Books: The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

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

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25

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 to-day 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 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, 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.

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 er 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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 Concordances 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.

Part 30

_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.]
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 mageiroi_ (poor
butchers), since they break the members of "sacrifice," as can be
understood when we have enumerated the species of sacrifice.
Theologians are rightly accustomed to distinguish between a Sacrament
and a sacrifice. Therefore let the genus comprehending both of these
be either 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.

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.

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 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.

[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 teaches,
which says, 10, 4: 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, v. 10: By the which will we are sanctified by
the offering of the body 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, 53, 10: When
Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He will see His seed,
etc. For the word employed here, _'shm_, 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 _'shm_ 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 _katharmata_ and sometimes _peripsehmata_. Isaiah and Paul,
therefore, mean that Christ became a victim 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.

Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices which are called sacrifices
of praise, Lev. 3, 1 f.; 7, 11 f.; Ps. 56, 12 f., 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. And such are the sacrifices of the New
Testament, as Peter teaches, 1. Ep. 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.

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 shall 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, 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 spake 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.

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 Me 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 The 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.

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.

And of these sacrifices Malachi speaks, 1, 11: 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. 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 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.

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.

They cite also the daily sacrifice (cf. Ex. 29, 38 f.; Dan. 8, ll f.,
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.

And the type aptly represents not only the ceremony, but also the
preaching of the Gospel. In Num. 28, 4 f. 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. Ep. 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. 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.

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 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. 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].

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 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, 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.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25