood; and to do this is the greatest of all sins. If we attempt this exercise of

faith, we shall soon see how difficult a thing it is to believe this divine promise. For human

weakness, conscious of its own sinfulness, finds it the most difficult thing in the world to believe

that it is saved, or can be saved; and yet, unless it believes this, it cannot be saved, because it

does not believe the divine truth which promises salvation.

This doctrine ought to have been studiously inculcated upon the people by preaching; this

promise ought to have been perpetually reiterated; men ought to have been constantly reminded

of their baptism; faith ought to have been called forth and nourished. When this divine promise

has been once conferred upon us, its truth continues even to the hour of our death; and thus our

faith in it ought never to be relaxed, but ought to be nourished and strengthened even till we die,

by a perpetual recollection of the promise made to us in baptism. Thus, when we rise out of our

sins and exercise penitence, we are simply reverting to the efficacy of baptism and to faith in it,

whence we had fallen; and we return to the promise then made to us, but which we had

abandoned through our sin. For the truth of the promise once made always abides, and is ready to

stretch out the hand and receive us when we return. This, unless I mistake, is the meaning of that

baptism is the first of sacraments and the foundation of them all, without which we can possess

none of the others.

Thus it will be of no little profit to a penitent, first of all to recall to mind his own baptism, and to

remember with confidence that divine promise which he had deserted; rejoicing that he is still in

a fortress of safety, in that he has been baptized; and detesting his own wicked ingratitude in

having fallen away from the faith and truth of baptism. His heart will be marvellously comforted,

and encouraged to hope for mercy, if he fixes his eyes upon that divine promise once made to

him, which could not lie, and which still continues entire, unchanged, and unchangeable by any

sins of his; as Paul says: “If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful; He cannot deny Himself” (2

Timothy 2:13). This truth of God will preserve him; and even if all other hopes perish, this, if he

believes it, will not fail him. Through this truth he will have something to oppose to the insolent

21

adversary; he will have a barrier to throw in the way of the sins which disturb his conscience; he

will have an answer to the dread of death and judgment; finally, he will have a consolation under

every kind of temptation, in being able to say: God is faithful to His promise; and in baptism I

received the sign of that promise. If God is for me, who can be against me?...

CONCERNING THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

In this third part I shall speak of the sacrament of penance. By the tracts and disputations which I

have published on this subject I have given offence to very many, and have amply expressed my

own opinions. I must now briefly repeat these statements, in order to unveil the tyranny which

attacks us on this point as unsparingly as in the sacrament of the bread. In these two sacraments

gain and lucre find a place, and therefore the avarice of the shepherds has raged to an incredible

extent against the sheep of Christ; while even baptism, as we have seen in speaking of vows, has

been sadly obscured among adults, that the purposes of avarice might be served.

The first and capital evil connected with this sacrament is, that they have totally done away with

the sacrament itself, leaving not even a vestige of it. Whereas this, like the other two sacraments,

consists of the word of the divine promise on one side and of our faith on the other, they have

overthrown both of these. They have adapted to the purposes of their own tyranny Christ's word

of promise, when He says: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and

whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19); and:

“Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on

earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 28:18); and again: “Whose soever sins ye remit, they

are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John 20:23). These

words are meant to call forth the faith of penitents, that they may seek and obtain remission of

their sins. But these men, in all their books, writings, and discourses, have not made it their

object to explain to Christians the promise conveyed in these words, and to show them what they

ought to believe, and how much consolation they might have, but to establish in the utmost

length, breadth and depth their own powerful and violent tyranny. At last some have even begun

to give orders to the angels in heaven, and to boast, with an incredible frenzy of impiety, that

they have received the right to rule in heaven and on earth, and have the power of binding even

in heaven. Thus they say not a word about the saving faith of the people, but talk largely of the

tyrannical power of the pontiffs; whereas Christ's words do not deal at all with power, but

entirely with faith.

It was not principalities, powers, and dominions that Christ instituted in His Church, but a

ministry…

They have divided penitence into three parts, contrition, confession, and satisfaction; but in

doing this they have taken away all that was good in each of these, and have set up in each their

own tyranny and caprice.

In the first place, they have so taught contrition as to make it prior to faith in the promise, and far

better as not being a work of faith, but a merit; nay, they make no mention of faith. They stick

fast in works and in examples taken from the Scriptures, where we read of many who obtained

pardon through humility and contrition of heart, but they never think of the faith which wrought

22

this contrition and sorrow of heart.... A contrite heart is a great matter indeed, and can only

proceed from an earnest faith in the Divine promises and threats—a faith which, contemplating

the unshakeable truth of God, makes the conscience to tremble, terrifies and bruises it, and, when

it is thus contrite, raises it up again, consoles, and preserves it. Thus, the truth of the threatening

is the cause of contrition, and the truth of the promise is the cause of consolation, when they are

believed; and by this faith a man merits remission of sins. Therefore faith above all things ought

to be taught and called forth; when faith is produced, contrition and consolation will follow of

their own accord by an inevitable consequence…

Beware then of trusting in thine own contrition, or attributing remission of sins to thy own

sorrow. It is not because of these that God looks on thee with favour, but because of the faith

with which thou hast believed His threatenings and promises, and which has wrought that sorrow

in thee. Therefore whatever good there is in penitence is due, not to the diligence with which we

reckon up our sins, but to the truth of God and to our faith. All other things are works and fruits

which follow of their own accord, and which do not make a man good, but are done by a man

who has been made good by his faith in the truth of God…

Contrition, though it has been completely exposed to wicked and pestilent doctrines, has yet

given less occasion to tyranny and the love of gain. But confession and satisfaction have been

turned into the most noted workshops for lucre and ambition. To speak first of confession. There

is no doubt that confession of sins is necessary, and is commanded by God…But the most

effective proof of the institution of confession is given when Christ tells us that an offending

brother must be told of his fault, brought before the Church, accused, and finally, if he neglect to

hear the Church, excommunicated. He "hears" when he yields to reproof, and acknowledges and

confesses his sin…

How unworthily they have treated the matter of satisfaction. I have abundantly shown in the case

of indulgences. They have abused it notably, to the destruction of Christians in body and in soul.

In the first place, they have so taught it that the people have not understood the real meaning of

satisfaction, which is a change of life. Furthermore, they so urge it and represent it as necessary,

that they leave no room for faith in Christ; but men's consciences are most wretchedly tortured

by scruples on this point. One runs hither, another thither; one to Rome, another into a convent,

another to some other place; one scourges himself with rods, another destroys his body with

vigils and fasting; while all, under one general delusion, say: Here is Christ, or there; and

imagine that the kingdom of God, which is really within us, will come with observation. These

monstrous evils we owe to thee, See of Rome, and to thy homicidal laws and rites, by which thou

hast brought the world to such a point of ruin, that they think they can make satisfaction to God

for their sins by works, while it is only by the faith of a contrite heart that He is satisfied. This

faith thou not only compellest to silence in the midst of these tumults, but strivest to destroy,

only in order that thy avarice, that insatiable leech, may have some to whom to cry: Bring, bring;

and may make a traffic of sins.

