Constant - "Private Life of Napoleon Bonaparte, V6"

Jerome K. Jerome - "Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow"

James Joyce - "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man"

Wm. H. Maher - "A Man of Samples"

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




The bishops, theologians, and monks applaud these monstrous and
wicked stories [this abomination set up against Christ, this
blasphemy, these scandalous, shameless lies, these lying preachers;
and they have permitted them so long, to the great injury of
consciences, that it is terrible to think of it] because they aid
them to their daily bread. They do not tolerate us, who, in order
that the honor and office of Christ may be more conspicuous, do not
require the invocation of saints, and censure the abuses in the
worship of saints. And although [even their own theologians], all
good men everywhere [a long time before Dr. Luther began to write] in
the correction of these abuses, greatly longed for either the
authority of the bishops or the diligence of the preachers,
nevertheless our adversaries in the _Confutation_ altogether pass
over vices that are even manifest, as though they wish, by the
reception of the Confutation, to compel us to approve even the most
notorious abuses.

Thus the _Confutation_ has been deceitfully written, not only on this
topic, but almost everywhere. [They pretend that they are as pure as
gold, that they have never muddled the water.] There is no passage in
which they make a distinction between the manifest abuses and their
dogmas. And nevertheless, if there are any of sounder mind among
them they confess that many false opinions inhere in the doctrine of
the scholastics and canonists, and, besides, that in such ignorance
and negligence of the pastors many abuses crept into the Church. For
Luther was not [the only one nor] the first to complain of
[innumerable] public abuses. Many learned and excellent men long
before these times deplored the abuses of the Mass, confidence in
monastic observances, services to the saints intended to yield a
revenue, the confusion of the doctrine concerning repentance
[concerning Christ], which ought to be as clear and plain in the
Church as possible [without which there cannot be nor remain a
Christian Church]. We ourselves have heard that excellent
theologians desire moderation in the scholastic doctrine which
contains much more for philosophical quarrels than for piety. And
nevertheless, among these the older ones are generally nearer
Scripture than are the more recent. Thus their theology degenerated
more and more. Neither had many good men, who from the very first
began to be friendly to Luther, any other reason than that they saw
that he was freeing the minds of men from these labyrinths of most
confused and infinite discussions which exist among the scholastic
theologians and canonists, and was teaching things profitable for
godliness.

The adversaries, therefore, have not acted candidly in passing over
the abuses when they wished us to assent to the Confutation. And if
they wished to care for the interests of the Church [and of Buffeted
consciences, and not rather to maintain their pomp and avarice]
especially on that topic, at this occasion they ought to exhort our
most excellent Emperor to take measures for the correction of abuses
[which furnish grounds for derision among the Turks, the Jews, and
all unbelievers], as we observe plainly enough that he is most
desirous of healing and well establishing the Church. But the
adversaries do not act as to aid the most honorable and most holy
will of the Emperor, but so as in every way to crush [the truth and]
us. Many signs show that they have little anxiety concerning the
state of the Church. [They lose little sleep from concern that
Christian doctrine and the pure Gospel be preached.] They take no
pains that there should be among the people a summary of the dogmas
of the Church. [The office of the ministry they permit to be quite
desolate.] They defend manifest abuses [they continue every day to
shed innocent blood] by new and unusual cruelty. They allow no
suitable teachers in the churches. Good men can easily judge whither
these things tend. But in this way they have no regard to the
interest either of their own authority or of the Church. For after
the good teachers have been killed and sound doctrine suppressed,
fanatical spirits will rise up, whom the adversaries will not be able
to restrain, who both will disturb the Church with godless dogmas,
and will overthrow the entire ecclesiastical government, which we are
very greatly desirous of maintaining.

Therefore, most excellent Emperor Charles for the sake of the glory
of Christ, which we have no doubt that you desire to praise and
magnify, we beseech you not to assent to the violent counsels of our
adversaries, but to seek other honorable ways of so establishing
harmony that godly consciences are not burdened, that no cruelty is
exercised against innocent men, as we have hitherto seen, and that
sound doctrine is not suppressed in the Church. To God most of all
you owe the duty [as far as this is possible to man] to maintain
sound doctrine and hand it down to posterity, and to defend those who
teach what is right. For God demands this when He honors kings with
His own name and calls them gods, saying, Ps. 82, 6: I have said, Ye
are gods, namely, that they should attend to the preservation and
propagation of divine things, i.e., the Gospel of Christ, on the
earth, and, as the vicars of God, should defend the life and safety
of the innocent [true Christian teachers and preachers].




