Article XXIV (XII): Of the Mass.
At the outset we
must again make the preliminary statement that we 1]
do not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend
it. For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and
on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to
those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and
absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the
series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other like things.
2] The adversaries
have a long declamation concerning the use of the Latin language
in the Mass, in which they absurdly trifle as to how it profits
[what a great merit is achieved by] an unlearned hearer to hear
in the faith of the Church a Mass which he does not understand.
They evidently imagine that the mere work of hearing is a service,
that it profits without being understood. 3] We are unwilling
to malignantly pursue these things, but we leave them to the
judgment of the reader. We mention them only for the purpose
of stating, in passing, that also among us the Latin lessons
and prayers are retained.
Since ceremonies,
however, ought to be observed both to teach men Scripture, and
that those admonished by the Word may conceive faith and fear
[of God, and obtain comfort], and thus also may pray (for these
are the designs of ceremonies), we retain the Latin language
on account of those who are learning and understand Latin, and
we mingle with it German hymns, in order that the people also
may have something to learn, and by which faith and fear 4]
may be called forth. This custom has always existed in the churches.
For although some more frequently, and others more rarely, introduced
German hymns, nevertheless the people almost everywhere sang
something in their own 5] tongue. [Therefore, this is
not such a new departure.] It has, however, nowhere been written
or represented that the act of hearing lessons not understood
profits men, or that ceremonies profit, not because they teach
or admonish, but ex opere operato, because they are thus
performed or are looked upon. Away with such pharisaic opinions!
[Ye sophists ought to be heartily ashamed of such dreams!]
6] The fact
that we hold only Public or Common Mass [at which the people
also commune, not Private Mass] is no offense against the Church
catholic. For in the Greek churches even today private
Masses are not held, but there is only a public Mass, and that
on the Lord's Day and festivals. In the monasteries daily Mass
is held, but this is only public. These are the traces of former
customs. For nowhere do the ancient writers before Gregory make
mention 7] of private Masses. We now omit noticing the
nature of their origin. It is evident that after the mendicant
monks began to prevail, from most false opinions and on account
of gain they were so increased that all good men for a long
time desired some limit to this thing. Although St. Francis
wished to provide aright for this matter, as he decided that
each fraternity should be content with a single common Mass
daily, afterwards this was changed, either by superstition or
for the sake of gain. Thus, 8] where it is of advantage,
they themselves change the institutions of the Fathers; and
afterwards they cite against us the authority of the Fathers.
Epiphanius writes that in Asia the Communion was celebrated
three times a week, and that there were no daily Masses. And
indeed he says that this custom was handed down from the apostles.
For he speaks thus: Assemblies for Communion were appointed
by the apostles to be held on the fourth day, on Sabbath
eve, and the Lord's Day
9] Moreover,
although the adversaries collect many testimonies on this topic
to prove that the Mass is a sacrifice, yet this great tumult
of words will be quieted when the single reply is advanced that
this line of authorities, reasons and testimonies, however long,
does not prove that the Mass confers grace ex opere operato,
or that, when applied on behalf of others, it merits for them
the remission of venial and mortal sins, of guilt and punishment.
This one reply overthrows all objections of the adversaries,
not only in this Confutation, but in all writings which they
have published concerning the Mass.
10] And this
is the issue [the principal question] of the case of which our
readers are to be admonished, as Aeschines admonished the judges
that just as boxers contend with one another for their position,
so they should strive with their adversary concerning the controverted
point, and not permit him to wander beyond the case. In the
same manner our adversaries ought to be here compelled to speak
on the subject presented. And when the controverted point has
been thoroughly understood, a decision concerning the arguments
on both sides will be very easy.
11] For in
our Confession we have shown that we hold that the Lord's Supper
does not confer grace ex opere operato, and that, when
applied on behalf of others, alive or dead, it does not merit
for them ex opere operato the remission of sins, of guilt
or of punishment. 12] And of this position a clear and
firm proof exists in that it is impossible to obtain the remission
of our sins on account of our own work ex opere operato
[even when there is not a good thought in the heart], but the
terrors of sin and death must be overcome by faith when we comfort
our hearts with the knowledge of Christ, and believe that for
Christ's sake we are forgiven, and that the merits and righteousness
of Christ are granted us, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith,
we have peace. These things are so sure and so firm that
they can stand against all the gates of hell.
13] If we
are to say only as much as is necessary, the case has already
been stated. For no sane man can approve that pharisaic and
heathen opinion concerning the opus operatum. And nevertheless
this opinion inheres in the people, and has increased infinitely
the number of masses. For masses are purchased to appease God's
wrath, and by this work they wish to obtain the remission of
guilt and of punishment; they wish to procure whatever is necessary
in every kind of life [health, riches, prosperity, and success
in business]; they wish even to liberate the dead. Monks and
sophists have taught this pharisaic opinion in the Church.
14] But although
our case has already been stated, yet, because the adversaries
foolishly pervert many passages of Scripture to the defense
of their errors, we shall add a few things on this topic. In
the Confutation they have said many things concerning "sacrifice,"
although in our Confession we purposely avoided this term on
account of its ambiguity. We have set forth what those persons
whose abuses we condemn now understand as a sacrifice. Now,
in order to explain the passages of Scripture that have been
wickedly perverted, it is necessary in the beginning to set
forth what a sacrifice is. 15] Already for an entire
period of ten years the adversaries have published almost infinite
volumes concerning sacrifice, and yet not one of them thus far
has given a definition of sacrifice. They only seize upon the
name "sacrifices" either from the Scriptures or the Fathers
[and where they find it in the dances of the Bible, apply it
here, whether it fits or not]. Afterward they append their own
dreams, as though indeed a sacrifice signifies whatever pleases
them.
What a Sacrifice
Is, and What Are the Species of Sacrifice.
[Now, lest we plunge
blindly into this business, we must indicate, in the first place,
a distinction as to what is, and what is not, a sacrifice. To
know this is expedient and good for all Christians.] 16]
Socrates, in the Phaedrus of Plato, says that he is especially
fond of divisions, because without these nothing can either
be explained or understood in speaking, and if he discovers
any one skilful in making divisions, he says that he attends
and follows his footsteps as those of a god. And he instructs
the one dividing to separate the members in their very joints,
lest, like an unskilful cook, he break to pieces some member.
But the adversaries wonderfully despise these precepts, and,
according to Plato, are truly kakoi; mavgeiroi (poor butchers),
since they break the members of "sacrifice," as can be understood
when we have enumerated the species of sacrifice. 17]
Theologians are rightly accustomed to distinguish between a
Sacrament and a sacrifice. Therefore let the genus comprehending
both of these be either 18] a ceremony or a sacred work.
