Part 27
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].
Article XXII (X): _Of Both Kinds in the Lord's Supper._
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
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.]
Article XXIII (XI): _Of the Marriage of Priests._
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.
Fourthly. The pontifical law differs also from the canons of the Councils.
For the ancient canons do not prohibit marriage, neither do they dissolve
marriages that have been contracted, even if they remove from the
administration of their office those who have contracted them in the
ministry. At those times this dismissal was an act of kindness [rather
than a punishment]. But the new canons, which have not been framed in the
Synods, but have been made according to the private judgment of the
Popes, both prohibit the contraction of marriages, and dissolve them when
contracted; and this is to be done openly, contrary to the command of
Christ, Matt. 19, 6: What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
In the _Confutation_ the adversaries exclaim that celibacy has been
commanded by the Councils. We do not find fault with the decrees of the
Councils; for under a certain condition these allow marriage, but we find
fault with the laws which, since the ancient Synods, the Popes of Rome
have framed contrary to the authority of the Synods. The Popes despise the
authority of the Synods, just as much as they wish it to appear holy to
others [under peril of God's wrath and eternal damnation]. Therefore this
law concerning perpetual celibacy is peculiar to this new pontifical
despotism. Nor is it without a reason. For Daniel, 11, 37, ascribes to the
kingdom of Antichrist this mark, namely, the contempt of women.
Fifthly. Although the adversaries do not defend the law because of
superstition, [not because of its sanctity, as from ignorance], since they
see that it is not generally observed, nevertheless they diffuse
superstitious opinions, while they give a pretext of religion. They
proclaim that they require celibacy because it is purity. As though
marriage were impurity and a sin, or as though celibacy merited
justification more than does marriage! And to this end they cite the
ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, because, since under the Law, the priests,
at the time of ministering, were separated from their wives, the priest in
the New Testament, inasmuch as he ought always to pray, ought always to
practise continence. This silly comparison is presented as a proof which
should compel priests to perpetual celibacy, although, indeed, in this very
comparison marriage is allowed, only in the time of ministering its use is
interdicted. And it is one thing to pray; another, to minister. The saints
prayed even when they did not exercise the public ministry; nor did
conjugal intercourse hinder them from praying.
But we shall reply in order to these figments. In the first place, it is
necessary for the adversaries to acknowledge this, namely, that in
believers marriage is pure because it has been sanctified by the Word of
God, i.e., it is a matter that is permitted and approved by the Word of God,
as Scripture abundantly testifies. For Christ calls marriage a divine union,
when He says, Matt. 19, 6: What God hath joined together [let not man put
asunder. Here Christ says that married people are joined together by God.
Accordingly, it is a pure, holy, noble, praiseworthy work of God]. And Paul
says of marriage, of meats and similar things, I Tim. 4, 6: It is sanctified
by the Word of God and prayer, i.e., by the Word, by which consciences
become certain that God approves; and by prayer, i.e., by faith, which uses
it with thanksgiving as a gift of God. Likewise, 1 Cor. 7, 14: The
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, etc., i.e.. the use of
marriage is permitted and holy on account of faith in Christ, just as it is
permitted to use meat, etc. Likewise, 1 Tim. 2, 16: She shall, be saved in
childbearing [if they continue in faith], etc. If the adversaries could
produce such a passage concerning celibacy, then indeed they would
celebrate a wonderful triumph. Paul says that woman is saved by
child-bearing. What more honorable could be said against the hypocrisy of
celibacy than that woman is saved by the conjugal works themselves, by
conjugal intercourse, by bearing children and the other duties? But what
does St. Paul mean? Let the reader observe that faith is added, and that
domestic duties without faith are not praised. If they continue, he says, in
faith. For he speaks of the whole class of mothers. Therefore he requires
especially faith [that they should have God's Word and be believing], by
which woman receives the remission of sins and justification. Then he
adds a particular work of the calling, just as in every man a good work of
a particular calling ought to follow faith. This work pleases God on
account of faith. Thus the duties of the woman please God on account of
faith, and the believing woman is saved who in such duties devoutly
serves her calling.