Some have even proceeded to such a length in framing engines of despair for souls, as to lay it

down that all sins, the satisfaction enjoined for which has been neglected, must be gone over

afresh in confession. What will not such men dare, men born for this end, to bring everything ten

times over into bondage? Moreover, I should like to know how many people there are who are

23

fully persuaded that they are in a state of salvation, and are making satisfaction for their sins,

when they murmur over the prayers enjoined by the priest with their lips alone, and meanwhile

do not even think of any amendment of life. They believe that by one moment of contrition and

confession their whole life is changed, and that there remains merit enough over and above to

make satisfaction for their past sins. How should they know better, when they are taught nothing

better? There is not a thought here of mortification of the flesh; the example of Christ goes for

nothing; who, when he absolved the woman taken in adultery, said to her: "Go, and sin no

more;" thereby laying on her the cross of mortification of the flesh. No slight occasion has been

given to these perverted ideas by our absolving sinners before they have completed their

satisfaction; whence it comes that they are more anxious about completing their satisfaction,

which is a thing that lasts, than about contrition, which they think has been gone through in the

act of confession. On the contrary, absolution ought to follow the completion of satisfaction, as it

did in the primitive Church, whence it happened that, the work being over, they were afterwards

more exercised in faith and newness of life. On this subject, however, it must suffice to have

repeated so far what I have said at greater length in writing on indulgences. Let it also suffice for

the present to have said this much in the whole respecting these three sacraments, which are

treated of and not treated of in so many mischievous books of Sentences and of law…

Editor’s note: Luther then treats each of the remaining four sacraments, demonstrating how

none of them have scriptural warrant and explaining how the Catholic Church has abused them

to its advantage. Then he concludes the essay.

I shall here make an end of this essay, which I readily and joyfully offer to all pious persons,

who long to understand Scripture in its sincere meaning, and to learn the genuine use of the

sacraments. It is a gift of no slight importance to “know the things that are freely given to us of

God,” and to know in what manner we ought to use those gifts. For if we are instructed in this

judgment of the Spirit, we shall not deceive ourselves by leaning on those things which are

opposed to it. Whereas our theologians have not only nowhere given us the knowledge of these

two things, but have even darkened them, as if of set purpose, I, if I have not given that

knowledge, have at least succeeded in not darkening it, and have given others an inducement to

think out something better. It has at least been my endeavour to explain the meaning of both

sacraments, but we cannot all do all things. On those impious men, however, who in their

obstinate tyranny press on us their own teachings as if they were God's, I thrust these things

freely and confidently, caring not at all for their ignorance and violence. And yet even to them I

will wish sounder sense, and will not despise their efforts, but will only distinguish them from

those which are legitimate and really Christian.

I hear a report that fresh bulls and papal curses are being prepared against me, by which I am to

be urged to recant, or else be declared a heretic. If this is true, I wish this little book to be a part

of my future recantation, that they may not complain that their tyranny has puffed itself up in

vain. The remaining part I shall shortly publish, Christ being my helper, and that of such a sort as

the See of Rome has never yet seen or heard, thus abundantly testifying my obedience in the

name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

24

Document 5

Phillip Jakob Spener (1635-1705)

Pia Desideria (1675)

As a pastor of a Lutheran church in Frankfurt, Germany, Spener first published his Pia Desideria

(translated “Pious Wishes”) in 1675. In Spener’s day, the churches of Europe were badly

divided along denominational lines. Three groups of Christians were legally recognized –

Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed – but any number of smaller sects were also present across

the continent. It seemed to many that these various groups of Christians were so caught up in

bickering with one another over doctrine and competing with one another for status and

influence, that they had lost sight of their purpose: cultivating a life of pious devotion to God.

Spener’s work calls attention to what is wrong with the churches of his day, and provides some

practical suggestions for their improvement. His Pia Desideria quickly became the charter of a

reform movement known as German Pietism, and remains an important statement of faith for the

theological traditions that descend from the movement.

Circumstances of Writing

The wretched conditions which we deplore are known to all. Nobody is forbidden to shed tears

over them, be it in private or in places where others may behold the tears and may thereby be

moved to sympathy and cooperation. Where one sees distress and sickness it is natural to look

about for remedies. The precious spiritual body of Christ is now afflicted with distress and

sickness. Since is certain respects it is committed to the care of every individual and at the same

time to all and sundry together, and since we must all be members of the body and hence should

not regard affliction anywhere in the body as alien to us, it is therefore incumbent on us to see to

it that medication which is suited to its cure be found and applied…

Conspectus of Corrupt Conditions in the Church

When we observe the political estate and behold those in it who, according to the divine

prophecy made in the New Testament, should be foster fathers and nursing mothers, how few

there are who remember that God gave them their scepters and staffs in order that they use their

power to advance the kingdom of God!1 Instead, most of them, as is customary with great lords,

live in those sins and debaucheries which usually go along with court life and are regarded as

virtually inseparable from it, while other magistrates are intent on seeking their own advantage.

From their manner of life one must conclude with sighs that few of them know what Christianity

is, to say nothing of their being Christians and practicing the Christian life. How many of them

there are who do not concern themselves at all with what is spiritual, who hold with Gallio that

they have noting to do with anything but the temporal!2 Even among those who still take an

1 In Revelation 3:9, there is an allusion to Isaiah 49:23. In these and other passages of Scripture, civil authorities are

metaphorically compared to foster fathers and nursing mothers of those over whom they rule.

2 Spener refers to Acts 18:12-17. Gallio was a Roman civil authority who refused to hear Jewish complaints about

the teachings of the Apostle Paul, claiming that he had no jurisdiction over religious matters.

25

interest in the first table3 and mean to be of service to the church, how many there are who put

their emphasis on maintaining the traditional pure religion and preventing the introduction of

false religion, which is far from being all that is required of them…

Distressing as conditions in the political estate are, we preachers in the ecclesiastical estate

cannot deny that our estate is also thoroughly corrupt. This most of the deterioration in the

church has its source in the two higher estates…

We must confess that not only men are to be found here and there in our estate who are guilty of

open scandals but also that there are fewer than many at first appear who do no really understand

the practice of true Christianity (which consists of more than avoiding manifest vices and living

an outwardly moral life). Although, according to the common estimate of men and as seen

through eyes captivated by the fashion of the world, they may seem to be blameless, yet their

lives reflect (subtly, to be sure, but nonetheless plainly) a worldly spirit, marked by carnal

pleasure, lust of the eye, and arrogant behavior, and so it is evident that they have never taken

even the first practical principle of Christianity seriously, namely, denial of self…

It is not my intention to conclude from this that no good has been accomplished through such

persons and their work, nor that true faith and true conversion may not have been brought about

in somebody through them, for the Word does not receive its divine power from the person of the

one who proclaims it, but has power in itself. Accordingly, Paul rejoiced in Philippians 1:15-18

that Christ was preached by some “from envy and rivalry,” but we cannot suppose that those

who preached thus were therefore loving, reborn children of God. Paul would not have had

occasion to rejoice, however, if such persons, in addition to doing themselves harm in their

sermons, benefited nobody else through them. No reasonable Christian will deny that those who

do not themselves have true and godly faith cannot, as they ought, perform the duties of their

office and through the Word awaken faith in their hearers…

Controversies are not the only or the most important thing,4 although knowledge of them

properly belongs to the study of theology. Not only should we know what is true in order to

follow it, but we should also know what is false in order to oppose it. However, not a few stake

almost everything on polemics. They think that everything has turned out well if only they

know how to give answer to the errors of the papists, the Reformed, the Anabaptists, etc. They

pay no attention to the fruits of those articles of faith which we presumably still hold in common

with them or of those rules of morality which are acknowledged by us all…

Although by God’s grace we still have pure doctrine derived from the Word of God, we cannot

deny that much that is alien, useless, and reminiscent of the world’s wisdom has here and there

been introduced gradually into theology. There is more danger in this than one might imagine…

3 A reference to the first three of the Ten Commandments, all of which regulate humanity’s relationship with God

(prohibition against idolatry, wrongful use of God’s name, and keeping the Sabbath). Civil authorities in Spener’s day apparently were losing interest in enforcing these laws.