A Sacrament is a ceremony or work in which God presents to us
that which the promise annexed to the ceremony offers; as, Baptism
is a work, not which we offer to God, but in which God baptizes
us, i.e., a minister in the place of God; and God here
offers and presents the remission of sins, etc., according to
the promise, Mark 16, 16: He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved. A sacrifice, on the contrary, is a ceremony
or work which we render God in order to afford Him honor.
19] Moreover,
the proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there are no
more. One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e.,
a work which makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e.,
one that reconciles God, or appeases God's wrath, or which merits
the remission of sins for others. The other species is the eucharistic
sacrifice, which does not merit the remission of sins or
reconciliation, but is rendered by those who have been reconciled,
in order that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the
remission of sins that has been received, or for other benefits
received.
20] These
two species of sacrifice we ought especially to have in view
and placed before the eyes in this controversy, as well as in
many other discussions; and especial care must be taken lest
they be confounded. But if the limits of this book would suffer
it, we would add the reasons for this division. For it has many
testimonies in the Epistle to the Hebrews and elsewhere. And
21] all Levitical sacrifices can be referred to these
members as to their own homes [genera]. For in the Law certain
sacrifices were named propitiatory on account of their signification
or similitude; not because they merited the remission of sins
before God, but because they merited the remission of sins according
to the righteousness of the Law, in order that those for whom
they were made might not be excluded from that commonwealth
[from the people of Israel]. Therefore they were called sin-offerings
and burnt offerings for a trespass. Whereas the eucharistic
sacrifices were the oblation, the drink-offering, thank-offerings,
first-fruits, tithes.
22] [Thus
there have been in the Law emblems of the true sacrifice.] But
in fact there has been only one propitiatory sacrifice in the
world, namely, the death of Christ, as the Epistle to the Hebrews
10, 4 teaches: It is not possible that the blood of bulls
and of goats should take away sins. And a little after,
of the [obedience and] will of Christ, 10, 10: By the which
will we are sanctified by the offering of the body23]of
Jesus Christ once for all. And Isaiah interprets the Law,
in order that we may know that the death of Christ is truly
a satisfaction for our sins, or expiation, and that the ceremonies
of the Law are not; wherefore he says, Is. 53, 10: When Thou
shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He will see
His seed, etc. For the word employed here, µça
, signifies a victim
for transgression; which signified in the Law that a certain
Victim was to come to make satisfaction for our sins and reconcile
God, in order that men might know that God wishes to be reconciled
to us, not on account of our own righteousnesses, but on account
of the merits of another, namely, of Christ. Paul interprets
the same word µça
as sin, Rom.
8, 3: For sin (God) condemned sin, i.e.,
He punished sin for sin, i.e., by a Victim for sin. The
significance of the word can be the more easily understood from
the customs of the heathen, which, we see, have been received
from the misunderstood expressions of the Fathers. The Latins
called a victim that which in great calamities, where God seemed
to be especially enraged, was offered to appease God's wrath,
a piaculum; and they sometimes sacrificed human victims,
perhaps because they had heard that a human victim would appease
God for the entire human race. The Greeks sometimes called them
kaqavrmata and sometimes periyhvmata. Isaiah and Paul, therefore,
mean that Christ became a victim, 24] i.e., an
expiation, that by His merits, and not by our own, God might
be reconciled. Therefore let this remain established in the
case, namely, that the death of Christ alone is truly a propitiatory
sacrifice. For the Levitical propitiatory sacrifices were so
called only to signify a future expiation. On account of a certain
resemblance, therefore, they were satisfactions redeeming the
righteousness of the Law, lest those persons who sinned should
be excluded from the commonwealth. But after the revelation
of the Gospel [and after the true sacrifice has been accomplished]
they had to cease; and because they had to cease in the revelation
of the Gospel, they were not truly propitiations, since the
Gospel was promised for this very reason, namely, to set forth
a propitiation.
25] Now the
rest are eucharistic sacrifices, which are called sacrifices
of praise, Lev. 3, 1f.; 7, 11f.; Ps. 56, 12f., namely, the preaching
of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the
afflictions of saints, yea, all good works of saints. These
sacrifices are not satisfactions for those making them, or applicable
on behalf of others, so as to merit for these, ex opere operato,
the remission of sins or reconciliation. For they are made by
those who have been reconciled. 26] And such are the
sacrifices of the New Testament, as Peter teaches, 1 Pet. 2,
5: An holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices.
Spiritual sacrifices, however, are contrasted not only with
those of cattle, but even with human works offered ex opere
operato, because spiritual refers to the movements
of the Holy Ghost in us. Paul teaches the same thing Rom. 12,
1: Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable, which is your reasonable service. Reasonable
service signifies, however, a service in which God is known,
and apprehended by the mind, as happens in the movements of
fear and trust towards God. Therefore it is opposed not only
to the Levitical service, in which cattle are slain, but also
to a service in which a work is imagined to be offered ex
opere operato, The Epistle to the Hebrews 13, 15, teaches
the same thing: By Him, therefore, let us offer
the sacrifice of praise to God continually; and he adds the
interpretation, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks
to His name. He bids us offer praises, i.e., prayer,
thanksgiving, confession, and the like. These avail not ex
opere operato, but on account of faith. This is taught by
the clause: By Him let us offer, i.e., by faith
in Christ.
27] In short,
the worship of the New Testament is spiritual, i.e.,
it is the righteousness of faith in the heart and the fruits
of faith. It accordingly abolishes the Levitical services. [In
the New Testament no offering avails ex opere operato, sine
bono motu utentis, i.e., on account of the work,
without a good thought in the heart.] And Christ says, John
4, 23. 24: True worshipers shalt worship the Father in spirit
and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God
is a Spirit; and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit
and in truth [that is, from the heart, with heartfelt fear
and cordial faith]. This passage clearly condemns [as absolutely
devilish, pharisaical, and antichristian] opinions concerning
sacrifices which, they imagine, avail ex opere operato,
and teaches that men ought to worship in spirit, i.e.,
with the dispositions of the heart and by faith. [The Jews also
did not understand their ceremonies aright, and imagined that
they were righteous before God when they had wrought works ex
opere operato. Against this the prophets contend with the
greatest earnestness.] Accordingly, 28] the prophets
also in the Old Testament condemn the opinion of the people
concerning the opus operatum, and teach the righteousness
and sacrifices of the Spirit. Jer. 7, 22. 23: For I spoke
not unto your fathers, nor commanded them, in
the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning
burnt offerings or sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them,
saying, Obey My voice, and I will be your God,
etc. How do we suppose that the Jews received this arraignment,
which seems to conflict openly with Moses? For it was evident
that God had given the fathers commands concerning burnt offerings
and victims. But Jeremiah condemns the opinion concerning sacrifices
which God had not delivered, namely, that these services should
please Him ex opere operato. But he adds concerning faith
that God had commanded this: Hear Me, i.e., believe
Me that I am your God; that I wish to become thus known when
I pity and aid; neither have I need of your victims; believe
that I wish to be God the Justifier and Savior, not on account
of works, but on account of My word and promise; truly and from
the heart seek and expect aid from Me.
