Henry James - "The Point of View"

Frank Channing Haddock - "Mastery of Self"

Edith van Dyne (one of L. Frank Baum's pen names) - "Mary Louise"

Gustave Droz - "Monsieur, Madame and Bebe, v1"

New Philadelphia Book Publisher Highlights Local Talent
Book and Publishing News from Publishers Newswire(tm)

Looking for Child to be on Cover of a New Book, 'The Model Child'
PHILADELPHIA, Pa. -- The Philadelphia literary world will celebrate the launch of two new players today, April 10th: Kay Square Press, a new publishing company focused on Philadelphia-area artists, their stories, and their art; and Kay Square's first release, 'With the Rich and Mighty: Emlen Etting of Philadelphia' (ISBN: 978-0-9815129-0-7), a critical biography by Kenneth C. Kaleta.

FlatSigned Press Alleges Don Imus Remarks Damage Legacy of President Gerald R. Ford
NEW YORK, N.Y. -- Nathan Yungerberg, an accomplished model scout and professional child photographer is launching a nation-wide casting call to find the cover model for his highly anticipated book release, 'The Model Child: A Parents Guide to the Child Modeling Industry' (ISBN: 978-0-9817018-0-6).

Books: The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

P >> Philip Melanchthon >> The Apology of the Augsburg Confession




We have set forth the sum of our doctrine concerning repentance,
which we certainly know is godly and salutary to good minds [and
highly necessary]. And if good men will compare our [yea, Christ's
and His apostles'] doctrine with the very confused discussions of our
adversaries, they will perceive that the adversaries have omitted the
doctrine [without which no one can teach or learn anything that is
substantial and Christian] concerning faith justifying and consoling
godly hearts. They will also see that the adversaries invent many
things concerning the merits of attrition, concerning the endless
enumeration of offenses, concerning satisfactions, they say things
[that touch neither earth nor heaven] agreeing neither with human nor
divine law, and which not even the adversaries themselves can
satisfactorily explain.




Part 18


Article XIII (VII): _Of the Number and Use of the Sacraments._

In the Thirteenth Article the adversaries approve our statement that
the Sacraments are not only marks of profession among men, as some
imagine, but that they are rather signs and testimonies of God's will
toward us, through which God moves hearts to believe [are not mere
signs whereby men may recognize each other, as the watchword in war,
livery, etc., but are efficacious signs and sure testimonies, etc.].
But here they bid us also count seven sacraments. We hold that it
should be maintained that the matters and ceremonies instituted in
the Scriptures, whatever the number, be not neglected. Neither do we
believe it to be of any consequence, though, for the purpose of
teaching, different people reckon differently, provided they still
preserve aright the matters handed down in Scripture. Neither have
the ancients reckoned in the same manner. [But concerning this
number of seven sacraments, the fact is that the Fathers have not
been uniform in their enumeration, thus also these seven ceremonies
are not equally necessary.]

If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God and to
which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what
are properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in
this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to
human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without
God's command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps
instruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to
something [as a painted cross]. Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper,
and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly
Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of
grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are
baptized, when we eat the Lord's body, when we are absolved, our
hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us for Christ's
sake. And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves
hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10, 17:
Faith cometh by hearing. But just as the Word enters the ear in
order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in
order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is
the same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a
visible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as it
were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word.
Therefore the effect of both is the same.

Confirmation and Extreme Unction are rites received from the Fathers
which not even the Church requires as necessary to salvation, they do
not have God's command. Therefore it is not useless to distinguish
these rites from the former, which have God's express command and a
clear promise of grace.

The adversaries understand priesthood not of the ministry of the Word,
and administering the Sacraments to others, but they understand it
as referring to sacrifice, as though in the New Testament there ought
to be a priesthood like the Levitical, to sacrifice for the people,
and merit the remission of sins for others. We teach that the
sacrifice of Christ dying on the cross has been sufficient for the
sins of the whole world, and that there is no need, besides, of other
sacrifices, as though this were not sufficient for our sins. Men,
accordingly, are justified not because of any other sacrifices, but
because of this one sacrifice of Christ, if they believe that they
have been redeemed by this sacrifice. They are accordingly called
priests, not in order to make any sacrifices for the people as in the
Law so that by these they may merit remission of sins for the people;
but they are called to teach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments
to the people. Nor do we have another priesthood like the Levitical,
as the Epistle to the Hebrews sufficiently teaches. But if
ordination be understood as applying to the ministry of the Word, we
are not unwilling to call ordination a sacrament. For the ministry
of the Word has God's command and glorious promises, Rom. 1, 16: The
Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.
Likewise, Is. 55, 11: So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of
My mouth; it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish
that which I please. If ordination be understood in this way,
neither will we refuse to call the imposition of hands a sacrament.
For the Church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be
most pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry
and is present in the ministry [that God will preach and work through
men and those who have been chosen by men]. And it is of advantage,
so far as can be done, to adorn the ministry of the Word with every
kind of praise against fanatical men, who dream that the Holy Ghost
is given not through the Word, but because of certain preparations of
their own, if they sit unoccupied and silent in obscure places,
waiting for illumination, as the Enthusiasts formerly taught, and the
Anabaptists now teach.