These testimonies teach that marriage is a lawful [a holy and Christian]
thing. If therefore purity signifies that which is allowed and approved
before God, marriages are pure, because they have been approved by the
Word of God. And Paul says of lawful things, Titus 1, 15: Unto the pure all
things are pure, i.e., to those who believe in Christ and are righteous by
faith. Therefore, as virginity is impure in the godless, so in the godly
marriage is pure on account of the Word of God and faith.
Again, if purity is properly opposed to concupiscence, it signifies purity
of heart, i.e., mortified concupiscence, because the Law does not prohibit
marriage, but concupiscence, adultery, fornication. Therefore celibacy is
not purity. For there may be greater purity of heart in a married man, as in
Abraham or Jacob, than in most of those who are even truly continent [who
even, according to bodily purity, really maintain their chastity].
Lastly, if they understand that celibacy is purity in the sense that it
merits justification more than does marriage, we most emphatically
contradict it. For we are justified neither on account of virginity nor on
account of marriage, but freely for Christ's sake, when we believe that for
His sake God is propitious to us. Here perhaps they will exclaim that,
according to the manner of Jovinian, marriage is made equal to virginity.
But, on account of such clamors we shall not reject the truth concerning
the righteousness of faith, which we have explained above. Nevertheless
we do not make virginity and marriage equal. For just as one gift
surpasses another, as prophecy surpasses eloquence, the science of
military affairs surpasses agriculture, and eloquence surpasses
architecture, so virginity is a more excellent gift than marriage. And
nevertheless, just as an orator is not more righteous before God because
of his eloquence than an architect because of his skill in architecture, so
a virgin does not merit justification by virginity more than a married
person merits it by conjugal duties but each one ought faithfully to serve
in his own gift, and to believe that for Christ's sake he receives the
remission of sins and by faith is accounted righteous before God.
Neither does Christ or Paul praise virginity because it justifies, but
because it is freer and less distracted with domestic occupations, in
praying, teaching, [writing,] serving. For this reason Paul says, 1 Cor. 7,
32: He that is unmarried careth for the things which belong to the Lord.
Virginity, therefore, is praised on account of meditation and study. Thus
Christ does not simply praise those who make themselves eunuchs, but
adds, for the kingdom of heaven's sake, i.e., that they may have leisure to
learn or teach the Gospel; for He does not say that virginity merits the
remission of sins or salvation.
To the examples of the Levitical priests we have replied that they do not
establish the duty of imposing perpetual celibacy upon the priests.
Furthermore, the Levitical impurities are not to be transferred to us. [The
law of Moses, with the ceremonial statutes concerning what is clean or
unclean, do not at all concern us Christians.] Then intercourse contrary to
the Law was an impurity. Now it is not impurity, because Paul says, Titus
1, 15: Unto the pure all things are pure. For the Gospel frees us from these
Levitical impurities [from all the ceremonies of Moses, and not alone from
the laws concerning uncleanness]. And if any one defends the law of
celibacy with the design to burden consciences by these Levitical
observances, we must strive against this, just as the apostles in Acts 15,
10 sqq. strove against those who required circumcision and endeavored to
impose the Law of Moses upon Christians.
Yet, in the mean while, good men will know how to control the use of
marriage, especially when they are occupied with public offices, which
often, indeed, give good men so much labor as to expel all domestic
thoughts from their minds. [For to be burdened with great affairs and
transactions, which concern commonwealths and nations, governments and
churches, is a good remedy to keep the old Adam from lustfulness.] Good
men know also this, that Paul, 1 Thess. 4, 4, commands that every one
possess his vessel in sanctification [and honor, not in the lust of
concupiscence]. They know likewise that they must sometimes retire, in
order that there may be leisure for prayer, but Paul does not wish this to
be perpetual, 1 Cor. 7, 5. Now such continence is easy to those who are
good and occupied. But this great crowd of unemployed priests which is in
the fraternities cannot afford, in this voluptuousness, even this Levitical
continence, as the facts show. [On the other hand, what sort of chastity
can there be among so many thousands of monks and priests who live
without worry in all manner of delights, being idle and full, and, moreover,
have not the Word of God, do not learn it, and have no regard for it. Such
conditions bring on all manner of inchastity. Such people can observe
neither Levitical nor perpetual chastity.] And the lines are well known:
The boy accustomed to pursue a slothful life hates those who are busy.
