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

Part 34

_Of the Mass for the Dead._

Our adversaries have no testimonies and no command from Scripture for
defending the application of the ceremony for liberating the souls of
the dead, although from this they derive infinite revenue. Nor,
indeed, is it a light sin to establish such services in the Church
without the command of God and without the example of Scripture, and
to apply to the dead the Lord's Supper, which was instituted for
commemoration and preaching among the living [for the purpose of
strengthening the faith of those who use the ceremony]. This is to
violate the Second Commandment, by abusing God's name.

For, in the first place, it is a dishonor to the Gospel to hold that
a ceremony _ex opere operato_, without faith, is a sacrifice
reconciling God, and making satisfaction for sins. It is a horrible
saying to ascribe as much to the work of a priest as to the death of
Christ. Again, sin and death cannot be overcome unless by faith in
Christ, as Paul teaches, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have
peace with God, and therefore the punishment of purgatory cannot be
overcome by the application of the work of another.

Now we shall omit the sort of testimonies concerning purgatory that
the adversaries have: what kinds of punishments they think there are
in purgatory, what grounds the doctrine of satisfactions has, which
we have shown above to be most vain. We shall only present this in
opposition: It is certain that the Lord's Supper was instituted on
account of the remission of guilt. For it offers the remission of
sins, where it is necessary that guilt be truly understood. [For
what consolation would we have if forgiveness of sin were here
offered us, and yet there would be no remission of guilt?] And
nevertheless it does not make satisfaction for guilt, otherwise the
Mass would be equal to the death of Christ. Neither can the
remission of guilt be received in any other way than by faith.
Therefore the Mass is not a satisfaction, but a promise and Sacrament
that require faith.

And, indeed, it is necessary that all godly persons be seized with
the most bitter grief [shed tears of blood, from anguish and sorrow]
if they consider that the Mass has been in great part transferred to
the dead and to satisfactions for punishments. This is to banish the
daily sacrifice from the Church; this is the kingdom of Antiochus,
who transferred the most salutary promises concerning the remission
of guilt and concerning faith to the most vain opinions concerning
satisfactions; this is to defile the Gospel, to corrupt the use of
the Sacraments. These are the persons [the real blasphemers] whom
Paul has said, 1 Cor. 11, 27, to be guilty of the body and blood of
the Lord, who have suppressed the doctrine concerning faith and the
remission of sins, and, under the pretext of satisfactions, have
devoted the body and blood of the Lord to sacrilegious gain. And
they will at some time pay the penalty for this sacrilege. [God will
one day vindicate the Second Commandment, and pour out a great,
horrible wrath upon them.] Therefore we and all godly consciences
should be on our guard against approving the abuses of the
adversaries.

But let us return to the case. Since the Mass is not a satisfaction,
either for punishment or for guilt, _ex opere operato_, without faith,
it follows that the application on behalf of the dead is useless.
Nor is there need here of a longer discussion. For it is evident
that these applications on behalf of the dead have no testimonies
from the Scriptures. Neither is it safe, without the authority of
Scripture, to institute forms of worship in the Church. And if it
will at any time be necessary, we shall speak at greater length
concerning this entire subject. For why should we now contend with
adversaries who understand neither what a sacrifice, nor what a
sacrament, nor what remission of sins, nor what faith is?

Neither does the Greek canon apply the offering as a satisfaction for
the dead, because it applies it equally for all the blessed
patriarchs, prophets, apostles. It appears therefore that the Greeks
make an offering as thanksgiving, and do not apply it as satisfaction
for punishments. [For, of course, it is not their intention to
deliver the prophets and apostles from purgatory, but only to offer
up thanks along and together with them for the exalted eternal
blessings that have been given to them and us.] Although they speak,
moreover, not of the offering alone of the body and blood of the Lord,
but of the other parts of the Mass, namely, prayers and thanksgiving.
For after the consecration they pray that it may profit those who
partake of it, they do not speak of others. Then they add: _Eti
prospheromen soi tehn logikehn tautehn latreian huper tohn en pistei
anapausamenohn propatorohn, paterohn, patriarchohn, prophertohn,
apostolohn_, etc. ["Yet we offer to you this reasonable service for
those having departed in faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs
prophets, apostles," etc.] Reasonable service, however, does not
signify the offering itself, but prayers and all things which are
there transacted. Now, as regards the adversaries' citing the
Fathers concerning the offering for the dead, we know that the
ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit, but
we disapprove of the application _ex opere operato_ of the Lord's
Supper on behalf of the dead. Neither do the ancients favor the
adversaries concerning the _opus operatum_. And even though they
have the testimonies especially of Gregory or the moderns, we oppose
to them the most clear and certain Scriptures. And there is a great
diversity among the Fathers. They were men, and could err and be
deceived. Although if they would now become alive again, and would
see their sayings assigned as pretexts for the notorious falsehoods
which the adversaries teach concerning the opus operatum, they would
interpret themselves far differently.