4 The word “controversies” here refers to a common method of teaching theology in the early modern period, what

might today be called apologetics. The method involved laying out the doctrinal positions of a particular theological

tradition, and answering the objections that might be brought against those positions from the perspective of other

traditions. The purpose of such “controversies” was to prove the superiority of one’s own theological tradition.

26

When men’s minds are stuffed with such a theology which, while it preserves the foundation of

faith from the Scriptures, builds on it with so much wood, hay, and stubble of human

inquisitiveness that the gold can no longer be seen, it becomes exceedingly difficult to grasp and

find pleasure in the real simplicity of Christ and his teaching.5 This is so because men’s taste

become accustomed to the more charming things of reason, and after awhile the simplicity of

Christ and his teachings appear to be tasteless. Such knowledge, which remains without love,

“puffs up” (1 Corinthians 8:1). It leaves man in his love of self; indeed, it fosters and strengthens

such love more and more. Subtleties unknown to the Scriptures usually have their origin, in the

case of those who introduce them, in a desire to exhibit their sagacity and their superiority over

others, to have a great reputation, and to derive benefit therefrom in the world…

Since conditions are such in the first two estates, which ought to govern the masses and lead

them to godliness, it is easy to guess how things are in the third estate. Indeed, it is evident on

every hand that none of the precepts of Christ is openly observed…

When one looks at the everyday life even of those among us who are called Lutherans (but who

do not deserve this name, for they do not understand dear Luther’s teaching about living faith),

does not one find grave offense – indeed, such offenses as are everywhere prevalent? Is hall not

say vices which the world, too, acknowledges to be wrong, for ultimately such offense does not

do so much harm. Much graver is the injury that comes from sins which are no longer

recognized as sins or whose gravity is not longer realized.

We must confess that drunkenness is to be counted among such sins. It is not only prevalent in

high and low places, among persons of the ecclesiastical and political estates, but also has its

defenders among those who, while conceding that people who make a business of getting drunk

are guilty of sin, nevertheless wish to maintain that it is no sin, at least no sin worth mentioning,

to drink occasionally … Consequently, this sin is never penitently acknowledged…

Let us look also at the general practice of lawsuits. If they are properly examined one must

confess that it is rather rare for a suit to be conducted by either side in such a way as not to

violate or go beyond the bounds of Christian love. Although it is not wrong to make use of the

divine assistance in civil authority and seek it in judicial procedure, in such a suit we must do

everything for our neighbor which we expect others to do for us. That this does not happen as a

rule and that most litigants use the courts as instruments of their vindictiveness, injustice, and

unseemly cupidity is also a sin which is not considered a sin and is therefore seldom mentioned

in the confession of sins…

We must go beyond this and see how the great mass of people thinks about the service of God…

We gladly acknowledge that we must be saved only and lone through faith and that our works or

godly life contribute neither much nor little to our salvation, for as the fruit of our faith our

works are connected with the gratitude which we owe to God, who had already given us who

believe the gift of righteousness and salvation. Far be it from us to depart even a finger’s breadth

5 Spener here alludes to 1 Corinthians 3:12.

27

from this teaching, for we would rather give up our life and the whole world t han yield even the

smallest part of it…

While I adhere with all my heart to ever one of these teachings of our church and bear witness to

them with my lips, and find no more pleasure in the writings of Luther than in any other author

precisely because there is more of these teachings there, I cannot deny that the great mass of

people, who also call themselves Evangelical, have other opinions and notions of the matter

which are contrary to our teaching and the confession of the church.

How many there are who live such a manifestly unchristian life that they themselves cannot deny

that the law is broken at every point, who have no intention of mending their ways in the future,

and yet who pretend to be firmly convinced that they will be save din spite of all this! If one

asks on what they base their expectation one will discover, as they themselves confess, that they

are sure of this because it is of course not possible to be save don account of one’s life, but that

they believe in Christ and put all their trust in him, that this cannot fail, and that they will surely

be saved from such faith … This is a delusion of the devil, as terrible as any error ever has been

or can be, to ascribe salvation to such a fancy of secure man…

[Y]ou hear the word of God. This is good. But it is not enough that your ear hears it. Do you let

it penetrate inwardly into your heart and allow the heavenly food to be digested there, so that you

get the benefit of its vitality and power, or does it go in one ear and out the other? …

[W]e are not uncovering anything that is not, unfortunately, already generally known. It is not

our intention to mention any of the more secret defects of the church … [W]e should be urged on

by our love of the church and the glory of God to make improvements, fulfill the longing s of

godly people, and open wide to the erring the gates to the knowledge of the truth. To such an

end we must be careful to examine diligently all the failings in our church and, since our

adversaries are themselves sufficiently aware of them without our pointing them out, not be the

only ones to shut our eyes to our shortcomings. Suffice it to say that whoever is the Lord’s must,

to the best of his ability, lend a helping hand, as in a common cause.

The Possibility of Better Conditions in the Church

If we consult the Holy Scriptures we can have no doubt that God promised his church here on

earth a better state than this…

Let no one think that were here intend and seek too much. We are not living in a Platonic state,

and so it is not possible to have everything perfect and according to rule.6 The evil

circumstances of our time are therefore to be borne with compassion rather than bewailed with

anger. If one seeks perfection one must leave this world and enter the would to come. Only then

will we encounter something perfect …

6 Plato, a classical Greek philosopher, believed that there exists a sharp distinction between reality (the way things

are) and the “ideal” (the way things are supposed to be).

28

We do not understand the perfection which we demand of the church in such a way that not a

single hypocrite is any longer to be found it in, for we know that there is no field of grain in

which there are no weeds. What we mean is that the church should be free of manifest offenses,

that nobody who is afflicted with such failings should be allowed to remain in the church without

fitting reproof and ultimately exclusion, and that the true members of the church should be richly

filled with many fruits of their faith. This the weeds will no longer cover the grain and make it

unsightly, as is unfortunately often the case now, but the weeds will be covered by the grain and

made inconspicuous.

Lest anyone regard this, too, as impossible, let me cite the early Christian church as an example.

What was then possible cannot be absolutely impossible. Histories of the church testify that the

early Christian church was in such a blessed state that as a rule Christians could be identified by

their godly life, which distinguished them from other people … [S]uch persons were not

admitted to the church until there was reason to believe that they would lead a life worthy of the

calling to which they were called … Thereby the church gave evidence that it did not tolerate the

sins of its members but that it deterred others from sinning and reformed those who had fallen.