29] Ps. 50,
13. 15, which rejects the victims and requires prayer, also
condemns the opinion concerning the opus operatum: Will
I eat the flesh of bulls? etc. Call upon He in the day
of trouble; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify
Me. The Psalmist testifies that this is true service, that
this is true honor, if we call upon Him from the heart.
Likewise Ps. 40,
6: Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; mine ears
hast Thou opened, i.e., Thou hast offered to me Thy
Word that I might hear it, and Thou dost require that I believe
Thy Word and Thy promises, that Thou truly desirest to pity,
to bring aid, etc. Likewise Ps. 51, 16. 17: Thou delightest
not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt
not despise. Likewise Ps. 4, 5: Offer the sacrifices
of righteousness, and put your trust [hope,
V.] in the Lord. He bids us hope, and says that
this is a righteous sacrifice, signifying that other sacrifices
are not true and righteous sacrifices. And Ps. 116, 17: I
will offer to Thee the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and
will call upon the name of the Lord. They call invocation
a sacrifice of thanksgiving.
30] But Scripture
is full of such testimonies as teach that sacrifices ex opere
operato do not reconcile God. Accordingly the New Testament,
since Levitical services have been abrogated, teaches that new
and pure sacrifices will be made, namely, faith, prayer, thanksgiving,
confession, and the preaching of the Gospel, afflictions on
account of the Gospel, and the like.
31] And of
these sacrifices Malachi 1, 11 speaks: From the rising of
the sun even unto the going down of the same My name shall be
great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be
offered unto My name and a pure offering. The adversaries
perversely apply this passage to the Mass, and quote the authority
of the Fathers. A reply, however, is easy, for even if it spoke
most particularly of the Mass, it would not follow that the
Mass justifies ex opere operato, or that, when applied
to others, it merits the remission of sins, etc. The prophet
says nothing of those things which the monks and sophists impudently
fabricate. 32] Besides, the very words of the prophet
express his meaning. For they first say this, namely, that the
name of the Lord will be great. This is accomplished by
the preaching of the Gospel. For through this the name of Christ
is made known, and the mercy of the Father, promised in Christ,
is recognized. The preaching of the Gospel produces faith in
those who receive the Gospel. They call upon God, they give
thanks to God, they bear afflictions for their confession, they
produce good works for the glory of Christ. Thus the name of
the Lord becomes great among the Gentiles. Therefore incense
and a pure offering signify not a ceremony ex opere
operato [not the ceremony of the Mass alone], but all those
sacrifices through which the name of the Lord becomes great,
namely, faith, invocation, the preaching 33] of the Gospel,
confession, etc. And if any one would have this term embrace
the ceremony [of the Mass], we readily concede it, provided
he neither understands the ceremony alone, nor teaches that
the ceremony profits ex opere operato. For just as among
the sacrifices of praise, i.e., among the praises of
God, we include the preaching of the Word, so the reception
itself of the Lord's Supper can be praise or thanksgiving; but
it does not justify ex opere operato; neither is it to
be applied to others so as to merit for them the remission of
sins. But after a while we shall explain how even a ceremony
is a sacrifice. Yet, as Malachi speaks of all the services of
the New Testament, and not only of the Lord's Supper; likewise,
as he does not favor the pharisaic opinion of the opus operatum,
he is not against us, but rather aids us. For he requires services
of the heart, through which the name of the Lord becomes truly
great.
34] Another
passage also is cited from Malachi 3, 3: And He shall purify
the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver,
that they may offer unto the Lord an offering of righteousness.
This passage clearly requires the sacrifices of the righteous,
and hence does not favor the opinion concerning the opus
operatum. But the sacrifices of the sons of Levi, i.e.,
of those teaching in the New Testament, are the preaching of
the Gospel, and the good fruits of preaching, as Paul says,
Rom. 15, 16: Ministering the Gospel of God, that the offering
up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by
the Holy Ghost, i.e., that, the Gentiles might be offerings
acceptable to God by faith, etc. For in the Law the slaying
of victims signified both the death of Christ and the preaching
of the Gospel, by which this oldness of flesh should be mortified,
and the new and eternal life be begun in us.
But the adversaries
everywhere perversely apply the name sacrifice to the
ceremony alone. They omit the preaching of the Gospel, faith,
prayer, and similar things, although the ceremony has been established
on account of these, and the New Testament ought to have sacrifices
of the heart, and not ceremonials for sin that are to be performed
after the manner of the Levitical priesthood.
35] They cite
also the daily sacrifice (cf. Ex. 29, 38f.; Dan. 8, 11f.;
12, 11), that, just as in the Law there was a daily sacrifice
so the Mass ought to be a daily sacrifice of the New Testament.
The adversaries have managed well if we permit ourselves to
be overcome by allegories. It is evident, however, that allegories
do not produce firm proofs [that in matters so highly important
before God we must have a sure and clear word of God, and not
introduce by force obscure and foreign passages; such uncertain
explanations do not stand the test of God's judgment]. Although
we indeed readily suffer the Mass to be understood as a daily
sacrifice, provided that the entire Mass be understood, i.e.,
the ceremony with the preaching of the Gospel, faith, invocation,
and thanksgiving. For these joined together are a daily sacrifice
of the New Testament, because the ceremony [of the Mass, or
the Lord's Supper] was instituted on account of these things;
neither is it to be separated from these. Paul says accordingly,
1 Cor. 11, 26: As often as ye eat this bread and drink this
cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come. But
it in no way follows from this Levitical type that a ceremony
justifying ex opere operato is necessary, or ought to
be applied on behalf of others, that it may merit for them the
remission of sins.
36] And the
type aptly represents not only the ceremony, but also the preaching
of the Gospel. In Num. 28, 4f. three parts of that daily sacrifice
are represented, the burning of the lamb, the libation,
and the oblation of wheat flour. The Law had pictures
or shadows of future things. Accordingly, in this spectacle
Christ and the entire worship of the New Testament are portrayed.