The adversaries also falsely cite against us the condemnation of
Aerius, who, they say was condemned for the reason that he denied
that in the Mass an offering is made for the living and the dead.
They frequently use this dexterous turn, cite the ancient heresies
and falsely compare our cause with these in order by this comparison
to crush us. [The asses are not ashamed of any lies. Nor do they
know who Aerius was and what he taught.] Epiphanius testifies that
Aerius held that prayers for the dead are useless. With this he
finds fault. Neither do we favor Aerius, but we on our part are
contending with you who are defending a heresy manifestly conflicting
with the prophets, apostles and holy Fathers, namely, that the Mass
justifies _ex opere operato_, that it merits the remission of guilt
and punishment even for the unjust, to whom it is applied, if they do
not present an obstacle. Of these pernicious errors, which detract
from the glory of Christ's passion, and entirely overthrow the
doctrine concerning the righteousness of faith, we disapprove. There
was a similar persuasion of the godless in the Law, namely, that they
merited the remission of sins, not freely by faith, but through
sacrifices _ex opere operato_. Therefore they increased these
services and sacrifices, instituted the worship of Baal in Israel,
and even sacrificed in the groves in Judah. Therefore the prophets
condemn this opinion, and wage war not only with the worshipers of
Baal, but also with other priests who, with this godless opinion,
made sacrifices ordained by God. But this opinion inheres in the
world, and always will inhere namely, that services and sacrifices
are propitiations. Carnal men cannot endure that alone to the
sacrifice of Christ the honor is ascribed that it is a propitiation,
because they do not understand the righteousness of faith, but
ascribe equal honor to the rest of the services and sacrifices. Just
as, therefore, in Judah among the godless priests a false opinion
concerning sacrifices inhered, just as in Israel, Baalitic services
continued, and, nevertheless, a Church of God was there which
disapproved of godless services, so Baalitic worship inheres in the
domain of the Pope, namely, the abuse of the Mass, which they apply,
that by it they may merit for the unrighteous the remission of guilt
and punishment. [And yet, as God still kept His Church, i.e., some
saints, in Israel and Judah, so God still preserved His Church, i.e.,
some saints, under the Papacy, so that the Christian Church has not
entirely perished.] And it seems that this Baalitic worship will
endure as long as the reign of the Pope, until Christ will come to
judge, and by the glory of His advent destroy the reign of Antichrist.
Meanwhile all who truly believe the Gospel [that they may truly
honor God and have a constant comfort against sins; for God has
graciously caused His Gospel to shine, that we might be warned and
saved] ought to condemn these wicked services, devised, contrary to
God's command, in order to obscure the glory of Christ and the
righteousness of faith.

We have briefly said these things of the Mass in order that all good
men in all parts of the world may be able to understand that with the
greatest zeal we maintain the dignity of the Mass and show its true
use, and that we have the most just reasons for dissenting from the
adversaries. And we would have all good men admonished not to aid
the adversaries in the profanation of the Mass lest they burden
themselves with other men's sin. It is a great cause and a great
subject not inferior to the transaction of the prophet Elijah, who
condemned the worship of Baal. We have presented a case of such
importance with the greatest moderation, and now reply without
casting any reproach. But if the adversaries will compel us to
collect all kinds of abuses of the Mass, the case will not be treated
with such forbearance.