Moreover, it recognized as brethren only those who lived according to its standards…

The condition of the early Christian church puts our hot-and-cold condition to shame. At the

same time it demonstrates that what we are seeking is not impossible, as many imagine. Hence it

is our own fault that we are so far from deserving similar praise. It is the same Holy Spirit who

is bestowed on us by God who once effected all things in the early Christians, and he is neither

less able nor less active today to accomplish the work of sanctification in us. If this does not

happen, the sole reason must be that we do not allow, but rather hinder, the Holy Spirit’s work.

Accordingly, if conditions are improved, our discussion of this mater will not have been in

vain…

Proposals to Correct Conditions in the Church

1. Thought should be given to a more extensive use of the Word of God among us. We

know that by nature we have no good in us. If there is to be any good in us, it must be brought

about by God. To this end the Word of God is the powerful means, since faith must be

enkindled through the gospel, and the law provides the rules for good works and many wonderful

impulses to attain them. The more at home the Word of God is among us, the more we shall

bring about faith and its works…

This might be done, first of all, by diligent reading of the Holy Scriptures, especially of the New

Testament. It would not be difficult for every housefather to keep a Bible, or at least a New

Testament, handy and read from it every day or, if he cannot read, to have somebody else read…

Then a second thing would be desirable in order to encourage people to read privately, namely,

that where the practice can be introduced the books of the Bible be read one after another, at

specified times in the public service, without further comment (unless one wished to add brief

summaries). This would be intended for the edification of all, but especially those who cannot

read at all, or cannot read easily or well, or of those who do not own a copy of the Bible.

29

This much is certain: the diligent use of the Word of God, which consists not only of listening to

sermons but also of reading, meditating, and discussing, must be the chief means for reforming

something, whether this occurs in the proposed fashion or in some other appropriate way. The

Word of God remains the seed from which all that is good in us must grow…

2. Our frequently mentioned Dr. Luther7 would suggest another means, which is altogether

compatible with the first. The second proposal is the establishment and diligent exercise of the

spiritual priesthood. Nobody can read Luther’s writings with some care without observing how

earnestly the sainted man advocated this spiritual priesthood, according to which not only

ministers, but all Christians are made priests by their Savior, are anointed by the Holy Spirit, and

are dedicated to perform spiritual-priestly acts…

Every Christian is bound not only to offer himself and what he has, his prayer, thanksgiving,

good works, alms, etc., but also industriously to study in the Word of the Lord, with the grace

that is given to him to teach others, especially those under his own roof, to chastise, exhort,

convert, and edify them, to observe their life, pray for all, and insofar as possible be concerned

about their salvation. If this is first pointed out to the people, they will take better care of

themselves to whatever pertains to their own edification and that of their fellow men …

3. Connected with these two proposals is a third: the people must have impressed upon them

and must accustom themselves to believing that it is by no means enough to have knowledge of

the Christian faith, for Christianity consists rather of practice…

If we can therefore awaken a fervent love among our Christians, first toward one another, and

then toward all men (for these two, brotherly affection, and general love, must supplement each

other according to 2 Peter 1:7), and put this love into practice, practically all we desire will be

accomplished. For all the commandments are summed up in love (Romans 13:9) … They must

become accustomed not to lose sight of any opportunity in which they can render their neighbor

a service of love, and yet while performing it they must diligently search their hearts to discover

whether they are acting in true love or out of other motives. If they are offended, they should

especially be on their guard, not only that they refrain from all vengefulness but also that they

give up some of their rights and insistence on them for fear that their hearts may betray them and

feelings of hostility may become involved. In fact, they should diligently seek opportunities to

do good to their enemies in order that such self-control may hurt the old Adam, who is otherwise

inclined to vengeance, and at the same time in order that love may be more deeply implanted in

their hearts.8

For this purpose, as well as for the sake of Christian growth in general, it may be useful if those

who have earnestly resolved to walk in the way of the Lord would enter into a confidential

relationship with their confessor or some other judicious and enlightened Christian and would

7 Spener is referring to Martin Luther (1483-1546), the leader most often credited with beginning the Protestant

Reformation.

8 The phrase “old Adam” here refers to the sinful nature that Spener believed usually exercised control over human

actions. In calling Christians to love, he assumes that they will be acting contrary to their natural inclinations.

30

regularly report to him how they live, what opportunities they have had to practice Christian

love, and how they have employed or neglected them…

4. Related to this is a fourth proposal: We must beware how we conduct ourselves in

religious controversies with unbelievers and heretics. We must first take pains to strengthen and

confirm ourselves, our friends, and other fellow believers in the known truth and to protect them

with great care from every kind of seduction. Then we must remind ourselves of our duty

toward the erring.

We owe it to the erring, first of all, to pray earnestly that the good God may enlighten them with

the same light with which he blessed us, may lead them to the truth, may prepare their hearts for

it, having counteracted their dangerous errors, may reinforce what true knowledge of salvation in

Christ they still have left in order that they may be saved as a brand plucked from the fire…

In the second place, we must give them a good example and take the greatest pains not to offend

them in any way, for this would give them a bad impression of our true teaching, and would

make their conversion more difficult…

To this should be added, in the fourth place, a practice of heartfelt love toward all unbelievers

and heretics. While we should indicate to them that we take no pleasure in their unbelief or false

belief or the practice and propagation of these, but rather are vigorously opposed to them, yet in

other things which pertain to human life, we should demonstrate that we consider these people to

be our neighbors … regard them as our brothers according to the right of common creation and

the divine love that is extended to all, and therefore are so disposed in our hearts toward them as

the command to love all others as we love ourselves demands…9

From all this it becomes apparent that disputing is not enough either to maintain the truth among

ourselves or to impart it to the erring. The holy love of God is necessary. If only we

Evangelicals would make it our serious business to offer God the fruits of truth in fervent love,

conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of our calling, and show this in recognizable and

unalloyed love of our neighbors, including those who are heretics, by practicing the duties

mentioned above!

5. Since ministers must bear the greatest burden in all these things which pertain to a reform

of the church, and since their shortcomings do correspondingly great harm, it is of the utmost

importance that the office of the ministry be occupied by men who, above all, are themselves

true Christians and, then, have the divine wisdom to guide others carefully on the way of the

Lord. It is therefore important, indeed necessary, for the reform of the church that only such

persons be called who may be suited, and that nothing at all except the glory of God be kept in

view during the whole procedure of calling. This would mean that all carnal schemes involving

favor, friendship, gifts, and similarly unseemly things would be set aside…

However, if such suitable persons are to be called to the ministry, they must be available, and

hence they must be trained in our schools and universities. May God graciously grant that

9 See Matthew 22:39.

31

everything necessary thereunto may be diligently observed by the professors of theology and that

they may assist in seeing to it that the unchristian academic life, which prevails among students

of all faculties and which has been sorrowfully lamented not only by the sainted and earnest John

Matthew Meyfart10

but also by many other pious persons before and after him, may by vigorous

measures be suppressed and reformed. Then the schools would, as they ought, really be

recognized from the outward life of the students to be nurseries of the church for all estates and

as workshops of the Holy Spirit rather than as places of worldliness and indeed of the devils of

ambition, tippling, carousing, and brawling.

The professors could themselves accomplish a great deal here by their example (indeed, without

them a real reform is hardly to be hoped for) if they would conduct themselves as men who have

died unto the world, in everything would seek not their own glory, gain, or pleasure but rather

the glory of their God and the salvation of those entrusted to them, and would accommodate all

their studies, writing of books, lessons, lectures, disputations, and other activities to this end.