The burning of the lamb signifies the death of Christ. The libation
signifies that everywhere in the entire world, by the preaching
of the Gospel, believers are sprinkled with the blood of that
Lamb, i.e., sanctified, as Peter says, 1 Pet. 1, 2: Through
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus Christ. The oblation of wheat flour
signifies faith, prayer, and thanksgiving in hearts. 37]
As, therefore, in the Old Testament, the shadow is perceived,
so in the New the thing signified should be sought, and not
another type, as sufficient for a sacrifice.
38] Therefore,
although a ceremony is a memorial of Christ's death, nevertheless
it alone is not the daily sacrifice; but the memory itself is
the daily sacrifice, i.e., preaching and faith, which
truly believes that, by the death of Christ, God has been reconciled.
A libation is required, i.e., the effect of preaching,
in order that, being sprinkled by the Gospel with the blood
of Christ, we may be sanctified, as those put to death and made
alive. Oblations also are required, i.e., thanksgiving,
confessions, and afflictions.
Thus the pharisaic
opinion 39] of the opus operatum being cast aside,
let us understand that spiritual worship and a daily sacrifice
of the heart are signified, because in the New Testament the
substance of good things should be sought for [as Paul says:
In the Old Testament is the shadow of things to come,
but the body and the truth is in Christ], i.e.,
the Holy Ghost, mortification, and quickening. 40] From
these things it is sufficiently apparent that the type of the
daily sacrifice testifies nothing against us, but rather for
us, because we seek for all the parts signified by the daily
sacrifice. [We have clearly shown all the parts that belonged
to the daily sacrifice in the law of Moses, that it must mean
a true cordial offering, not an opus operatum.] The adversaries
falsely imagine that the ceremony alone is signified, and not
also the preaching of the Gospel, mortification, and quickening
of heart, etc. [which is the best part of the Mass, whether
they call it a sacrifice or anything else].
41] Now, therefore,
good men will be able to judge readily that the complaint against
us that we abolish the daily sacrifice is most false. Experience
shows what sort of Antiochi they are who hold power in the Church;
who under the pretext of religion assume to themselves the kingdom
of the world, and who rule without concern for religion and
the teaching of the Gospel; who wage war like kings of the world,
and 42] have instituted new services in the Church. For
in the Mass the adversaries retain only the ceremony, and publicly
apply this to sacrilegious gain. Afterward they feign that this
work, as applied on behalf of others, 43] merits for
them grace and all good things. In their sermons they do not
teach the Gospel, they do not console consciences, they do not
show that sins are freely remitted for Christ's sake; but they
set forth the worship of saints, human satisfactions, human
traditions, and by these they affirm that men are justified
before God. And although some of these traditions are manifestly
godless, nevertheless they defend them by violence. If any preachers
wish to be regarded more learned, they treat of philosophical
questions, which neither the people nor even those who propose
them understand. Lastly, those who are more tolerable teach
the Law, and say nothing concerning the righteousness of faith.
44] The adversaries
in the Confutation make a great ado concerning the desolation
of churches, namely, that the altars stand unadorned, without
candles and without images. These trifles they regard as ornaments
to churches. [Although it is not true that we abolish all such
outward ornaments; yet, even if it were so, Daniel is not speaking
of such things as are altogether external and do not belong
to the Christian Church.] It is a far different desolation 45]
which Daniel 11, 31; 12, 11, means namely, ignorance of the
Gospel. For the people, overwhelmed by the multitude and variety
of traditions and opinions, were in no way able to embrace 46]
the sum of Christian doctrine. [For the adversaries preach mostly
of human ordinances, whereby consciences are led from Christ
to confidence in their own works.] For who of the people ever
understood the doctrine of repentance of which the adversaries
treat? And yet this is the chief topic of Christian doctrine.
Consciences were
tormented by the enumeration of offenses and by satisfactions.
Of faith, by which we freely receive the remission of sins,
no mention whatever was made by the adversaries. Concerning
the exercises of faith, struggling with despair, and the free
remission of sins for Christ's sake, all the books and all the
sermons of the adversaries were silent [worse than worthless,
and, moreover, caused untold damage]. 47] To these, the
horrible profanation of the masses and many other godless services
in the churches were added. This is the desolation which Daniel
describes.
48] On the
contrary, by the favor of God, the priests among us attend to
the ministry of the Word, teach the Gospel concerning the blessings
of Christ, and show that the remission of sins occurs freely
for Christ's sake. This doctrine brings sure consolation to
consciences. The doctrine of [the Ten Commandments and] good
works which God commands is also added. The worth and use of
the Sacraments are declared.
49] But if
the use of the Sacrament would be the daily sacrifice, nevertheless
we would retain it rather than the adversaries, because with
them priests hired for pay use the Sacrament. With us there
is a more frequent and more conscientious use. For the people
use it, but after having first been instructed and examined.
For men are taught concerning the true use of the Sacrament
that it was instituted for the purpose of being a seal and testimony
of the free remission of sins, and that, accordingly, it ought
to admonish alarmed consciences to be truly confident and believe
that their sins are freely remitted. Since, therefore, we retain
both the preaching of the Gospel and the lawful use of the Sacrament,
the daily sacrifice remains with us.
50] And if
we must speak of the outward appearance, attendance upon church
is better among us than among the adversaries. For the audiences
are held by useful and clear sermons. But neither the people
nor the teachers have ever understood the doctrine of the adversaries.
[There is nothing that so attaches people to the church as good
preaching. But our adversaries preach their people out of the
churches; for they teach nothing of the necessary parts of Christian
doctrine; they narrate the legends of saints and other fables.]
And 51] the true adornment of the churches is godly,
useful, and clear doctrine, the devout use of the Sacraments,
ardent prayer, and the like. Candles, golden vessels [tapers,
altar-cloths, images), and similar adornments are becoming,
but they are not the adornment that properly belongs to the
Church. But if the adversaries make worship consist in such
matters, and not in the preaching of the Gospel, in faith, and
the conflicts of faith, they are to be numbered among those
whom Daniel describes as worshiping their God with gold and
silver, Dan. 11, 38.
52] They quote
also from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 5, 1: Every high priest
taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining
to God that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.
Hence they conclude that, since in the New Testament there are
high priests and priests, it follows that there is also a sacrifice
for sins. This passage particularly makes an impression on the
unlearned, especially when the pomp of the priesthood [the garments
of Aaron, since in the Old Testament there were many ornaments
of gold, silver, and purple] and the sacrifices of the Old Testament
are spread before the eyes. This resemblance deceives the ignorant,
so that they judge that, according to the same manner, a ceremonial
sacrifice ought to exist among us, which should be applied on
behalf of the sins of others, just as in the Old Testament.