Part 35

Article XXVII (XIII): _Of Monastic Vows._

In the town of Eisenach, in Thuringia, there was, to our knowledge, a
monk, John Hilten, who, thirty years ago, was cast by his fraternity
into prison because he had protested against certain most notorious
abuses. For we have seen his writings, from which it can be well
understood what the nature of his doctrine was [that he was a
Christian, and preached according to the Scriptures]. And those who
knew him testify that he was a mild old man, and serious indeed, but
without moroseness. He predicted many things, some of which have
thus far transpired, and others still seem to impend which we do not
wish to recite, lest it may be inferred that they are narrated either
from hatred toward one or from partiality to another. But finally,
when, either on account of his age or the foulness of the prison, he
fell into disease, he sent for the guardian in order to tell him of
his sickness; and when the guardian, inflamed with pharisaic hatred,
had begun to reprove the man harshly on account of his kind of
doctrine, which seemed to be injurious to the kitchen, then, omitting
all mention of his sickness, he said with a sigh that he was bearing
these injuries patiently for Christ's sake, since he had indeed
neither written nor taught anything which could overthrow the
position of the monks, but had only protested against some well-known
abuses. But another one he said, will come in A.D. 1516, who will
destroy you, neither will you be able to resist him. This very
opinion concerning the downward career of the power of the monks, and
this number of years, his friends afterwards found also written by
him in his commentaries, which he had left, concerning certain
passages of Daniel. But although the outcome will teach how much
weight should be given to this declaration, yet there are other signs
which threaten a change in the power of the monks, that are no less
certain than oracles. For it is evident how much hypocrisy, ambition,
avarice there is in the monasteries, how much ignorance and cruelty
among all the unlearned, what vanity in their sermons and in devising
continually new means of gaining money. [The more stupid asses the
monks are, the more stubborn, furious bitter, the more venomous asps
they are in persecuting the truth and the Word of God.] And there are
other faults, which we do not care to mention. While they once were
[not jails or everlasting prisons, but] schools for Christian
instruction, now they have degenerated, as though from a golden to an
iron age, or as the Platonic cube degenerates into bad harmonies,
which, Plato says brings destruction. [Now this precious gold is
turned to dross, and the wine to water.] All the most wealthy
monasteries support only an idle crowd, which gluttonizes upon the
public alms of the Church. Christ, however, teaches concerning the
salt that has lost its savor that it should be cast out and be
trodden under foot, Matt. 5, 13. Therefore the monks by such morals
are singing their own fate [requiem, and it will soon be over with
them]. And now another sign is added, because they are in many
places, the instigators of the death of good men. [This blood of
Abel cries against them and] These murders God undoubtedly will
shortly avenge. Nor indeed do we find fault with all, for we are of
the opinion that there are here and there some good men in the
monasteries who judge moderately concerning human and factitious
services, as some writers call them, and who do not approve of the
cruelty which the hypocrites among them exercise.

But we are now discussing the kind of doctrine which the composers of
the _Confutation_ are now defending and not the question whether vows
should be observed. For we hold that lawful vows ought to be
observed; but whether these services merit the remission of sins and
justification; whether they are satisfactions for sins, whether they
are equal to Baptism, whether they are the observance of precepts and
counsels; whether they are evangelical perfection; whether they have
the merits of supererogation; whether these merits, when applied on
behalf of others save them, whether vows made with these opinions are
lawful; whether vows are lawful that are undertaken under the pretext
of religion, merely for the sake of the belly and idleness, whether
those are truly vows that have been extorted either from the
unwilling or from those who on account of age were not able to judge
concerning the kind of life, whom parents or friends thrust into the
monasteries that they might be supported at the public expense,
without the loss of private patrimony, whether vows are lawful that
openly tend to an evil issue, either because on account of weakness
they are not observed, or because those who are in these fraternities
are compelled to approve and aid the abuses of the Mass, the godless
worship of saints, and the counsels to rage against good men:
concerning these questions we are treating. And although we have
said very many things in the Confession concerning such vows as even
the canons of the Popes condemn, nevertheless the adversaries command
that all things which we have produced be rejected. For they have
used these words.