Matrimony was not first instituted in the New Testament, but in the
beginning, immediately on the creation of the human race. It has,
moreover, God's command; it has also promises, not indeed properly
pertaining to the New Testament, but pertaining rather to the bodily
life. Wherefore, if any one should wish to call it a sacrament, he
ought still to distinguish it from those preceding ones [the two
former ones], which are properly signs of the New Testament, and
testimonies of grace and the remission of sins. But if marriage will
have the name of sacrament for the reason that it has God's command
other states or offices also, which have God's command, may be called
sacraments, as, for example, the magistracy.

Lastly, if among the Sacraments all things ought to be numbered which
have God's command, and to which promises have been added, why do we
not add prayer, which most truly can be called a sacrament? For it
has both God's command and very many promises and if placed among the
Sacraments, as though in a more eminent place, it would invite men to
pray. Alms could also be reckoned here, and likewise afflictions,
which are even themselves signs, to which God has added promises.
But let us omit these things. For no prudent man will strive greatly
concerning the number or the term, if only those objects still be
retained which have God's command and promises.

It is still more needful to understand how the Sacraments are to be
used. Here we condemn the whole crowd of scholastic doctors, who
teach that the Sacraments confer grace _ex opere operato_, without a
good disposition on the part of the one using them, provided he do
not place a hindrance in the way. This is absolutely a Jewish
opinion, to hold that we are justified by a ceremony, without a good
disposition of the heart, i.e., without faith. And yet this impious
and pernicious opinion is taught with great authority throughout the
entire realm of the Pope. Paul contradicts this and denies, Rom. 4,
9, that Abraham was justified by circumcision, but asserts that
circumcision was a sign presented for exercising faith. Thus we
teach that in the use of the Sacraments faith ought to be added,
which should believe these promises, and receive the promised things,
there offered in the Sacrament. And the reason is plain and
thoroughly grounded. [This is a certain and true use of the holy
Sacrament, on which Christian hearts and consciences may risk to rely.
] The promise is useless unless it is received by faith. But the
Sacraments are the signs [and seals] of the promises. Therefore, in
the use of the Sacraments faith ought to be added so that, if any one
use the Lord's Supper, he use it thus. Because this is a Sacrament
of the New Testament, as Christ clearly says, he ought for this very
reason to be confident that what is promised in the New Testament
namely, the free remission of sins, is offered him. And let him
receive this by faith, let him comfort his alarmed conscience, and
know that these testimonies are not fallacious, but as sure as though
[and still surer than if] God by a new miracle would declare from
heaven that it was His will to grant forgiveness. But of what
advantage would these miracles and promises be to an unbeliever? And
here we speak of special faith which believes the present promise,
not only that which in general believes that God exists, but which
believes that the remission of sins is offered. This use of the
Sacrament consoles godly and alarmed minds.

Moreover, no one can express in words what abuses in the Church this
fanatical opinion concerning the opus operate, without a good
disposition on the part of the one using the Sacraments, has produced.
Hence the infinite profanation of the Masses, but of this we shall
speak below. Neither can a single letter be produced from the old
writers which in this matter favors the scholastics. Yea Augustine
says the contrary, that the faith of the Sacrament, and not the
Sacrament justifies. And the declaration of Paul is well known, Rom.
10, 10: With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.




Part 19


Article XIV: _Of Ecclesiastical Order._

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the
administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one
unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that
we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have
frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to
maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old
church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they
have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our
doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that
church-discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid
down in the ancient canons with a good and useful intention. But the
bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of
doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty,
they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our
priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the
bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly
desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it
how they will give an account to God for dispersing the Church. In
this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know
that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to
approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. And we
know that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright,
and administer the Sacraments aright and not with those who not only
by their edicts endeavor to efface God's Word, but also put to death
those who teach what is right and true towards whom, even though they
do something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder.
Furthermore we wish here again to testify that we will gladly
maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the
bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire
will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity
from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is
being undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting
against the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain
justice.




Part 20


Article XV (VIII): _Of Human Traditions in the Church._

In the Fifteenth Article they receive the first part, in which we say
that such ecclesiastical rites are to be observed as can be observed
without sin, and are of profit in the Church for tranquility and good
order. They altogether condemn the second part, in which we say that
human traditions instituted to appease God, to merit grace, and make
satisfactions for sins are contrary to the Gospel. Although in the
Confession itself, when treating of the distinction of meats, we have
spoken at sufficient length concerning traditions, yet certain things
should be briefly recounted here.