Neither is the service of the masses and the rest of the polity
of the Pope anything else than false zeal in behalf of the misunderstood
Levitical polity. (They have not understood that the New Testament
is occupied with other matters, and that, if such ceremonies
are used for the training of the young, a limit must be fixed
for them.]
53] And although
our belief has its chief testimonies in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
nevertheless the adversaries distort against us mutilated passages
from this Epistle, as in this very passage, where it is said
that every high priest is ordained to offer sacrifices for
sins. Scripture itself immediately adds that Christ is High
Priest, Heb. 5, 5. 6. 10. The preceding words speak of the Levitical
priesthood, and signify that the Levitical priesthood was an
image of the priesthood of Christ. For the Levitical sacrifices
for sins did not merit the remission of sins before God; they
were only an image of the sacrifice of Christ, which was to
be the one propitiatory sacrifice, as we have said above. 54]
Therefore the Epistle is occupied to a great extent with the
topic that the ancient priesthood and the ancient sacrifices
were instituted not for the purpose of meriting the remission
of sins before God or reconciliation, but only to signify the
future sacrifice of Christ alone. 55] For in the Old
Testament it was necessary for saints to be justified by faith
derived from the promise of the remission of sins that was to
be granted for Christ's sake, just as saints are also justified
in the New Testament. From the beginning of the world it was
necessary for all saints to believe that Christ would be the
promised offering and satisfaction for sins, as Isaiah 53, 10
teaches: When Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin
56] Since,
therefore, in the Old Testament, sacrifices did not merit reconciliation,
unless by a figure (for they merited civil reconciliation),
but signified the coming sacrifice, it follows that Christ is
the only sacrifice applied on behalf of the sins of others.
Therefore, in the New Testament no sacrifice is left to be applied
for the sins of others, except the one sacrifice of Christ upon
the cross.
57] They altogether
err who imagine that Levitical sacrifices merited the remission
of sins before God, and, by this example in addition to the
death of Christ, require in the New Testament sacrifices that
are to be applied on behalf of others. This imagination absolutely
destroys the merit of Christ's passion and the righteousness
of faith, and corrupts the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments,
and instead of Christ makes for us other mediators and propitiators
out of the priests and sacrificers, who daily sell their work
in the churches.
58] Therefore,
if any one would thus infer that in the New Testament a priest
is needed to make offering for sins, this must be conceded only
of Christ. And the entire Epistle to the Hebrews confirms this
explanation. And if, in addition to the death of Christ, we
were to seek for any other satisfaction to be applied for the
sins of others and to reconcile God, this would be nothing more
than to make other mediators in addition to Christ. 59]
Again, as the priesthood of the New Testament is the ministry
of the Spirit, as Paul teaches 2 Cor. 3, 6, it, accordingly,
has but the one sacrifice of Christ, which is satisfactory and
applied for the sins of others. Besides, it has no sacrifices
like the Levitical, which could be applied ex opere operato
on behalf of others; but it tenders to others the Gospel and
the Sacraments, that by means of these they may conceive faith
and the Holy Ghost, and be mortified and quickened, because
the ministry of the Spirit conflicts with the application of
an opus operatum. [For, unless there is personal faith
and a life wrought by the Holy Spirit, the opus operatum
of another cannot render me godly nor save me.] For the ministry
of the Spirit is that through which the Holy Ghost is efficacious
in hearts; and therefore this ministry is profitable to others,
when it is efficacious in them, and regenerates and quickens
them. This does not occur by the application ex opere operato
of the work of another on behalf of others.
60] We have
shown the reason why the Mass does not justify ex opere operato,
and why, when applied on behalf of others, it does not merit
remission, because both conflict with the righteousness of faith.
For it is impossible that remission of sins should occur, and
the terrors of death and sin be overcome by any work or anything,
except by faith in Christ, according to Rom. 5, 1: Being
justified by faith, we have peace
61] In addition,
we have shown that the Scriptures, which are cited against us,
in no way favor the godless opinion of the adversaries concerning
the opus operatum. All good men among all nations can
judge this. 62] Therefore the error of Thomas is to be
rejected, who wrote: That the body of the Lord, once
offered on the cross for original debt, is continually
offered for daily offenses on the altar, in order that,
in this, the Church might have 63] a
service whereby to reconcile God to herself. The other common
errors are also to be rejected, as, that the Mass ex opere
operato confers grace upon one employing it; likewise, that
when applied for others, even for wicked persons, provided they
do not interpose an obstacle, it merits for them the remission
of sins, of guilt and punishment. All these things are false
and godless, and lately invented by unlearned monks, and obscure
the glory of Christ's passion and the righteousness of faith.
64] And from
these errors infinite others sprang, as, that the masses avail
when applied for many, just as much as when applied individually.
The sophists have particular degrees of merit, just as money-changers
have grades of weight for gold or silver. Besides, they sell
the Mass, as a price for obtaining what each one seeks: to merchants,
that business may be prosperous; to hunters, that hunting may
be successful; and infinite other things. Lastly, they apply
it also to the dead; by the application of the Sacrament they
liberate souls from the pains of purgatory; although without
faith the Mass is of service not even to the living. 65]
Neither are the adversaries able to produce even one syllable
from the Scriptures in defense of these fables which they teach
with great authority in the Church; neither do they have the
testimonies of the ancient Church nor of the Fathers. [Therefore
they are impious and blind people who knowingly despise and
trample under foot the plain truth of God.]
What the Fathers
Thought concerning Sacrifice.
66] And since
we have explained the passages of Scripture which are cited
against us, we must reply also concerning the Fathers. We are
not ignorant that the Mass is called by the Fathers a sacrifice;
but they do not mean that the Mass confers grace ex opere
operato, and that, when applied on behalf of others, it
merits for them the remission of sins, of guilt and punishment.
Where are such monstrous stories to be found in the Fathers?
But they openly testify that they are speaking of thanksgiving.
Accordingly they call it a eucharist. 67] We have said
above, however, that a eucharistic sacrifice does not merit
reconciliation, but is made by those who have been reconciled,
just as afflictions do not merit reconciliation, but are eucharistic
sacrifices when those who have been reconciled endure them.
And this reply, in
general, to the sayings of the Fathers defends us sufficiently
against the adversaries. For it is certain that these figments
concerning the merit of the opus operatum are found nowhere
in the Fathers. But in order that the whole case may be the
better understood, we also shall state those things concerning
the use of the Sacrament which actually harmonize with the Fathers
and Scripture.
Of the Use of
the Sacrament, and of Sacrifice.