And it is worth while to hear how they pervert our reasons, and what
they adduce to fortify their own cause. Accordingly, we will briefly
run over a few of our arguments, and in passing, explain away the
sophistry of the adversaries in reference to them. Since, however,
this entire cause has been carefully and fully treated by Luther in
the book to which he gave the title _De Votis Monasticis_, we wish
here to consider that book as reiterated.

First, it is very certain that a vow is not lawful by which he who
vows thinks that he merits the remission of sins before God, or makes
satisfaction before God for sins. For this opinion is a manifest
insult to the Gospel, which teaches that the remission of sins is
freely granted us for Christ's sake, as has been said above at some
length. Therefore we have correctly quoted the declaration of Paul
to the Galatians, Gal. 5, 4: Christ is become of no effect unto you,
whosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace.
Those who seek the remission of sins not by faith in Christ, but by
monastic works detract from the honor of Christ, and crucify Christ
afresh. But hear, hear how the composers of the _Confutation_ escape
in this place! They explain this passage of Paul only concerning the
Law of Moses, and they add that the monks observe all things for
Christ's sake, and endeavor to live the nearer the Gospel in order to
merit eternal life. And they add a horrible peroration in these
words: Wherefore those things are wicked that are here alleged
against monasticism. O Christ, how long wilt Thou bear these
reproaches with which our enemies treat Thy Gospel? We have said in
the Confession that the remission of sins is received freely for
Christ's sake, through faith. If this is not the very voice of the
Gospel, if it is not the judgment of the eternal Father, which Thou
who art in the bosom of the Father hast revealed to the world, we are
justly blamed. But Thy death is a witness, Thy resurrection is a
witness, the Holy Ghost is a witness, Thy entire Church is a witness,
that it is truly the judgment of the Gospel that we obtain remission
of sins, not on account of our merits, but on account of Thee,
through faith.

When Paul denies that by the Law of Moses men merit the remission of
sins, he withdraws this praise much more from human traditions, and
this he clearly testifies Col. 2, 16. If the Law of Moses, which was
divinely revealed, did not merit the remission of sins, how much less
do these silly observances [monasticism rosaries, etc.], averse to
the civil custom of life, merit the remission of sins!

The adversaries feign that Paul abolishes the Law of Moses, and that
Christ succeeds in such a way that He does not freely grant the
remission of sins, but on account of the works of other laws, if any
are now devised. By this godless and fanatical imagination they bury
the benefit of Christ. Then they feign that among those who observe
this Law of Christ, the monks observe it more closely than others, on
account of their hypocritical poverty, obedience, and chastity, since
indeed all these things are full of sham. In the greatest abundance
of all things they boast of poverty. Although no class of men has
greater license than the monks [who have masterfully decreed that
they are exempt from obedience to bishops and princes], they boast of
obedience. Of celibacy we do not like to speak, how pure this is in
most of those who desire to be continent, Gerson indicates. And how
many of them desire to be continent [not to mention the thoughts of
their hearts]?

Of course, in this sham life the monks live more closely in
accordance with the Gospel! Christ does not succeed Moses in such a
way as to remit sins on account of our works, but so as to set His
own merits and His own propitiation on our behalf against God's wrath
that we may be freely forgiven. Now, he who apart from Christ's
propitiation, opposes his own merits to God's wrath, and on account
of his own merits endeavors to obtain the remission of sins, whether
he present the works of the Mosaic Law, or of the Decalog, or of the
rule of Benedict, or of the rule of Augustine, or of other rules,
annuls the promise of Christ, has cast away Christ, and has fallen
from grace. This is the verdict of Paul.

But, behold, most clement Emperor Charles behold, ye princes, behold,
all ye ranks, how great is the impudence of the adversaries!
Although we have cited the declaration of Paul to this effect, they
have written: Wicked are those things that are here cited against
monasticism. But what is more certain than that men obtain the
remission of sins by faith for Christ's sake? And these wretches
dare to call this a wicked opinion! We do not at all doubt that if
you had been advised of this passage, you would have taken [will
take] care that such blasphemy be removed from the _Confutation._

But since it has been fully shown above that the opinion is wicked,
that we obtain the remission of sins on account of our works, we
shall be briefer at this place. For the prudent reader will easily
be able to reason thence that we do not merit the remission of sins
by monastic works. Therefore this blasphemy also is in no way to be
endured which is read in

Thomas, that the monastic profession is equal to Baptism. It is
madness to make human tradition, which has neither God's command nor
promise, equal to the ordinance of Christ which has both the command
and promise of God, which contains the covenant of grace and of
eternal life.