Then the students would have a living example according to which they might regulate their life,

for we are so fashioned that examples are as effective for us as teachings, and sometimes more

effective…

Just because theology is a practical discipline and does not consist only of knowledge, study

alone is not enough, nor is the mere accumulation and imparting of information. Accordingly

thought should be given to ways of instituting all kinds of exercises through which students may

become accustomed to and experienced in those things which belong to practice and to their

edification. It would be desirable if such materials were earnestly treated in certain lectures,

especially if the rules of conduct which we have from our dear Savior and his apostles were

impressed upon students. It would also be desirable if students were given concrete suggestions

on how to institute pious meditations, how to know themselves through self-examination, how to

resist the lusts of the flesh, how to hold their desires in check and to die unto the world…

6. In addition to these exercises, which are intended to develop the Christian life of the

students, it would also be useful if the teachers made provision for practice in those things with

which t he students will have to deal when they are in the minister. For example, there should be

practice at times in instructing the ignorant, in comforting the sick, and especially in preaching,

where it should be pointed out to students that everything in their sermons should have

edification as the goal. I therefore add this as a sixth proposal whereby the Christian church may

be helped to a better condition: that sermons be so prepared by all that their purpose (faith and its

fruits) may be achieved in the hearers to the greatest possible degree…

In conclusion, I call fervently on the gracious God and giver of all good things that, as he has

once allowed many good seeds of his Word to be scattered abroad though his faithful servant

who has long since entered into his peace, and as he has hitherto powerfully blessed many of

these grains that fell into godly hearts and bore not a little fruit (for which thanks be to God

forever!), so he may continue to give his blessing to the book which is still extant and is now

prepared for wider use in this edition, that many who with devout and simple hearts seek their

edification on Sundays in these sermons as well as in the Holy Scriptures may also abundantly

10 John Matthew Meyfart (1590-1642) was professor at the University of Erfurt.

32

find it here and return to God their fruits of thanksgiving. May many preachers themselves be

revived thereby to preach the heart of Christianity after this model with simplicity and power. In

general, may it also be a means for some further reform of the wretched condition of our church

which we deplored so heartily above. Everything, however, be to the glory of God himself and

(which has the same outcome) the advance of his kingdom for the sake of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Document 6

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834)

On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers (1799)

Born into a pious Moravian family, Schleiermacher studied theology at the University of Halle.

There he became enchanted with the German Romantic Movement, which criticized both

theological orthodoxy and the rationalism of the Enlightenment. Slowly breaking from his

Pietistic upbringing, Schleiermacher emerged as one of the most important theologians of his

day. His magnum opus, The Christian Faith, is a massive work of systematic theology that lays a

firm foundation for German Protestant liberalism throughout the nineteenth century. In the

work excerpted below, Schleiermacher addresses five “speeches” to his high-cultured

contemporaries, many of whom had rejected Christian faith altogether because they equated

“religion” with either the superstition of revealed religion or the crass moralism of natural

religion.. He attempts to convince them that religious faith is a vital part of humanity’s

intellectual life by arguing that what they despise most about religion has very little to do with its

essence.

First Speech

Especially now, the life of the cultivated person is removed from everything that would in the

least way resemble religion … You have succeeded in making your earthly lives so rich and

many-sided that you no longer need the eternal, and after having created a universe for

yourselves, you are spared from thinking of that which created you. You are agreed, I know, that

nothing new and nothing convincing can be said anymore about this matter, which has been

belabored in all directions by philosophers and prophets, and, if only I might not add, by scoffers

and priests. Least of all … are you inclined to listen to something on this subject from the last

mentioned, who have long since made themselves unworthy of your trust, as the kind of people

who best like to dwell only on the dilapidated ruins of the sanctuary and who cannot live even

there without disfiguring and damaging it still more. All this I know and am nevertheless

convinced to speak by an inner and irresistible necessity that divinely rules me, and cannot

retract my invitation that you especially should listen to me…

I wish to lead you to the innermost depths from which religion first addresses the mind. I wish to

show you from what capacity of humanity religion proceeds, and how it belongs to what is for

your highest and dearest. I wish to lead you to the pinnacles of the temple so that you might

survey the whole sanctuary and discover its inmost secrets … Therefore I can call only you to

me, you who are capable of raising yourselves above the common standpoint of humanity, you

who do not shrink from the burdensome way into the depths of human nature in order to find the

ground of its action and thought…

33

Let us, then, I beg you, examine whence your contempt properly originates, from the individual

or from the whole. Does it start with differing types and sects of religion as they have been in

the world, or from the concept itself? … Tell me, then, dear friends, whence have you derived

these concepts of religion that are the object of your contempt? Every expression, every product

of the human spirit can be viewed and apprehended from a dual standpoint. If one considers

religion from its center according to its inner essence, it is a product of human nature, rooted in

one of its necessary modes of action or drives, of whatever you wish to call it … If one considers

it from its extremities, according to the definite bearing and for it has here and there assumed, it

is a product of time and history. From which aspect have you considered this spiritual

phenomenon in order to arrive at those concepts that you pass off as the common content of

everything that anyone had ever designated by the name religion? …

Consider by whom these artificial edifices are raised. Consider whose changeableness you

mock, whose disproportion offends you, and whose inadequacy on account of their petty

tendencies is so ludicrous to you. By chance one of the heroes of religion? Name me one

individual among all those who have brought down to us some new revelation, from whoever

first conceived the one universal God … to the most recent mystic in whom perhaps a beam of

the inner light still gleams … Only single sublime thoughts flash through their soul that ignited

from and ethereal fire, and the magic thunder of charmed speech accompanied the lofty

appearance and proclaimed to a worshipping mortal that the deity had spoken … You must seek

these heavenly sparks that arise when a holy soul is stirred by the universe, and you must

overhear them in the incomprehensible moment when they are formed…

I ask, therefore, that turning from all that is usually called religion you aim your attention only at

these individual imitations and moods that you will find in all expressions and noble deeds of

God-inspired persons. If you then discover nothing new and pertinent even in the particular, as I

hope may occur despite your learning and your knowledge, if your narrow concept that is

produced only by superficial observation does not expand and transform itself, if you could then

still despise this bent of the mind toward the eternal – if all that is important to humanity can still

seem ludicrous to you even from this point of view, then I shall believe that your disdain of

religion is in conformity with your nature and shall have nothing further to say to you…

What I assert and what I should like to establish for religion include the following: It springs

necessarily and by itself from the interior of every better soul, it has its own province in the mind

in which it reigns sovereign, and it is worthy of moving the noblest and the most excellent by

means of its innermost power and by having its innermost essence known by them. Now it is up

to you to decide whether it is worth your while to listen to me before you become still more

entrenched in your contempt.