68] Some clever
men imagine that the Lord's Supper was instituted for two reasons.
First, that it might be a mark and testimony of profession,
just as a particular shape of hood is the sign of a particular
profession. Then they think that such a mark was especially
pleasing to Christ, namely, a feast to signify mutual union
and friendship among Christians, because banquets are signs
of covenant and friendship. But this is a secular view; neither
does it show the chief use of the things delivered by God; it
speaks only of the exercise of love, which men, however profane
and worldly, understand; it does not speak of faith, the nature
of which few understand.
69] The Sacraments
are signs of God's will toward us, and not merely signs of men
among each other; and they are right in defining that Sacraments
in the New Testament are signs of grace. And because in a sacrament
there are two things, a sign and the Word, the Word, in the
New Testament, is the promise of grace added. The promise of
the New Testament is the promise of the remission of sins, as
the text, Luke 22, 19, says: This is My body, which
is given for you. This cup is the New Testament in My blood,
which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 70]
Therefore the Word offers the remission of sins. And a ceremony
is, as it were, a picture or seal, as Paul, Rom. 4, 11, calls
it, of the Word, making known the promise. Therefore, just as
the promise is useless unless it is received by faith, so a
ceremony is useless unless such faith is added as is truly confident
that the remission of sins is here offered. And this faith encourages
contrite minds. And just as the Word has been given in order
to excite this faith, so the Sacrament has been instituted in
order that the outward appearance meeting the eyes might move
the heart to believe [and strengthen faith]. For through these,
namely, through Word and Sacrament, the Holy Ghost works.
71] And such
use of the Sacrament, in which faith quickens terrified hearts,
is a service of the New Testament, because the New Testament
requires spiritual dispositions, mortification and quickening.
[For according to the New Testament the highest service of God
is rendered inwardly in the heart.] And for this use Christ
instituted it, since He commanded them thus to do in remembrance
of Him. 72] For to remember Christ is not the idle
celebration of a show [not something that is accomplished only
by some gestures and actions], or one instituted for the sake
of example, as the memory of Hercules or Ulysses is celebrated
in tragedies, but it is to remember the benefits of Christ and
receive them by faith, so as to be quickened by them. Psalm
111, 4. 5 accordingly says: He hath made His wonderful works
to be remembered: the Lord is gracious and full of compassion.
He hath given meat unto them that fear Him. For it signifies
that the will and mercy of God should be discerned in the 73]
ceremony. But that faith which apprehends mercy quickens. And
this is the principal use of the Sacrament, in which it is apparent
who are fit for the Sacrament, namely, terrified consciences,
and how they ought to use it.
74] The sacrifice
[thankoffering or thanksgiving] also is added. For there are
several ends for one object. After conscience encouraged by
faith has perceived from what terrors it is freed, then indeed
it fervently gives thanks for the benefit and passion of Christ,
and uses the ceremony itself to the praise of God, in order
by this obedience to show its gratitude; and testifies that
it holds in high esteem the gifts of God. Thus the ceremony
becomes a sacrifice of praise.
75] And the
Fathers, indeed, speak of a two-fold effect, of the comfort
of consciences, and of thanksgiving, or praise. The former of
these effects pertains to the nature [the right use] of the
Sacrament; the latter pertains to the sacrifice. Of consolation
Ambrose says: Go to Him and be absolved, because He
is the remission of sins. Do you ask who He is? Hear Him when
He says, John 6, 35: I am the Bread of life; he that
cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on He
shall never thirst. This passage testifies that in the Sacrament
the remission of sins is offered; it also testifies that this
ought to be received by faith. Infinite testimonies to this
effect are found in the Fathers, all of which the adversaries
pervert to the opus operatum, and to a work to be applied
on behalf of others; although the Fathers clearly require faith,
and speak of the consolation belonging to every one, and not
of the application.
76] Besides
these, expressions are also found concerning thanksgiving, such
as that most beautifully said by Cyprian concerning those communing
in a godly way. Piety, says he, in thanking the Bestower
of such abundant blessing, makes a distinction between
what has been given and what has been forgiven, i.e.,
piety regards both what has been given and what has been forgiven,
i.e., it compares the greatness of God's blessings and
the greatness of our evils, sin and death, with each other,
and gives thanks, etc. And hence the term eucharist arose in
the Church. 77] Nor indeed is the ceremony itself, the
giving of thanks ex opere operato, to be applied on behalf
of others, in order to merit for them the remission of sins,
etc., in order to liberate the souls of the dead. These things
conflict with the righteousness of faith; as though, without
faith, a ceremony can profit either the one performing it or
others.
Of the Term Mass.
78] The adversaries
also refer us to philology. From the names of the Mass they
derive arguments which do not require a long discussion. For
even though the Mass be called a sacrifice, it does not follow
that it must confer grace ex opere operato, or, when
applied on behalf of others, merit for them the remission of
sins, etc. 79] Leitourgiva, they say, signifies a sacrifice,
and the Greeks call the Mass, liturgy. Why do they here omit
the old appellation synaxis, which shows that the Mass
was formerly the communion of many? But let us speak of the
word liturgy. This word does not properly signify a, sacrifice,
but rather the public ministry, and agrees aptly with our belief,
namely, that one minister who consecrates tenders the body and
blood of the Lord to the rest of the people, just as one minister
who preaches tenders the Gospel to the people, as Paul says,
1 Cor. 4, 1: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers
of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God, i.e.,
of the Gospel and the Sacraments. And 2 Cor. 5, 20: We are
ambassadors for Christ, as 81] though God
did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, Be
ye reconciled to God. Thus the term leitourgiva agrees aptly
with the ministry. For it is an old word, ordinarily employed
in public civil administrations, and signified to the Greeks
public burdens, as tribute, the expense of equipping a fleet,
or similar things, as the oration of Demosthenes, For Leptines,
testifies, all of which is occupied with the discussion of public
duties and immunities: Fhvsei de; ajnaxivou" tinaV" ajnqrwvpou"
euJromevnou" ajtevleian ejkdedukevnai ta;" leitourgiva", i.e.:
He will say that some unworthy men, having found an
immunity, have withdrawn from public burdens. And
thus they spoke in the time of the Romans, as the rescript of
Pertinax, De Iure Immunitatis, l. Semper, shows:
Eij kai; mh; pasw'n leitourgiw'n tou;: patevra" oJ tw'n tevknwn
ajriqmo;" ajnei'tai, Even though the number of children does
not liberate parents from all public burdens. And the Commentary
upon Demosthenes states that leitourgiva is a kind of tribute,
the expense of the games, the expense of equipping vessels,
of attending to the gymnasia and similar public offices. 82]
And Paul in 2 Cor. 9, 12 employs it for a collection. The taking
of the collection not only supplies those things which are wanting
to the saints, but also causes them to give more thanks abundantly
to God, etc. And in Phil. 2, 25 he calls Epaphroditus a leitourgov",
one who ministered to my wants, 83] where assuredly
a sacrificer cannot be understood. But there is no need of more
testimonies, since examples are everywhere obvious to those
reading the Greek writers, in whom leitourgiva is employed for
public civil burdens or ministries. And on account of the diphthong,
grammarians do not derive it from lithv, which signifies prayers,
but from public goods, which they call lei'ta, so that leitourgevw
means, I attend to, I administer public goods.