Many heretics understanding the Law of Moses incorrectly have treated
marriage with contempt, for whom, nevertheless, celibacy has gained
extraordinary admiration. And Epiphanius complains that, by this
commendation especially, the Encratites captured the minds of the
unwary. They abstained from wine even in the Lord's Supper; they
abstained from the flesh of all animals, in which they surpassed the
Dominican brethren who live upon fish. They abstained also from marriage;
and just this gained the chief admiration. These works, these services,
they thought, merited grace more than the use of wine and flesh, and than
marriage, which seemed to be a profane and unclean matter, and which
scarcely could please God, even though it were not altogether condemned.
Paul to the Colossians, 2, 18, greatly disapproves these angelic forms of
worship. For when men believe that they are pure and righteous on account
of such hypocrisy, they suppress the knowledge of Christ, and suppress
also the knowledge of God's gifts and commandments. For God wishes us to
use His gifts in a godly way. And we might mention examples where
certain godly consciences were greatly disturbed on account of the lawful
use of marriage. This evil was derived from the opinions of monks
superstitiously praising celibacy [and proclaiming the married estate as a
life that would be a great obstacle to salvation, and full of sins].
Nevertheless we do not find fault with temperance or continence, but we
have said above that exercises and mortifications of the body are
necessary. We indeed deny that confidence should be placed in certain
observances, as though they made righteous. And Epiphanies has elegantly
said that these observances ought to be praised dia tehn egkrateian kai dia
tehn politeian, i.e., for restraining the body or on account of public morals;
just as certain rites were instituted for instructing the ignorant, and not
as services that justify.
But it is not through superstition that our adversaries require celibacy,
for they know that chastity is not ordinarily rendered [that at Rome, also
in all their monasteries, there is nothing but undisguised, unconcealed
inchastity. Nor do they seriously intend to lead chaste lives, but knowingly
practise hypocrisy before the people]. But they feign superstitious
opinions, so as to delude the ignorant. They are therefore more worthy of
hatred than the Encratites, who seem to have erred by show of religion;
these Sardanapali [Epicureans] designedly misuse the pretext of religion.
Sixthly. Although we have so many reasons for disapproving the law of
perpetual celibacy, yet, besides these, dangers to souls and public
scandals also are added, which even, though the law were not unjust,
ought to deter good men from approving such a burden as has destroyed
innumerable souls.
For a long time all good men [their own bishops and canons] have
complained of this burden, either on their own account, or on account of
others whom they saw to be in danger. But no Popes give ear to these
complaints. Neither is it doubtful how greatly injurious to public morals
this law is, and what vices and shameful lusts it has produced. The Roman
satires are extant. In these Rome still recognizes and reads its own
morals.
Thus God avenges the contempt of His own gift and ordinance in those who
prohibit marriage. But since the custom in regard to other laws was that
they should be changed if manifest utility would advise it, why is the
same not done with respect to this law, in which so many weighty reasons
concur, especially in these last times, why a change ought to be made?
Nature is growing old and is gradually becoming weaker, and vices are
increasing; wherefore the remedies divinely given should have been
employed. We see what vice it was which God denounced before the Flood,
what He denounced before the burning of the five cities. Similar vices
have preceded the destruction of many other cities, as of Sybaris and
Rome. And in these there has been presented an image of the times which
will be next to the end of things. Accordingly, at this time, marriage ought
to have been especially defended by the most severe laws and warning
examples, and men ought to have been invited to marriage. This duty
pertains to the magistrates, who ought to maintain public discipline. [God
has now so blinded the world that adultery and fornication are permitted
almost without punishment, on the contrary, punishment is inflicted on
account of marriage. Is not this terrible to hear?] Meanwhile the teachers
of the Gospel should do both, they should exhort incontinent men to
marriage, and should exhort others not to despise the gift of continence.