Second Speech

I wish I could present religion to you in some well-known form so that you might immediately

remember its features, its movements, and its manners and exclaim that you have here or there

found among human beings as undisguised as it appears to the conjurer, and for some time has

not let itself be viewed in the form peculiar to it … One looks around vainly in this cultured

world for an action that could furnish a true expression of some capacity of spirit, be it

34

sensibility, or understanding, ethical life, or religion…

In order to take possession of its own domain, religion renounced herewith all claims to whatever

belongs to those others and gives back everything that has been forced upon it. It does not wish

to determine and explain the universe according to its nature, as does metaphysics; it does not

desire to continue the universe’s development and perfect it by the power of freedom and the

divine free choice of a human being as does morals. Religion’s essence is neither thinking nor

acting, but intuition and feeling. It wishes to intuit the universe, wishes devoutly to overhear the

universe’s own manifestations and actions, longs to be grasped and filled by the universe’s

immediate influences in childlike passivity. Thus, religion is opposed to these two in everything

that makes up its essence and in everything that characterizes its effects. Metaphysics and

morals see in the whole universe only humanity in the center of all relatedness, as the condition

of all being and the cause of all becoming; religion wishes to see the infinite, its imprint and

manifestations, in humanity no less than all other individual and finite forms. Metaphysics

proceeds from finite human nature and wants to define consciously, from its simplest concept,

the extent of its powers, and its receptivity, what the universe can be for us, and how we

necessarily must view it. Religion also lives its while life in nature, but in the infinite nature of

totality, the one and all; what holds in nature for everything individual also holds for the human;

and wherever everything, including man, may press on or tarry within this eternal ferment of

individual forms and beings, religion wishes to intuit and to divine this in detail in quiet

submissiveness. Morality proceeds from the consciousness of freedom; it wishes to extend

freedom’s realm to infinity and to make everything subservient to it. Religion breathes there

where freedom itself had once more become nature; it apprehends man beyond the plat of his

particular powers and his personality, and views him from the vantage point where he must be

what he is, whether he likes it or not.

Thus religion maintains its own sphere and its own character only by completely removing itself

from the sphere and character of speculation as well as from that of praxis. Only when it places

itself next to both of them is the common ground perfectly filled out and human nature

completed from this dimension. Religion shows itself to you as the necessary and indispensable

third next to those two, as their natural counterpart, not slighter in worth and splendor than what

you wish of them…

I entreat you to become familiar with this concept: intuition of the universe. It is the hinge of my

whole speech; it is the highest and most universal formula of religion on the basis of which you

should be able to find every place in religion, from which you may determine its essence and its

limits. All intuition proceeds from an influence of the intuited on the one who intuits, from an

original and independent action of the former, which is then grasped, apprehended, and

conceived by the latter according to one’s own nature…

Intuition is and always remains something individual, set apart, the immediate perception,

nothing more. To bind and incorporate it into a whole is once more the business not of sense but

of abstract thought. The same is true of religion. It stops with the immediate experiences of the

existence and action of the universe, with the individual intuition and feelings; each of these is a

self-contained work without connection with others or dependence upon them; it knows nothing

about derivation and connection, for among all things religion can encounter, that is what its

35

nature most opposes. Not only and individual fact or deed that once could call original or first,

but everything in religion is immediate and true for itself…

But should you wish to go beyond that dimension with these feelings, should they cause actual

actions and incite you to deeds, then you find yourself in an alien realm. If you still hold this to

be religion, however, rational and praiseworthy you action may appear, you absorbed in an

unholy superstition. All actual action should be moral, and it can be, too, but religious feelings

should accompany every human deed like a holy music; we should do everything with religion,

nothing because of religion…

If this, which I hope I have indicated clearly enough for all of you, actually makes up the essence

of religion, then the question of the proper place of those dogmas and propositions that are

commonly passed off as the content of religion is not too difficult to answer. Some are merely

abstract expressions of religious intuitions, and other are free reflections upon original

achievements of the religious sense, the results of a comparison of the religious with the common

view. To take the content of a reflection to be the essence of the action being reflected upon is

such a common mistake that you must not wonder if it is also to be found here. Miracles,

inspirations, revelations, feelings of the supernatural – one can have much religion without

coming into contact with any of these concepts. But persons who reflect comparatively about

their religion inevitably find concepts in their path, and cannot possibly get around them. In this

sense, all these concepts surely do belong to the realm of religion, indeed, belong

unconditionally, without one being permitted to define the least thing about the limits of their

application…

What, then, is a miracle? Yet tell me in what language … it means anything other than a sign, an

indication. And so all these expressions indicate nothing else than the immediate relation of a

phenomenon to the infinite or the universe; but does that exclude just such an immediate

connection to the finite and to nature? “Miracle” is merely the religious name for event, every

one of which, even the most natural and usual, is a miracle as soon as it adapts itself to the fact

that the religious view of it can be the dominant one. To me everything is a miracle, and for me

what alone is a miracle in your mind … is no miracle in mine. The more religious you would be,

the more you would see miracles everywhere…

What is revelation? Every original and new intuition of the universe is one, and yet all

individuals must know best what is original and new for them … What is inspiration? It is

merely the religious name for freedom. Every free action that becomes a religious act, every

restoration of a religious intuition, every expression of a religious feeling that really

communicates itself to that the intuition of the universe is transferred to others, too place upon

inspiration; for it was an action of the universe by the one on the others…

Except for a few chosen ones, every person surely needs a mediator, a leader who awakens his

sense for religion from its slumber and gives him an initial direction. But this is supposed to be

merely a passing condition. A person should then see with his own eyes and should himself

make a contribution to the treasures of religion; otherwise he deserves no place in its kingdom

and also receives none. You are right to despise the paltry imitators who derive their religion

wholly from someone else or cling to a dead document by which they swear and from which

36

they draw proof. Every holy writing is merely a mausoleum of religion, a monument that a great

spirit was there that no longer exists; for if it still lived and were active, why would it attach such

great importance to the dead letter that can only be a weak reproduction of it? It is not the person

who believes in a holy writing who has religion, but the one who needs none, and probably could

make one for himself. Exactly this contempt of yours for the miserable and powerless venerators

of religion, in whom it already died from lack of nourishment before it was born, proves to me

that there is a capacity for religion in you. The respect you always pay to true heroes, and your

rebellion against the way in which they have been misused and disgraced through idolatry,

confirms me in this opinion…

Fourth Speech

Those among you who are accustomed to regarding religion merely as a disease of the mind no

doubt also entertain the idea that it is an evil that is easier to tolerate, indeed, perhaps to subdue,

so long as only isolated individuals here and there are afflicted. But you think the common

danger soars to its highest, and everything is lost as soon as an all-too-close community should

exist among several such unfortunates…

Even those among you who have a somewhat more moderate opinion of religion and consider it

more as an oddity than as a derangement of the mind, more as an insignificant than a dangerous

phenomenon, have equally derogatory concepts of all social institutions of religion. They

imagine that slavish sacrifice of everything characteristic and free and that lifeless mechanism

and empty custom are the inseparable consequences of such institutions and the ingenious work

of those who, with unbelievable success, make great profit from things that either are nothing or

are something any other person could have accomplished equally well … Let us subject the

whole concept to a new consideration and create it anew from the center of the matter,

unconcerned about what has been real until now, and what experience makes available to us.