84] Ridiculous
is their inference that, since mention is made in the Holy Scriptures
of an altar, therefore the Mass must be a sacrifice; for the
figure of an altar is referred to by Paul only by way of comparison.
85] And they fabricate that the Mass has been so called
from jbzm
, an altar. What
need is there of an etymology so far fetched, unless it be to
show their knowledge of the Hebrew language? What need is there
to seek the etymology from a distance, when the term Mass is
found in Deut. 16, 10, where it signifies the collections or
gifts of the people, not the offering of the priest? For individuals
coming to the celebration 86] of the Passover were obliged
to bring some gift as a contribution. In the beginning the Christians
also retained this custom. Coming together, they brought bread,
wine, and other things, as the Canons of the Apostles testify.
Thence a part was taken to be consecrated; the rest was distributed
to the poor. With this custom they also retained Mass
as the name of the contributions. And on account of such contributions
it appears also that the Mass was elsewhere called ajgavph,
unless one would prefer that it was so called on account of
the common feast. 87] But let us omit these trifles.
For it is ridiculous that the adversaries should produce such
trifling conjectures concerning a matter of such great importance.
For although the Mass is called an offering, in what does the
term favor the dreams concerning the opus operatum, and
the application which, they imagine, merits for others the remission
of sins? And it can be called an offering for the reason that
prayers, thanksgivings, and the entire worship are there offered,
as it is also called a eucharist. But neither ceremonies nor
prayers profit ex opere operato, without faith. Although
we are disputing here not concerning prayers, but particularly
concerning the Lord's Supper.
[Here you can see
what rude asses our adversaries are. They say that the term
missa is derived from the term misbeach, which
signifies an altar; hence we are to conclude that the Mass is
a sacrifice; for sacrifices are offered on an altar. Again,
the word liturgia, by which the Greeks call the Mass,
is also to denote a sacrifice. This claim we shall briefly answer.
All the world sees that from such reasons this heathenish and
antichristian error does not follow necessarily, that the Mass
benefits ex opere operato sine bono motu utentis. Therefore
they are asses, because in such a highly important matter they
bring forward such silly things. Nor do the asses know any grammar.
For missa and liturgia do not mean sacrifice.
Missa, in Hebrew, denotes a joint contribution. For this
may have been a custom among Christians, that they brought meat
and drink for the benefit of the poor to their assemblies. This
custom was derived from the Jews, who had to bring such contributions
on their festivals; these they called missa. Likewise,
liturgia, in Greek, really denotes an office in which
a person ministers to the congregation. This is well applied
to our teaching, because with us the priest, as a common servant
of those who wish to commune, ministers to them the holy Sacrament.
Some think that missa
is not derived from the Hebrew, but signifies as much as remissio,
the forgiveness of sin. For, the communion being ended, the
announcement used to be made: Ite, missa est: Depart,
you have forgiveness of sins. They cite, as proof that
this is so, the fact that the Greeks used to say: Lais Aphesis
(laoi'" a[fesi"), which also means that they had been pardoned.
If this were so, it would be an excellent meaning; for in connection
with this ceremony forgiveness of sins must always be preached
and proclaimed. But the case before us is little aided, no matter
what the meaning of the word missa is.]
88] The Greek
canon says also many things concerning the offering, but it
shows plainly that it is not speaking properly of the body and
blood of the Lord, but of the whole service, of prayers and
thanksgivings. For it says thus: Kai; poivhson hJma;" ajxivou"
genevsqai tou' prosfevrein soi dehvsei" kai; iJkesiva" kai;
qusiva" ajnaimavktou" uJpe;r panto;" laou'. When this is rightly
understood, it gives no offense. For it prays that we be
made worthy to offer prayers and supplications and bloodless
sacrifices for the people. For he calls even prayers bloodless
sacrifices. Just as also a little afterward: [Eti prosfevromevn
soi th;n logikh;n tauvthn kai; ajnaivmakton latreivan, We
offer, he says, this reasonable and bloodless service.
For they explain this inaptly who would rather interpret this
of a reasonable sacrifice, and transfer it to the very body
of Christ, although the canon speaks of the entire worship,
and in opposition to the opus operatum Paul has spoken
of logikh; latreiva [reasonable service], namely, of the worship
of the mind, of fear, of faith, of prayer, of thanksgiving,
etc.
Of the Mass for
the Dead.
89] Our adversaries
have no testimonies and no command from Scripture for defending
the application of the ceremony for liberating the souls of
the dead, although from this they derive infinite revenue. Nor,
indeed, is it a light sin to establish such services in the
Church without the command of God and without the example of
Scripture, and to apply to the dead the Lord's Supper, which
was instituted for commemoration and preaching among the living
[for the purpose of strengthening the faith of those who use
the ceremony]. This is to violate the Second Commandment, by
abusing God's name.
For, in the first
place, it is a dishonor to the Gospel to hold that a ceremony
ex opere operato, without faith, is a sacrifice reconciling
God, and making satisfaction for sins. It is horrible saying
to ascribe as much to the work of a priest as to the death of
Christ. Again, sin and death cannot be overcome unless by faith
in Christ, as Paul teaches, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by
faith, we have peace with God, and therefore the
punishment of purgatory cannot be overcome by the application
of the work of another.
90] Now we
shall omit the sort of testimonies concerning purgatory that
the adversaries have: what kinds of punishments they think there
are in purgatory; what grounds the doctrine of satisfactions
has, which we have shown above to be most vain. We shall only
present this in opposition: It is certain that the Lord's Supper
was instituted on account of the remission of guilt. For it
offers the remission of sins, where it is necessary that guilt
be truly understood. (For what consolation would we have if
forgiveness of sin were here offered us, and yet there would
be no remission of guilt?] And nevertheless it does not make
satisfaction for guilt; otherwise the Mass would be equal to
the death of Christ. Neither can the remission of guilt be received
in any other way than by faith. Therefore the Mass is not a
satisfaction, but a promise and Sacrament that require faith.