The Popes daily dispense and daily change other laws which are most
excellent, yet, in regard to this one law of celibacy, they are as iron and
inexorable, although, indeed, it is manifest that this is simply of human
right. And they are now making this law more grievous in many ways. The
canon bids them suspend priests, these rather unfriendly interpreters
suspend them not from office, but from trees. They cruelly kill many men
for nothing but marriage. [It is to be feared therefore, that the blood of
Abel will cry to heaven so loudly as not to be endured, and that we shall
have to tremble like Cain.] And these very parricides show that this law is
a doctrine of demons. For since the devil is a murderer, he defends his law
by these parricides.
We know that there is some offense in regard to schism, because we seem
to have separated from those who are thought to be regular bishops. But
our consciences are very secure, since we know that, though we most
earnestly desire to establish harmony, we cannot please the adversaries
unless we cast away manifest truth, and then agree with these very men
in being willing to defend this unjust law, to dissolve marriages that have
been contracted, to put to death priests if they do not obey, to drive poor
women and fatherless children into exile. But since it is well established
that these conditions are displeasing to God, we can in no way grieve that
we have no alliance with the multitude of murderers among the
adversaries.
We have explained the reasons why we cannot assent with a good
conscience to the adversaries when they defend the pontifical law
concerning perpetual celibacy, because it conflicts with divine and natural
law and is at variance with the canons themselves, and is superstitious
and full of danger, and, lastly, because the whole affair is insincere. For
the law is enacted not for the sake of religion [not for holiness' sake, or
because they do not know better; they know very well that everybody is
well acquainted with the condition of the great cloisters, which we are
able to name], but for the sake of dominion, and this is wickedly given the
pretext of religion. Neither can anything be produced by sane men against
these most firmly established reasons. The Gospel allows marriage to
those to whom it is necessary. Nevertheless, it does not compel those to
marry who can be continent, provided they be truly continent. We hold that
this liberty should also be conceded to the priests, nor do we wish to
compel any one by force to celibacy, nor to dissolve marriages that have
been contracted.
We have also indicated incidentally, while we have recounted our
arguments, how the adversaries cavil at several of these; and we have
explained away these false accusations. Now we shall relate as briefly as
possible with what important reasons they defend the law. First, they say
that it has been revealed by God. You see the extreme impudence of these
sorry fellows. They dare to affirm that the law of perpetual celibacy has
been divinely revealed, although it is contrary to manifest testimonies of
Scripture, which command that to avoid fornication each one should have
his own wife, 1 Cor. 7, 2; which likewise forbid to dissolve marriages that
have been contracted; cf. Matt. 6, 32; 19, 6; 1 Cor. 7, 27. [What can the
knaves say in reply? and how dare they wantonly and shamelessly
misapply the great, most holy name of the divine Majesty?] Paul reminds
us what an author such a law was to have when he calls it a doctrine of
demons, 1 Tim. 4, 1. And the fruits show their author, namely, so many
monstrous lusts and so many murders which are now committed under the
pretext of that law [as can be seen at Rome].
The second argument of the adversaries is that the priests ought to be
pure, according to Is. 52, 11: Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord.
And they cite many things to this effect. This reason which they display
we have above removed as especially specious. For we have said that
virginity without faith is not purity before God, and marriage, on account
of faith, is pure, according to Titus 1, 16: Unto the pure all things are
pure. We have said also this, that outward purity and the ceremonies of
the Law are not to be transferred hither, because the Gospel requires
purity of heart, and does not require the ceremonies of the Law. And it
may occur that the heart of a husband, as of Abraham or Jacob, who were
polygamists, is purer and burns less with lusts than that of many virgins
who are even truly continent. But what Isaiah says: Be ye clean that bear
the vessels of the Lord, ought to be understood as referring to cleanness
of heart and to the entire repentance. Besides, the saints will know in the
exercise of marriage how far it is profitable to restrain its use, and as
Paul says, 1 Thess. 4, 4, to possess his vessel in sanctification. Lastly,
since marriage is pure, it is rightly said to those who are not continent in
celibacy that they should marry wives in order to be pure. Thus the same
law: Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord, commands that impure
celibates become pure husbands [impure unmarried priests become pure
married priests].