Once there is religion, it must necessarily be social. That not only lies in human nature, but also

is preeminently in the nature of religion. You must admit that it is highly unnatural for a person

to want to lock up in himself what he has created and worked out…

I wish I could draw you a picture of the rich, luxuriant life in this city of God when its citizens

assemble, all of whom are full of their own power, which wants to stream forth into the open, all

full of holy passion to apprehend and appropriate everything the others might offer them. When

a person steps before others, it is not an office or an appointment that empowers him to do so,

not pride or ignorance that fills him with presumption. It is the free stirring of the spirit, the

feeling of most cordial unanimity of each with all and of the most perfect equality, a mutual

annihilation of every first and last and of all earthly order. He steps forth to present his own

intuition as the object for the rest, to lead them into the region of the universe, and the

community follows his inspired speech in holy silence. If he should now disclose a hidden

miracle or, in prophetic confidence, link the future to the present, if he should confirm old

perceptions by new example, or if his fiery imagination should transport him in sublime visions

into other parts of the world and another order of things, a practiced sense of community

accompanies him everywhere; and when he returns to himself from his wanderings through the

universe, his heart and the heart of each are but the common stage for the same feeling…

37

Where, then, in all of that is the opposition between priests and laity that you are accustomed to

label as the source of so much evil? A false appearance has deceived you; this is not at all a

distinction between people, but merely a distinction of situation and function. Each person is a

priest to the extent that he draws others to himself in the field that he has specially made his own

… [and] each is a layperson to the extent that he follows the art and direction of another where

he himself is a stranger in religion…

Where is the spirit of discord and dissention that you consider the inevitable consequence of all

religious associations? I see nothing except that all is one and that all distinctions that really

exist in religion flow smoothly into one another through the social association…

Where is the infamous mania for converting everyone to individual definite forms of religion,

and where is the horrible motto, “Outside of us, no salvation”? In the way that I have presented

as society of religious people to you and as it has to be by its very nature, it is only meant for

mutual communication and exists only among those who already have religion, whatever sort it

may be. How could it thus be their business to change the minds of those who already confess a

definite religion or to induct and initiate those who still lack it completely … If a person has

already chosen for himself a portion of religion, whatever it may be, would it not be an absurd

procedure for the society to wish to wrest from him that which accords with his nature, since the

religious society is supposed to include this element in itself and it therefore must necessarily be

possessed by someone?...

This great association to which your harsh accusations actually refer is far removed from being a

society of religious people. Rather, it is merely an amalgamation of people who are only just

seeking religion, and this I find it very natural that it contrasts with the religious society in nearly

all respects…

Fifth Speech

When you cast a glace at the present condition of things, where churches and religions encounter

one another nearly everywhere in their plurality and seem to be inseparably united in the

isolation, and where there are as many doctrinal edifices and confessions of faith as churches and

religious communities, you might easily be misled to believe that in my judgment about the

plurality of the churches I have simultaneously expressed my judgment concerning the plurality

of religions. But in this you would misunderstand my opinion completely. I have condemned

the plurality of the churches; but just by showing from the nature of the matter that here all

outlines are lost, all definite divisions disappear, and all is supposed to be one undivided whole,

not only in spirit and sympathy but also in real connection, I have at all times presupposed the

plurality of religions and their most distinct diversity as something necessary and unavoidable.

For why should the inner, true church be one? It is so that each person may intuit and let the

religion of another be imparted to him that he cannot intuit as his own and that was thought to be

wholly different from it. Why should the external and inauthentic so-called church also be one?

It is so that each person may seek out religion in a form that is congenial to t he slumbering bud

that lies in him, and thus this bud has to be of a specific kind because it can be stimulated and

awakened only by the same specific kind. These manifestations of religion could not be intended

merely as complements that differ only in number and size, which, if one had brought them

38

together would only then have made up a uniform and perfected whole … Thus I have

presupposed the multiplicity of religions, and I likewise in them rooted in the essence of

religion…

You call the existing determinate religious manifestations “positive religions,” and under this

name they have long been the object of a quite exquisite hatred. But in spite of all your aversion

to religion generally, you have always endured ever more easily and have spoken with esteem of

something else, which is called “natural religion.” I shall not hesitate to allow you a glimpse of

my inner convictions on this matter, since I for my part protest most vehemently against this

preference. In consideration of all those who generally purport to have and to love religion, I

declare this preference for natural religion to be the grossest inconsistency and the most obvious

self-contradiction on grounds of which you will certainly approve, once I am able to explain

them … So-called natural religion is usually so refined and has such philosophical and moral

manners that it allows little of the unique character of religion to shine through; it knows how to

live so politely, to restrain and accommodate itself so well, that it is tolerated everywhere. In

contrast, every positive religion has exceedingly strong features and a very marked

physiognomy, so that it unfailingly reminds one of what it really is with every movement it

makes and with every glance that one casts upon it … I invite you to consider every faith

humanity has confessed, every religion that you designate with a definite name and character …

If you investigate them at their source and their original components, you will find that all the

dead slag was one the glowing outpouring of the inner fire that is contained in all religions, and

is more or less of the true essence of religion as I have presented it to you. Each religion was one

of the particular forms eternal and infinite religion necessarily had to assume among finite and

limited beings. However, you must not grope about by chance in this infinite chaos … So that

you are not misled by vulgar concepts, you should survey the true content and the actual essence

of the individual religions according to a correct standard, and should learn to distinguish the

inner from the outer, the native from the borrowed and foreign, the holy from the profane

according to determinate and firm ideas. In order to do this, forget for the present each

individual religion and what is taken to be its individual characteristic and first seek from the

inside out to attain a general idea of what actually makes up the essence of a determinate form of

religion. You will find that precisely the positive religions are these determinate forms in which

the infinite religion manifests itself in the finite, and that natural religion cannot claim to be

something similar inasmuch as it is merely an indefinite, insufficient, and paltry idea that can

never really exist by itself. You will find that in these positive religions alone a true, individual

development of the religious capacity is possible and that by their very essence they do no injury

at all to the freedom of their confessors…

Document 7

Karl Barth (1886-1968)

“The Strange New World Within the Bible” (1916)

Karl Barth grew up during a time when German liberal theology was at its height. But the

horrors of World War I, he believed, required a complete re-thinking of theology. He called for

a return to many of the key themes of the sixteenth-century reformations, taking especially

39

seriously the absolute transcendence of God, the reality of human sinfulness, and humanity’s

need of grace. Thus, his theological system is often called Neo-Orthodoxy. In this 1916 essay,

Barth claims that the Bible is not about human knowledge or morality; it is about God’s ongoing

self-revelation through history, culminating in the unfolding Kingdom of God that Jesus

inaugurated. This claim surely struck his contemporaries as a “strange new world” when

compared to their own understandings of the Bible.

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

Document 8

Oscar Romero (1917-1980)

“The Political Dimension of the Faith” (1980)

Beginning in 1942, Oscar Romero served for twenty-five years as a parish priest in rural El

Salvador, and by 1977 he had been elevated to the position of Archbishop of San Salvador.

When the Salvadoran Civil War broke out in 1979, Romero became an outspoken critic of the

human rights violations that characterized all of the leaders involved in the conflict, but

particularly those of the communist rebels against the established government. Arguing that

God had a “preferential option for the poor and oppressed,” he embraced the radical theology

of liberation that had been developing among Latin America Roman Catholics over the previous

decade. Soldiers of the Salvadoran army gunned down the Archbishop while he was celebrating

Mass in a small chapel near his cathedral. Romero’s assassination was one of a dozen or so

liberation theologians who had been assassinated since the civil war began; but his case brought

international attention to the human rights atrocities in El Salvador, and strengthened emergent

liberation theology. Below is an excerpt from an address that Romero delivered at the

University of Louvain on the occasion of his receiving an honorary doctorate from the

institution.