Part 27


Article XXII (X): _Of Both Kinds in the Lord's Supper._

It cannot be doubted that it is godly and in accordance with the
institution of Christ and the words of Paul to use both parts in the
Lord's Supper. For Christ instituted both parts, and instituted them
not for a part of the Church, but for the entire Church. For not
only the presbyters, but the entire Church uses the Sacrament by the
authority of Christ, and not by human authority, and this, we suppose,
the adversaries acknowledge. Now, if Christ has instituted it for
the entire Church, why is one kind denied to a part of the Church?
Why is the use of the other kind prohibited? Why is the ordinance of
Christ changed, especially when He Himself calls it His testament?
But if it is not allowable to annul man's testament, much less will
it be allowable to annul the testament of Christ. And Paul says, 1
Cor. 11, 23 ff., that he had received of the Lord that which he
delivered. But he had delivered the use of both kinds, as the text,
1 Cor. 11, clearly shows. This do [in remembrance of Me], he says
first concerning His body; afterwards he repeats the same words
concerning the cup [the blood of Christ]. And then: Let a man
examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that
cup. [Here he names both.] These are the words of Him who has
instituted the Sacrament. And, indeed, he says before that those who
will use the Lord's Supper should use both. It is evident, therefore,
that the Sacrament was instituted for the entire Church. And the
custom still remains in the Greek churches, and also once obtained in
the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Jerome testify. For thus Jerome
says on Zephaniah: The priests who administer the Eucharist, and
distribute the Lord's blood to the people, etc. The Council of Toledo
gives the same testimony. Nor would it be difficult to accumulate a
great multitude of testimonies. Here we exaggerate nothing; we but
leave the prudent reader to determine what should be held concerning
the divine ordinance [whether it is proper to prohibit and change an
ordinance and institution of Christ].

The adversaries in the _Confutation_ do not endeavor to [comfort the
consciences or] excuse the Church, to which one part of the Sacrament
has been denied. This would have been becoming to good and religious
men. For a strong reason for excusing the Church, and instructing
consciences to whom only a part of the Sacrament could be granted,
should have been sought. Now these very men maintain that it is
right to prohibit the other part, and forbid that the use of both
parts be allowed. First, they imagine that, in the beginning of the
Church, it was the custom at some places that only one part was
administered. Nevertheless they are not able to produce any ancient
example of this matter. But they cite the passages in which mention
is made of bread, as in Luke 24, 35 where it is written that the
disciples recognized Christ in the breaking of bread. They quote
also other passages, Acts 2, 42. 46; 20, 7, concerning the breaking
of bread. But although we do not greatly oppose if some receive
these passages as referring to the Sacrament, yet it does not follow
that one part only was given, because, according to the ordinary
usage of language, by the naming of one part the other is also
signified. They refer also to Lay Communion which was not the use of
only one kind, but of both; and whenever priests are commanded to use
Lay Communion [for a punishment are not to consecrate themselves, but
to receive Communion, however, of both kinds from another], it is
meant that they have been removed from the ministry of consecration.
Neither are the adversaries ignorant of this, but they abuse the
ignorance of the unlearned, who, when they hear of Lay Communion,
immediately dream of the custom of our time, by which only a part of
the Sacrament is given to the laymen.