Although we supposed that the adversaries would defend human
traditions on other grounds, yet we did not think that this would
come to pass, namely, that they would condemn this article: that we
do not merit the remission of sins or grace by the observance of
human traditions. Since, therefore, this article has been condemned,
we have an easy and plain case. The adversaries are now openly
Judaizing, are openly suppressing the Gospel by the doctrines of
demons. For Scripture calls traditions doctrines of demons when it
is taught that religious rites are serviceable to merit the remission
of sins and grace. For they are then obscuring the Gospel, the
benefit of Christ, and the righteousness of faith. [For they are
just as directly contrary to Christ and to the Gospel as are fire and
water to one another.] The Gospel teaches that by faith we receive
freely, for Christ's sake, the remission of sins and are reconciled.
The adversaries, on the other hand, appoint another mediator, namely
these traditions. On account of these they wish to acquire remission
of sins; on account of these they wish to appease God's wrath. But
Christ clearly says, Matt. 15, 9: In vain do they worship Me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

We have above discussed at length that men are justified by faith
when they believe that they have a reconciled God, not because of our
works, but gratuitously, for Christ's sake. It is certain that this
is the doctrine of the Gospel, because Paul clearly teaches Eph. 2, 8.
9: By grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves:
it is the gift of God; not of works. Now these men say that men
merit the remission of sins by these human observances. What else is
this than to appoint another justifier, a mediator other than Christ?
Paul says to the Galatians, 5, 4: Christ has become of no effect
unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law, i.e., if you
hold that by the observance of the Law you merit to be accounted
righteous before God, Christ will profit you nothing; for what need
of Christ have those who hold that they are righteous by their own
observance of the Law? God has set forth Christ with the promise
that on account of this Mediator, and not on account of our
righteousness, He wishes to be propitious to us. But these men hold
that God is reconciled and propitious because of the traditions, and
not because of Christ. Therefore they take away from Christ the
honor of Mediator. Neither, so far as this matter is concerned is
there any difference between our traditions and the ceremonies of
Moses. Paul condemns the ceremonies of Moses, just as he condemns
traditions, for the reason that they were regarded as works which
merit righteousness before God. Thus the office of Christ and the
righteousness of faith were obscured. Therefore, the Law being
removed, and traditions being removed, he contends that the remission
of sins has been promised not because of our works, but freely,
because of Christ, if only by faith we receive it. For the promise
is not received except by faith. Since, therefore, by faith we
receive the remission of sins since by faith we have a propitious God
for Christ's sake, it is an error and impiety to declare that because
of these observances we merit the remission of sins. If any one
should say here that we do not merit the remission of sins, but that
those who have already been justified by these traditions merit grace,
Paul again replies, Gal. 2, 17, that Christ would be the minister of
sin if after justification we must hold that henceforth we are not
accounted righteous for Christ's sake, but we ought first, by other
observances, to merit that we be accounted righteous. Likewise Gal.
3, 15: Though it be but a man's covenant, no man addeth thereto.
Therefore, neither to God's covenant, who promises that for Christ's
sake He will be propitious to us ought we to add that we must first
through these observances attain such merit as to be regarded as
accepted and righteous.

However, what need is there of a long discussion? No tradition was
instituted by the holy Fathers with the design that it should merit
the remission of sins, or righteousness, but they have been
instituted for the sake of good order in the Church and for the sake
of tranquillity. And when any one wishes to institute certain works
to merit the remission of sins, or righteousness, how will he know
that these works please God since he has not the testimony of God's
Word? How, without God's command and Word, will he render men
certain of God's will? Does He not everywhere in the prophets
prohibit men from instituting, without His commandment, peculiar
rites of worship? In Ezek. 20, 18. 19 it is written: Walk ye not in
the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor
defile yourselves with their idols: I Am the Lord, your God. Walk in
My statutes, and keep My judgements, and do them. If men are allowed
to institute religious rites and through these rites merit grace, the
religious rites of all the heathen will have to be approved, and the
rites instituted by Jeroboam, 1 Kings 12, 26 f., and by others,
outside of the Law, will have to be approved. For what difference
does it make? If we have been allowed to institute religious rites
that are profitable for meriting grace, or righteousness, why was the
same not allowed the heathen and the Israelites? But the religious
rites of the heathen and the Israelites were rejected for the very
reason that they held that by these they merited remission of sins
and righteousness, and yet did not know [the highest service of God]
the righteousness of faith. Lastly, whence are we rendered certain
that rites instituted by men without God's command justify, inasmuch
as nothing can be affirmed of God's will without God's Word? What if
God does not approve these services? How, therefore, do the
adversaries affirm that they justify? Without God's Word and
testimony this cannot be affirmed. And Paul says, Rom. 14, 23
Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. But as these services have no
testimony of God's Word, conscience must doubt as to whether they
please God.