We ought to be clear from the start that the Christian faith and the activities of the church have

always had socio-political repercussions. By commission or omission, by associating themselves

with one or another social group, Christians have always had an influence upon the socio-

political make-up of the world in which they lived. The problem is about the how of this

influence in the socio-political world, whether or not it is in accordance with the faith…

The World of the Poor

Our Salvadoran world is no abstraction. It is not another example of what is understood by

50

“world” in developed countries such as yours. It is a world made up mostly of men and women

who are poor and oppressed. And we say of that would of the poor that it is the key to

understanding the Christian faith, to understanding the activity of the church and the political

dimension of that faith and that ecclesial activity. It is the poor who tell us what the world is,

and what the church’s service to the world should be. It is the poor who tell us what the polis is,

what the city is, and what it means for the church really to live in that world.

Allow me, then, briefly to explain from the perspective of the poor among my people, whom I

represent, the situation and activity of our church in the world in which we live, and then to

reflect theologically upon the importance that this real world, this culture, this socio-political

world, has for the church…

Just as elsewhere in Latin America, the words of Exodus have, after many years, perhaps

centuries, finally resounded in our ears: “They cry of the sons of Israel has come to me, and I

have witnessed the way in which the Egyptians oppress them” (Exodus 3:9). These words have

given us new eyes to wee what has always been the case among us, but which has so often been

hidden, even from the view of the church itself. We have learned to see what is the first, basic

fact about our world and, as pastors, we have made a judgment about it…Experiencing these

realities, and letting ourselves be affected by them, far from separating us from our faith has sent

us back to the world of the poor as to our true home. It has moved us, as a first, basic step, to

take the world of the poor upon ourselves…

There we have met landworkers without land and without steady employment, without running

water or electricity in their homes, without medical assistance when their mothers give birth, and

without schools for their children. There we have met factory workers who have no labor rights,

and who get fired from their jobs if they demand such rights, human beings who are at the mercy

of cold economic calculations. There we have met the mothers and the wives of those who have

disappeared, or who are political prisoners. There we have met the shantytown dwellers, whose

wretchedness defies imagination, suffering the permanent mockery of the mansions nearby.

It is within this world devoid of a human face, this contemporary sacrament of the suffering

servant of Yahweh, that the church of my archdiocese has undertaken to incarnate itself…

Proclaiming the Good News to the Poor

Our encounter with the poor has regained for us the central truth of the gospel, though which the

word of God urges us to conversion. The church has to proclaim the good news to the

poor…”Thing Kingdom of God is at hand; blessed are you who are poor, for the Kingdom of

God is yours”…This is the hope that the church offers, and it coincides with the hope, at times

dormant and at other times frustrated or manipulated, of the poor in Latin America.

It is something new among our people that today the poor see in the church a source of hope and

a support for their noble struggle for liberation. The hope that our church encourages is neither

naïve nor passive. It is rather a summons from the word of God for the great majority of the

people, the poor, that they assume their proper responsibility, that they understand their own

conscientization, that, in a country where it is legally or practically prohibited (at some periods

51

more so than at others) they set about organizing themselves…The hope that we preach to the

poor is intended to give them back their dignity, to encourage them to take charge of their own

future. In a word, the church has not only turned toward the poor, it has made of the poor the

special beneficiaries of its mission…

This has been a brief sketch of the situation, and of the stance, of the church in El Salvador. The

political dimension of the faith is nothing other than the church’s response to the demands made

upon it by the de facto socio-political world in which it exists. What we have discovered is that

this demand is a fundamental one for the faith, and that the church cannot ignore it…

The church’s option for the poor explains the political dimension of the faith in its fundamentals

and in its basic outline. Because the church has opted for the truly poor, not for the fictitiously

poor, because it has opted for those who really are oppressed and repressed, the church lives in a

political world, and it fulfills itself as church also through politics. It cannot be otherwise if the

church, like Jesus, is to turn itself toward the poor.

Making the Faith Real in the World of the Poor

Now I should just like to put forward some short reflections on several fundamental aspects of

the faith that we have seen enriched through this real incarnation in the socio-political world.

In the first place, we have a better knowledge of what sin is. We know that offending God is

death for humans. We know that such a sin really is mortal, not only in the sense of the interior

death of the person who commits the sin, but also because of the real, objective death the sin

produces. Let us remind ourselves of a fundamental datum of our Christian faith: sin killed the

Son of God, and sin is what goes on killing the children of God…

It is not a matter of sheer routine that I insist once again on the existence in our country of

structures of sin. They are sin because they produce the fruits of sin: the deaths of

Salvadorans…That is why we have denounced what in our country has become the idolatry of

wealth, of the absolute right, within the capitalist system, of private property, of political power

in national security regimes, in the names of which personal security is itself institutionalized…

In the second place, we now have a better understanding of what the incarnation means, what it

means to say that Jesus really took human flesh and made himself one with his brothers and

sisters in suffering, in tears and laments, in surrender…

The world of the poor teaches us that liberation will arrive only when the poor are not simply on

the receiving end of handouts from governments or from the church, but when they themselves

are the masters of, and protagonists in, their own struggle and liberation, thereby unmasking the

root of false paternalism, including ecclesiastical paternalism.

The real world of the poor also teaches up about Christian hope. The church preaches a new

heaven and a new earth. It knows, moreover, that no socio-political system can be exchanged for

the final fullness that is given by God. But it has also learned that transcendent hope must be

preserved by signs of hope in history, no matter how simple they may apparently be…

52

In the third place, incarnation in the socio-political world is the locus for deepening faith in God

and in his Christ. We believe in Jesus who came to bring the fullness of life, and we believe in a

living God who gives life to men and women and wants them truly to live. These radical truths

of the faith become really true and truly radical when the church enters into the heart of the life

and death of its people. Then there is put before the faith of the church, as it is put before the

faith of every individual, the most fundamental choice: to be in favor of life or to be in favor of

death…

In the name of Jesus we want, and we work for, life in its fullness, a life that is not reduced to the

frantic search for the basic material needs, nor one reduced to the sphere of the socio-political.

We know perfectly well that the superabundant fullness of life is to be achieved only in the

kingdom of the Father. In human history this fullness is achieves through a worthy service of

that kingdom, and of total surrender to the Father. But we see with equal clarity that in the name

of Jesus it would be sheer illusion, it would be an irony, and, at bottom, it would be the most

profound blasphemy, to forget and to ignore the basic levels of life, the life that begins with

bread, a roof, a job…

In conclusion, I should like to sum up what is central to the things I have been saying. In the

ecclesial life of our archdiocese the political dimension of the faith…has not been discovered by

purely theoretical reflection, reflection made before the church has acted…But is its rather in the

actual practice of service to the poor that the political dimension of the faith is to be found, and

correctly found. In such practice, one can discover the relationship between the two, and what

distinguishes them. It is the faith that provides the first impulse to incarnate oneself in the socio-

political world of the poor, and gives encouragement to actions that lead to liberation and are

also socio-political. And in their own turn that praxis and that incarnation make concrete the

basic aspects of the faith…

Early Christians used to say Gloria Dei, viens homo (“the glory of God is the living person”).

We could make this more concrete by saying Gloria Dei, vivens pauper (“the glory of God is the

living poor person”). From the perspective of the transcendent gospel, I believe we can

determine what the life of the poor truly is. And I also believe that by putting ourselves alongside

the poor and trying to bring life to them we shall come to know the eternal truth of the gospel.