And consider their impudence. Gabriel recounts among other reasons
why both parts are not given that a distinction should be made
between laymen and presbyters. And it is credible that the chief
reason why the prohibition of the one part is defended is this,
namely, that the dignity of the order may be the more highly exalted
by a religious rite. To say nothing more severe, this is a human
design; and whither this tends can easily be judged. In the
_Confutation_ they also quote concerning the sons of Eli that after
the loss of the high-priesthood, they were to seek the one part
pertaining to the priests, 1 Sam. 2, 36 [the text reads: Every one
that is left in thine house shall come and crouch him for a piece of
silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee,
into one of the priest's offices (German: _Lieber, lass mich zu einem
Priesterteil_) that I may eat a piece of bread]. Here they say that
the use of one kind was signified. And they add: "Thus, therefore,
our laymen ought also to be content, with one part pertaining to the
priests, with one kind." The adversaries [the masters of the
_Confutation_ are quite shameless, rude asses, and] are clearly
trifling when they are transferring the history of the posterity of
Eli to the Sacrament. The punishment of Eli is there described.
Will they also say this, that as a punishment the laymen have been
removed from the other party [They are quite foolish and mad.] The
Sacrament was instituted to console and comfort terrified minds when
they believe that the flesh of Christ given for the life of the world,
is food, when they believe that, being joined to Christ [through
this food], they are made alive. But the adversaries argue that
laymen are removed from the other part as a punishment. "They ought,"
they say, "to be content." This is sufficient for a despot. [That,
surely, sounds proud and defiant enough.] But [my lords, may we ask
the reason] why ought they? "The reason must not be asked but let
whatever the theologians say be law." [Is whatever you wish and
whatever you say to be sheer truth? See now and be astonished how
shameless and impudent the adversaries are: they dare to set up their
own words as sheer commands of lords, they frankly say: The laymen
must be content. But what if they must not?] This is a concoction of
Eck. For we recognize those vainglorious words, which if we would
wish to criticize, there would be no want of language. For you see
how great the impudence is. He commands, as a tyrant in the
tragedies: "Whether they wish or not, they must be content." Will the
reasons which he cites excuse, in the judgment of God, those who
prohibit a part of the Sacrament, and rage against men using an
entire Sacrament? [Are they to take comfort in the fact that it is
recorded concerning the sons of Eli: They will go begging? That will
be a shuffling excuse at the judgment-seat of God.] If they make the
prohibition in order that there should be a distinguishing mark of
the order, this very reason ought to move us not to assent to the
adversaries, even though we would be disposed in other respects to
comply with their custom. There are other distinguishing marks of
the order of priests and of the people, but it is not obscure what
design they have for defending this distinction so earnestly. That
we may not seem to detract from the true worth of the order, we will
not say more concerning this shrewd design.

They also allege the danger of spilling and certain similar things,
which do not have force sufficient to change the ordinance of Christ.
[They allege more dreams like these for the sake of which it would
be improper to change the ordinance of Christ.] And, indeed, if we
assume that we are free to use either one part or both, how can the
prohibition [to use both kinds] be defended? Although the Church
does not assume to itself the liberty to convert the ordinances of
Christ into matters of indifference. We indeed excuse the Church
which has borne the injury [the poor consciences which have been
deprived of one part by force], since it could not obtain both parts;
but the authors who maintain that the use of the entire Sacrament is
justly prohibited, and who now not only prohibit, but even
excommunicate and violently persecute those using an entire Sacrament,
we do not excuse. Let them see to it how they will give an account
to God for their decisions. Neither is it to be judged immediately
that the Church determines or approves whatever the pontiffs
determine, especially since Scripture prophesies concerning the
bishops and pastors to effect this as Ezekiel says, 7, 28: The Law
shall perish from the priest [there will be priests or bishops who
will know no command or law of God].




Part 28


Article XXIII (XI): _Of the Marriage of Priests._


Despite the great infamy of their defiled celibacy, the adversaries
have the presumption not only to defend the pontifical law by the
wicked and false pretext of the divine name, but even to exhort the
Emperor and princes, to the disgrace and infamy of the Roman Empire,
not to tolerate the marriage of priests. For thus they speak.
[Although the great, unheard-of lewdness, fornication, and adultery
among priests, monks, etc., at the great abbeys, in other churches
and cloisters, has become so notorious throughout the world that
people sing and talk about it, still the adversaries who have
presented the _Confutation_ are so blind and without shame that they
defend the law of the Pope by which marriage is prohibited, and that,
with the specious claim that they are defending a spiritual state.
Moreover, although it would be proper for them to be heartily ashamed
of the exceedingly shameful, lewd, abandoned loose life of the
wretches in their abbeys and cloisters, although on this account
alone they should not have the courage to show their face in broad
daylight, although their evil, restless heart and conscience ought to
cause them to tremble, to stand aghast, and to be afraid to lift
their eyes to our excellent Emperor, who loves uprightness, still
they have the courage of the hangman, they act like the very devil
and like all reckless, wanton people, proceeding in blind defiance
and forgetful of all honor and decency. And these pure chaste
gentlemen dare to admonish His Imperial Majesty, the Electors and
Princes not to tolerate the marriage of priests _ad infamiam et
ignominiam imperti_, that is, to ward off shame and disgrace from the
Roman Empire. For these are their words, as if their shameful life
were a great honor and glory to the Church.]

