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 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 which
Daniel means, 11, 31; 12, 11, 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 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]. 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.]

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. 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. 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 teaches, 53, 10: When Thou shalt
make His soul an offering for sin.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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 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.

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. 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.]

Part 31

_What the Fathers Thought concerning Sacrifice._

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. 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.

Part 32

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.

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. 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.

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. 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 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.

The sacrifice [thank-offering 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.

And the Fathers, indeed, speak of a twofold 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 Me
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.

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 thanksgiving 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. 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.

Part 33

_Of the Term Mass._

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.
_Leitourgia_, they say, signifies a sacrifice, and the Greeks call
the Mass liturgy. Why do they here omit the old appellation synaxris,
which shows that the Mass was formerly the communion of many? But
let us speak of the word liturgy. This word done 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
though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, Be
ye reconciled to God. Thus the term _Leitourgia_ 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:
_Phehsei de anaxious tinas anthrohpous euromenous ateleian
ekdedukenai tas leitourgias_, 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 Romana, as the rescript of
Pertinax, _De Iure Immunitatis_, l. Semper, shows: _Ei kai meh
pasohn leitourgiohn tous pateras ho tohn teknohn arithmos aneitai_,
Even though the number of children does not liberate parents from all
public burdens. And the Commentary upon Demosthenes states that
_leitourgia_ is a kind of tribute, the expense of the games, the
expense of equipping vessels, of attending to the gymnasia and
similar public offices. 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 _leitourgos_, one who ministered to my wants, 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 _leitourgia_ is employed for
public civil burdens or ministries. And on account of the diphthong,
grammarians do not derive it from _liteh_, which signifies prayers,
but from public goods, which they call _leita_, so that _leitourgeoh_
means, I attend to, I administer public goods.

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. And they fabricate that the Mass has been so called from
_mzbh_, 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 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 _agapeh_, unless one would prefer
that it was so called on account of the common feast. 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
necessarilv, 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 (laois
aphsesis)_, 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.]

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 poiehson hemas axious genesthai tou
prospserein soi deehseis kai hikesias kai thusias anaimaktous huper
pantos 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 prospheromen soi tehn logikehn tautehn kai anaimakton latreian_,
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 _logikeh latreia_ [reasonable service],
namely, of the worship of the mind, of fear, of faith, of prayer, of
thanksgiving, etc.

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