And what need is there of words on a subject so manifest? If the
adversaries defend these human services as meriting justification,
grace, and the remission of sins, they simply establish the kingdom
of Antichrist. For the kingdom of Antichrist is a new service of God,
devised by human authority rejecting Christ, just as the kingdom of
Mahomet has services and works through which it wishes to be
justified before God; nor does it hold that men are gratuitously
justified before God by faith for Christ's sake. Thus the Papacy
also will be a part of the kingdom of Antichrist if it thus defends
human services as justifying. For the honor is taken away from
Christ when they teach that we are not justified gratuitously by
faith, for Christ's sake, but by such services, especially when they
teach that such services are not only useful for justification, but
are also necessary, as they hold above in Art. VII, where they
condemn us for saying that unto true unity of the Church it is not
necessary that rites instituted by men should everywhere be alike.
Daniel, 11, 38, indicates that new human services will be the very
form and constitution of the kingdom of Antichrist. For he says thus:
But in his estate shall he honor the god of forges; and a god whom
his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold and silver and precious
stones. Here he describes new services, because he says that such a
god shall be worshiped as the fathers were ignorant of. For although
the holy Fathers themselves had both rites and traditions, yet they
did not hold that these matters are useful or necessary for
justification they did not obscure the glory and office Christ, but
taught that we are justified by faith for Christ's sake, and not for
the sake of these human services. But they observed human rites for
the sake of bodily advantage, that the people might know at what time
they should assemble; that, for the sake of example, all things in
the churches might be done in order and becomingly; lastly, that the
common people might receive a sort of training. For the distinctions
of times and the variety of rites are of service in admonishing the
common people. The Fathers had these reasons for maintaining the
rites, and for these reasons we also judge it to be right that
traditions [good customs] be maintained. And we are greatly
surprised that the adversaries [contrary to the entire Scriptures of
the Apostles, contrary to the Old and New Testaments] contend for
another design of traditions, namely, that they may merit the
remission of sins, grace, or justification. What else is this than
to honor God with gold and silver and precious stones [as Daniel
says], i.e., to hold that God becomes reconciled by a variety in
clothing, ornaments, and by similar rites [many kinds of church
decorations, banners, tapers], as are infinite in human traditions?

Paul writes to the Colossians, 2, 23, that traditions have a show of
wisdom. And they indeed have. For this good order is very becoming
in the Church, and for this reason is necessary. But human reason,
because it does not understand the righteousness of faith, naturally
imagines that such works justify men because they reconcile God, etc.
Thus the common people among the Israelites thought, and by this
opinion increased such ceremonies, just as among us they have grown
in the monasteries [as in our time one altar after another and one
church after another is founded]. Thus human reason judges also of
bodily exercises, of fasts, although the end of these is to restrain
the flesh, reason falsely adds that they are services which justify.
As Thomas writes: Fasting avails for the extinguishing and the
prevention of guilt. These are the words of Thomas. Thus the
semblance of wisdom and righteousness in such works deceives men.
And the examples of the saints are added [when they say: St. Francis
wore a cap, etc.]; and when men desire to imitate these, they imitate,
for the most part, the outward exercises; their faith they do not
imitate.

After this semblance of wisdom and righteousness has deceived men,
then infinite evils follow; the Gospel concerning the righteousness
of faith in Christ is obscured, and vain confidence in such works
succeeds. Then the commandments of God are obscured; these works
arrogate to themselves the title of a perfect and spiritual life, and
are far preferred to the works of God's commandments [the true, holy,
good works], as, the works of one's own calling, the administration
of the state, the management of a family, married life, the bringing
up of children. Compared with those ceremonies, the latter are
judged to be profane, so that they are exercised by many with some
doubt of conscience. For it is known that many have abandoned the
administration of the state and married life, in order to embrace
these observances as better and holier [have gone into cloisters in
order to become holy and spiritual].

Nor is this enough. When the persuasion has taken possession of
minds that such observances are necessary to justification,
consciences are in miserable anxiety because they cannot exactly
fulfil all observances. For how many are there who could enumerate
all these observances? There are immense books, yea whole libraries,
containing not a syllable concerning Christ, concerning faith in
Christ, concerning the good works of one's own calling, but which
only collect the traditions and interpretations by which they are
sometimes rendered quite rigorous and sometimes relaxed. [They write
of such precepts as of fasting for forty days, the four canonical
hours for prayer, etc.] How that most excellent man, Gerson, is
tortured while he searches for the grades and extent of the precepts!
Nevertheless, he is not able to fix _epieicheian_ [mitigation] in a
definite grade [and yet cannot find any sure grade where he could
confidently promise the heart assurance and peace]. Meanwhile, he
deeply deplores the dangers to godly consciences which this rigid
interpretation of the traditions produces.