What greater impudence has ever been read of in any history than this
of the adversaries? [Such shameless advocates before a Roman Emperor
will not easily be found. If all the world did not know them, if
many godly, upright people among them, their own canonical brethren,
had not complained long ago of their shameful, lewd, indecent conduct,
if their vile, abominable, ungodly, lewd, heathenish, Epicurean life,
and the dregs of all filthiness at Rome were not quite manifest, one
might think that their great purity and their inviolate virgin
chastity were the reason why they could not bear to hear the word
woman or marriage pronounced, and why they baptize holy matrimony,
which the Pope himself calls a sacrament, _infamiam imperil_.] For
the arguments which they use we shall afterwards review. Now let the
wise reader consider this, namely, what shame these good-for-nothing
men have who say that marriages [which the Holy Scriptures praise
most highly and command] produce infamy and disgrace to the
government, as though, indeed, this public infamy of flagitious and
unnatural lusts which glow among these very holy fathers, who feign
that they are Curii and live like bacchanals, were a great ornament
to the Church! And most things which these men do with the greatest
license cannot even be named without a breach of modesty. And these
their lusts they ask you to defend with your chaste right hand,
Emperor Charles (whom even certain ancient predictions name as the
king of modest face, for the saying appears concerning you: "One
modest in face shall reign everywhere"). For they ask that, contrary
to divine law, contrary to the law of nations, contrary to the canons
of Councils you sunder marriages, in order to impose merely for the
sake of marriage atrocious punishments upon innocent men, to put to
death priests, whom even barbarians reverently spare, to drive into
exile banished women and fatherless children. Such laws they bring
to you, most excellent and most chaste Emperor, to which no barbarity,
however monstrous and cruel, could lend its ear. But because the
stain of no disgrace or cruelty falls upon your character, we hope
that you will deal with us mildly in this matter, especially when you
have learned that we have the weightiest reasons for our belief
derived from the Word of God to which the adversaries oppose the most
trifling and vain opinions.

And nevertheless they do not seriously defend celibacy. For they are
not ignorant how few there are who practise chastity, but [they stick
to that comforting saying which is found in their treatise, _Si non
caste, tamen caue_ (If not chastely, at least cautiously) and] they
devise a sham of religion for their dominion, which they think that
celibacy profits, in order that we may understand Peter to have been
right in admonishing, 2 Ep. 2, 1, that there will be false teachers
who will deceive men with feigned words. For the adversaries say,
write, or do nothing truly [their words are merely an argument _ad
hominem_], frankly, and candidly in this entire case, but they
actually contend only concerning the dominion which they falsely
think to be imperiled, and which they endeavor to fortify with a
wicked pretense of godliness [they support their case with nothing
but impious, hypocritical lies; accordingly, it will endure about as
well as butter exposed to the sun].

We cannot approve this law concerning celibacy which the adversaries
defend, because it conflicts with divine and natural law and is at
variance with the very canons of the Councils. And that it is
superstitious and dangerous is evident. For it produces infinite
scandals, sins, and corruption of public morals [as is seen in the
real towns of priests, or, as they are called, their residences].
Our other controversies need some discussion by the doctors; in this
the subject is so manifest to both parties that it requires no
discussion. It only requires as judge a man that is honest and fears
God. And although the manifest truth is defended by us, yet the
adversaries have devised certain reproaches for satirizing our
arguments.

First. Gen. 1, 28 teaches that men were created to be fruitful, and
that one sex in a proper way should desire the other. For we are
speaking not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that appetite
which was to have been in nature in its integrity [which would have
existed in nature even if it had remained uncorrupted], which they
call physical love. And this love of one sex for the other is truly
a divine ordinance. But since this ordinance of God cannot be
removed without an extraordinary work of God, it follows that the
right to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows.