The third argument is horrible, namely, that the marriage of priests is the
heresy of Jovinian. Fine-sounding words! [Pity on our poor souls, dear sirs;
proceed gently! ] This is a new crime, that marriage [which God instituted
in Paradise] is a heresy! [In that case all the world would be children of
heretics.] In the time of Jovinian the world did not as yet know the law
concerning perpetual celibacy. [This our adversaries know very well.]
Therefore it is an impudent falsehood that the marriage of priests is the
heresy of Jovinian, or that such marriage was then condemned by the
Church. In such passages we can see what design the adversaries had in
writing the _Confutation_. They judged that the ignorant would be thus
most easily excited, if they would frequently hear the reproach of heresy,
if they pretend that our cause had been dispatched and condemned by many
previous decisions of the Church. Thus they frequently cite falsely the
judgment of the Church. Because they are not ignorant of this, they were
unwilling to exhibit to us a copy of their Apology, lest this falsehood and
these reproaches might be exposed. Our opinion, however, as regards the
case of Jovinian, concerning the comparison of virginity and marriage, we
have expressed above. For we do not make marriage and virginity equal,
although neither virginity nor marriage merits justification.
By such false arguments they defend a law that is godless and destructive
to good morals. By such reasons they set the minds of princes firmly
against God's judgment [the princes and bishops who believe this teaching
will see whether their reasons will endure the test when the hour of death
arrives], in which God will call them to account as to why they have
dissolved marriages, and why they have tortured [flogged and impaled] and
killed priests [regardless of the cries, wails, and tears of so many widows
and orphans]. For do not doubt but that, as the blood of dead Abel cried out,
Gen. 4, 10, so the blood of many good men against whom they have unjustly
raged, will also cry out. And God will avenge this cruelty; there you will
discover how empty are these reasons of the adversaries, and you will
perceive that in God's judgment no calumnies against God's Word remain
standing, as Isaiah says, 40, 6: All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness
thereof is as the flower of the field [that their arguments are straw and
hay, and God a consuming fire, before whom nothing but God's Word can
abide, 1 Pet. 1, 24].
Whatever may happen, our princes will be able to console themselves with
the consciousness of right counsels, because even though the priests
would have done wrong in contracting marriages, yet this disruption of
marriages, these proscriptions, and this cruelty are manifestly contrary
to the will and Word of God. Neither does novelty or dissent delight our
princes, but especially in a matter that is not doubtful more regard had to
be paid to the Word of God than to all other things.
Part 29
At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do
not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us
masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in
which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they
have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are
observed, the series of lessons of prayers, vestments, and other like
things.
Article XXIV (XII): _Of the Mass._
The adversaries have a long declamation concerning the use of the Latin
language in the Mass, in which they absurdly trifle as to how it profits
[what a great merit is achieved by] an unlearned hearer to hear in the faith
of the Church a Mass which he does not understand. They evidently imagine
that the mere work of hearing is a service, that it profits without being
understood. We are unwilling to malignantly pursue these things, but we
leave them to the judgment of the reader. We mention them only for the
purpose of stating in passing, that also among us the Latin lessons and
prayers are retained.
Since ceremonies, however, ought to be observed both to teach men
Scripture, and that those admonished by the Word may conceive faith and
fear [of God, and obtain comfort] and thus also may pray (for these are the
designs of ceremonies ), we retain the Latin language on account of those
who are learning and understand Latin, and we mingle with it German
hymns, in order that the people also may have something to learn, and by
which faith and fear may be called forth. This custom has always existed
in the churches. For although some more frequently, and others more
rarely, introduced German hymns, nevertheless the people almost
everywhere sang something in their own tongue. [Therefore, this is not
such a new departure.] It has, however, nowhere been written or
represented that the act of hearing lessons not understood profits men, or
that ceremonies profit, not because they teach or admonish, but _ex opere
operato_, because they are thus performed or are looked upon. Away with
such pharisaic opinions! [Ye sophists ought to be heartily ashamed of such
dreams!]
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
[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.
_What a Sacrifice Is, and What Are the Species of Sacrifice._
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.
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.]