91] And, indeed,
it is necessary that all godly persons be seized with the most
bitter grief [shed tears of blood, from anguish and sorrow]
if they consider that the Mass has been in great part transferred
to the dead and to satisfactions for punishments. This is to
banish the daily sacrifice from the Church; this is the kingdom
of Antiochus, who transferred the most salutary promises concerning
the remission of guilt and concerning faith to the most vain
opinions concerning satisfactions; this is to defile the Gospel,
to corrupt the use of the Sacraments. These are the persons
[the real blasphemers] whom Paul has said, 1 Cor. 11, 27, to
be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, who have
suppressed the doctrine concerning faith and the remission of
sins, and, under the pretext of satisfactions, have devoted
the body and blood of the Lord to sacrilegious gain. And they
will at some time pay the penalty for this sacrilege. [God will
one day vindicate the Second Commandment, and pour out a great,
horrible wrath upon them.] Therefore we and all godly consciences
should be on our guard against approving the abuses of the adversaries.
92] But let
us return to the case. Since the Mass is not a satisfaction,
either for punishment or for guilt, ex opere operato,
without faith, it follows that the application on behalf of
the dead is useless. Nor is there need here of a longer discussion.
For it is evident that these applications on behalf of the dead
have no testimonies from the Scriptures. Neither is it safe,
without the authority of Scripture, to institute forms of worship
in the Church. And if it will at any time be necessary, we shall
speak at greater length concerning this entire subject. For
why should we now contend with adversaries who understand neither
what a sacrifice, nor what a sacrament, nor what remission of
sins, nor what faith is?
93] Neither
does the Greek canon apply the offering as a satisfaction for
the dead, because it applies it equally for all the blessed
patriarchs, prophets, apostles. It appears therefore that the
Greeks make an offering as thanksgiving, and do not apply it
as satisfaction for punishments. [For, of course, it is not
their intention to deliver the prophets and apostles from purgatory,
but only to offer up thanks along and together with them for
the exalted eternal blessings that have been given to them and
us.] Although they speak, moreover, not of the offering alone
of the body and blood of the Lord, but of the other parts of
the Mass, namely, prayers and thanksgiving. For after the consecration
they pray that it may profit those who partake of it; they do
not speak of others. Then they add: [Eti prosfevromevn soi th;n
logikh;n tauvthn latreivan uJper tw'n ejn pivstei ajnapausamevnwn
propatovrwn, patevrwn, patriarcw'n, profhtw'n, ajpostovlwn,
etc. ["Yet we offer to you this reasonable service for those
having departed in faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs,
prophets, apostles," etc.] Reasonable service, however,
does not signify the offering itself, but prayers and all things
which are there transacted. 94] Now, as regards the adversaries'
citing the Fathers concerning the offering for the dead, we
know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we
do not prohibit; but we disapprove of the application ex
opere operato of the Lord's Supper on behalf of the dead.
Neither do the ancients favor the adversaries concerning the
opus operatum. And even though they have the testimonies
especially of Gregory or the moderns, 95] we oppose to
them the most clear and certain Scriptures. And there is a great
diversity among the Fathers. They were men, and could err and
be deceived. Although if they would now become alive again,
and would see their sayings assigned as pretexts for the notorious
falsehoods which the adversaries teach concerning the opus
operatum, they would interpret themselves far differently.
96] The adversaries
also falsely cite against us the condemnation of Aerius, who,
they say, was condemned for the reason that he denied that in
the Mass an offering is made for the living and the dead. They
frequently use this dexterous turn, cite the ancient heresies,
and falsely compare our cause with these in order by this comparison
to crush us. [The asses are not ashamed of any lies. Nor do
they know who Aerius was and what he taught.] Epiphanius testifies
that Aerius held that prayers for the dead are useless. With
this he finds fault. Neither do we favor Aerius, but we on our
part are contending with you who are defending a heresy manifestly
conflicting with the prophets, apostles, and holy Fathers, namely,
that the Mass justifies ex opere operato, that it merits
the remission of guilt and punishment even for the unjust, to
whom it is applied, if they do not present an obstacle. Of these
pernicious errors, which detract from the glory of Christ's
passion, and entirely overthrow the doctrine concerning the
righteousness of faith, we disapprove. 97] There was
a similar persuasion of the godless in the Law, namely, that
they merited the remission of sins, not freely by faith, but
through sacrifices ex opere operato. Therefore they increased
these services and sacrifices, instituted the worship of Baal
in Israel, and even sacrificed in the groves in Judah. Therefore
the prophets condemn this opinion, and wage war not only with
the worshipers of Baal, but also with other priests who, with
this godless opinion, made sacrifices ordained by God. But this
opinion inheres in the world, and always will inhere, namely,
that services and sacrifices are propitiations. Carnal men cannot
endure that alone to the sacrifice of Christ the honor is ascribed
that it is a propitiation, because they do not understand the
righteousness of faith, but ascribe equal honor to the rest
of the services and sacrifices. 98] Just as, therefore,
in Judah among the godless priests a false opinion concerning
sacrifices inhered; just as in Israel, Baalitic services continued,
and, nevertheless, a Church of God was there which disapproved
of godless services, so Baalitic worship inheres in the domain
of the Pope, namely, the abuse of the Mass, which they apply,
that by it they may merit for the unrighteous the remission
of guilt and punishment. [And yet, as God still kept His Church,
i.e., some saints, in Israel and Judah, so God still
preserved His Church, i.e., some saints, under the Papacy,
so that the Christian Church has not entirely perished.] And
it seems that this Baalitic worship will endure as long as the
reign of the Pope, until Christ will come to judge, and by the
glory of His advent destroy the reign of Antichrist. Meanwhile
all who truly believe the Gospel [that they may truly honor
God and have a constant comfort against sins; for God has graciously
caused His Gospel to shine, that we might be warned and saved]
ought to condemn these wicked services, devised, contrary to
God's command, in order to obscure the glory of Christ and the
righteousness of faith.
99] We have
briefly said these things of the Mass in order that all good
men in all parts of the world may be able to understand that
with the greatest zeal we maintain the dignity of the Mass and
show its true use, and that we have the most just reasons for
dissenting from the adversaries. And we would have all good
men admonished not to aid the adversaries in the profanation
of the Mass, lest they burden themselves with other men's sin.
It is a great cause and a great subject, not inferior to the
transaction of the prophet Elijah, who condemned the worship
of Baal. We have presented a case of such importance with the
greatest moderation, and now reply without casting any reproach.
But if the adversaries will compel us to collect all kinds of
abuses of the Mass, the case will not be treated with such forbearance.