Secondly. Obedience, poverty, and celibacy, provided the latter is
not impure, are, as exercises, adiaphora [in which we are not to look
for either sin or righteousness]. And for this reason the saints can
use these without impiety, just as Bernard, Franciscus, and other
holy men used them. And they used them on account of bodily
advantage, that they might have more leisure to teach and to perform
other godly offices, and not that the works themselves are, by
themselves, works that justify or merit eternal life. Finally they
belong to the class of which Paul says, 1 Tim. 4, 8: Bodily exercise
profiteth little. And it is credible that in some places there are
also at present good men, engaged in the ministry of the Word, who
use these observances without wicked opinions [without hypocrisy and
with the understanding that they do not regard their monasticism as
holiness]. But to hold that these observances are services on
account of which they are accounted just before God, and through
which they merit eternal life, conflicts with the Gospel concerning
the righteousness of faith, which teaches that for Christ's sake
righteousness and eternal life are granted us. It conflicts also
with the saying of Christ, Matt. 15, 9: In vain do they worship Me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. It conflicts also
with this statement, Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
But how can they affirm that they are services which God approves as
righteousness before Him when they have no testimony of God's Word?

But look at the impudence of the adversaries! They not only teach
that these observances are justifying services, but they add that
these services are more perfect, i.e. meriting more the remission of
sins and justification, than do other kinds of life [that they are
states of perfection, i.e., holier and higher states than the rest,
such as marriage, rulership]. And here many false and pernicious
opinions concur. They imagine that they [are the most holy people
who] observe [not only] precepts and [but also] counsels [that is,
the superior counsels, which Scripture issues concerning exalted
gifts, not by way of command but of advice]. Afterwards these
liberal men, since they dream that they have the merits of
supererogation, sell these to others. All these things are full of
pharisaic vanity. For it is the height of impiety to hold that they
satisfy the Decalog in such a way that merits remain, while such
precepts as these are accusing all the saints: Thou shalt love the
Lord, thy God, with all shine heart, Deut. 6, 5. Likewise: Thou shalt
not covet, Rom. 7, 7. [For

as the First Commandment of God (Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God,
with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind ) is
higher than a man upon earth can comprehend as it is the highest
theology, from which all the prophets and all the apostles have drawn
as from a spring their best and highest doctrines, yea, as it is such
an exalted commandment, according to which alone all divine service,
all honor to God, every offering, all thanksgiving in heaven and upon
earth, must be regulated and judged, so that all divine service high
and precious and holy though it appear if it be not in accordance
with this commandment, is nothing but husks and shells without a
kernel, yea, nothing but filth and abomination before God; which
exalted commandment no saint whatever has perfectly fulfilled, so
that even Noah and Abraham, David, Peter and Paul acknowledged
themselves imperfect and sinners: it is an unheard-of, pharisaic, yea,
an actually diabolical pride for a sordid Barefooted monk or any
similar godless hypocrite to say, yea, preach and teach, that he has
observed and fulfilled the holy high commandment so perfectly, and
according to the demands and will of God has done so many good works,
that merit even superabounds to him. Yea, dear hypocrites, if the
holy Ten Commandments and the exalted First Commandment of God were
fulfilled as easily as the bread and remnants are put into the sack!
They are shameless hypocrites with whom the world is plagued in this
last time.] The prophet says, Ps. 116, 11: All men are liars, i.e.,
not thinking aright concerning God, not fearing God sufficiently, not
believing Him sufficiently. Therefore the monks falsely boast that
in the observance of a monastic life the commandments are fulfilled,
and more is done than what is commanded [that their good works and
several hundredweights of superfluous, superabundant holiness remain
in store for them].

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