The adversaries cavil at these arguments; they say that in the
beginning the commandment was given to replenish the earth but that
now since the earth has been replenished, marriage is not commanded.
See how wisely they judge! The nature of men is so formed by the
word of God that it is fruitful not only in the beginning of the
creation, but as long as this nature of our bodies will exist just as
the earth becomes fruitful by the word Gen. 1, 11: Let the earth
bring forth grass, yielding seed. Because of this ordinance the
earth not only commenced in the beginning to bring forth plants, but
the fields are clothed every year as long as this natural order will
exist. Therefore, just as by human laws the nature of the earth
cannot be changed, so, without a special work of God the nature of a
human being can be changed neither by vows nor by human law [that a
woman should not desire a man, nor a man a woman].

Secondly. And because this creation or divine ordinance in man is a
natural right, jurists have accordingly said wisely and correctly
that the union of male and female belongs to natural right. But
since natural right is immutable, the right to contract marriage must
always remain. For where nature does not change, that ordinance also
with which God has endowed nature does not change, and cannot be
removed by human laws. Therefore it is ridiculous for the
adversaries to prate that marriage was commanded in the beginning,
but is not now. This is the same as if they would say: Formerly,
when men were born, they brought with them sex; now they do not.
Formerly, when they were born, they brought with them natural right,
now they do not. No craftsman (Faber) could produce anything more
crafty than these absurdities, which were devised to elude a right of
nature. Therefore let this remain in the case which both Scripture
teaches and the jurist says wisely, namely, that the union of male
and female belongs to natural right. Moreover, a natural right is
truly a divine right, because it is an ordinance divinely impressed
upon nature. But inasmuch as this right cannot be changed without an
extraordinary work of God, it is necessary that the right to contract
marriage remains, because the natural desire of sex for sex is an
ordinance of God in nature, and for this reason is a right; otherwise,
why would both sexes have been created? And we are speaking, as it
has been said above, not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that
desire which they call physical love [which would have existed
between man and woman even though their nature had remained pure],
which concupiscence has not removed from nature, but inflames, so
that now it has greater need of a remedy, and marriage is necessary
not only for the sake of procreation, but also as a remedy [to guard
against sins]. These things are clear, and so well established that
they can in no way be overthrown.

Thirdly. Paul says, 1 Cor. 7, 2: To avoid fornication, let every man
have his own wife. This now is an express command pertaining to all
who are not fit for celibacy. The adversaries ask that a commandment
be shown them which commands priests to marry. As though priests are
not men! We judge indeed that the things which we maintain
concerning human nature in general pertain also to priests. Does not
Paul here command those who have not the gift of continence to marry?
For he interprets himself a little after when he says, v. 9: It is
better to marry than to burn. And Christ has clearly said Matt. 19,
11: All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Because now, since sin [since the fall of Adam], these two things
concur, namely, natural appetite and concupiscence, which inflames
the natural appetite, so that now there is more need of marriage than
in nature in its integrity, Paul accordingly speaks of marriage as a
remedy, and on account of these flames commands to marry. Neither
can any human authority, any law, any vows remove this declaration:
It is better to marry than to burn, because they do not remove the
nature or concupiscence. Therefore all who burn, retain the right to
marry. By this commandment of Paul: To avoid fornication, let every
man have his own wife, all are held bound who do not truly keep
themselves continent; the decision concerning which pertains to the
conscience of each one.

For as they here give the command to seek continence of God, and to
weaken the body by labors and hunger, why do they not proclaim these
magnificent commandments to themselves? But, as we have said above,
the adversaries are only playing; they are doing nothing seriously.
If continence were possible to all, it would not require a peculiar
gift. But Christ shows that it has need of a peculiar gift;
therefore it does not belong to all. God wishes the rest to use the
common law of nature which He has instituted. For God does not wish
His ordinances, His creations to be despised. He wishes men to be
chaste in this way, that they use the remedy divinely presented, just
as He wishes to nourish our life in this way, that we use food and
drink. Gerson also testifies that there have been many good men who
endeavored to subdue the body, and yet made little progress.
Accordingly, Ambrose is right in saying: Virginity is only a thing
that can be recommended, but not commanded; it is a matter of vow
rather than of precept. If any one here would raise the objection
that Christ praises those which have made themselves eunuchs for the
kingdom of heaven's sake, Matt. 19, 12, let him also consider this,
that He is praising such as have the gift of continence, for on this
account He adds: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
For an impure continence [such as there is in monasteries and
cloisters] does not please Christ. We also praise true continence.
But now we are disputing concerning the law and concerning those who
do not have the gift of continence. The matter ought to be left free
and snares ought not to be cast upon the weak through this law.