Part 14 (1/2)

Ridiculous is their inference that, since mention is made in the Holy Scriptures of an altar, therefore the Ma.s.s must be a sacrifice; for the figure of an altar is referred to by Paul only by way of comparison. And they fabricate that the Ma.s.s has been so called from _mzbh_, an altar. What need is there of an etymology so far fetched, unless it be to show their knowledge of the Hebrew language? What need is there to seek the etymology from a distance, when the term Ma.s.s is found in Deut. 16, 10, where it signifies the collections or gifts of the people, not the offering of the priest? For individuals coming to the celebration of the Pa.s.sover were obliged to bring some gift as a contribution. In the beginning the Christians also retained this custom. Coming together they brought bread, wine, and other things, as the Canons of the Apostles testify. Thence a part was taken to be consecrated; the rest was distributed to the poor.

With this custom they also retained Ma.s.s as the name of the contributions. And on account of such contributions it appears also that the Ma.s.s was elsewhere called _agapeh_, unless one would prefer that it was so called on account of the common feast. But let us omit these trifles. For it is ridiculous that the adversaries should produce such trifling conjectures concerning a matter of such great importance. For although the Ma.s.s is called an offering, in what does the term favor the dreams concerning the _opus operatum_, and the application which, they imagine, merits for others the remission of sins? And it can be called an offering for the reason that prayers, thanksgivings, and the entire wors.h.i.+p are there offered, as it is also called a eucharist. But neither ceremonies nor prayers profit _ex opere operato_, without faith. Although we are disputing here not concerning prayers, but particularly concerning the Lord's Supper.

[Here you can see what rude a.s.ses our adversaries are. They say that the term _missa_ is derived from the term _misbeach_, which signifies an altar; hence we are to conclude that the Ma.s.s is a sacrifice; for sacrifices are offered on an altar. Again, the word _liturgia_, by which the Greeks call the Ma.s.s, is also to denote a sacrifice. This claim we shall briefly answer. All the world sees that from such reasons this heathenish and antichristian error does not follow necessarilv, that the Ma.s.s benefits _ex opere operato sine bono motu utentis_. Therefore they are a.s.ses, because in such a highly important matter they bring forward such silly things. Nor do the a.s.ses know any grammar. For missa and liturgia do not mean sacrifice.

_Missa_, in Hebrew, denotes a joint contribution. For this may have been a custom among Christians, that they brought meat and drink for the benefit of the poor to their a.s.semblies. This custom was derived from the Jews, who had to bring such contributions on their festivals, these they called _missa_. Likewise, _liturgia_, in Greek, really denotes an office in which a person ministers to the congregation.

This is well applied to our teaching, because with us the priest, as a common servant of those who wish to commune, ministers to them the holy Sacrament.

Some think that _missa_ is not derived from the Hebrew, but signifies as much as _remissio_ the forgiveness of sin. For, the communion being ended, the announcement used to be made: _Ite, missa est_: Depart, you have forgiveness of sins. They cite, as proof that this is so, the fact that the Greeks used to say: _Lais Aphesis (laois aphsesis)_, which also means that they had been pardoned. If this were so, it would be an excellent meaning, for in connection with this ceremony forgiveness of sins must always be preached and proclaimed. But the case before us is little aided, no matter what the meaning of the word _missa_ is.]

The Greek canon says also many things concerning the offering, but it shows plainly that it is not speaking properly of the body and blood of the Lord, but of the whole service of prayers and thanksgivings.

For it says thus: _Kai poiehson hemas axious genesthai tou prospserein soi deehseis kai hikesias kai thusias anaimaktous huper pantos laou._ When this is rightly understood, it gives no offense.

For it prays that we be made worthy to offer prayers and supplications and bloodless sacrifices for the people. For he calls even prayers bloodless sacrifices. Just as also a little afterward: _Eti prospheromen soi tehn logikehn tautehn kai anaimakton latreian_, We offer, he says this reasonable and bloodless service. For they explain this inaptly who would rather interpret this of a reasonable sacrifice, and transfer it to the very body of Christ, although the canon speaks of the entire wors.h.i.+p, and in opposition to the _opus operatum_ Paul has spoken of _logikeh latreia_ [reasonable service], namely, of the wors.h.i.+p of the mind, of fear, of faith, of prayer, of thanksgiving, etc.

Part 34

_Of the Ma.s.s 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 G.o.d and without the example of Scripture, and to apply to the dead the Lord's Supper, which was inst.i.tuted 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 inst.i.tuted 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 Ma.s.s 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 Ma.s.s is not a satisfaction, but a promise and Sacrament that require faith.

And, indeed, it is necessary that all G.o.dly persons be seized with the most bitter grief [shed tears of blood, from anguish and sorrow]

if they consider that the Ma.s.s 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. [G.o.d will one day vindicate the Second Commandment, and pour out a great, horrible wrath upon them.] Therefore we and all G.o.dly consciences should be on our guard against approving the abuses of the adversaries.

But let us return to the case. Since the Ma.s.s 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 inst.i.tute forms of wors.h.i.+p 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 Ma.s.s, 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 a.s.signed 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 Ma.s.s 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 a.s.ses 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 Ma.s.s 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 pa.s.sion, and entirely overthrow the doctrine concerning the righteousness of faith, we disapprove. There was a similar persuasion of the G.o.dless 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, inst.i.tuted the wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+pers of Baal, but also with other priests who, with this G.o.dless opinion, made sacrifices ordained by G.o.d. 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 G.o.dless priests a false opinion concerning sacrifices inhered, just as in Israel, Baalitic services continued, and, nevertheless, a Church of G.o.d was there which disapproved of G.o.dless services, so Baalitic wors.h.i.+p inheres in the domain of the Pope, namely, the abuse of the Ma.s.s, which they apply, that by it they may merit for the unrighteous the remission of guilt and punishment. [And yet, as G.o.d still kept His Church, i.e., some saints, in Israel and Judah, so G.o.d 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 G.o.d and have a constant comfort against sins; for G.o.d has graciously caused His Gospel to s.h.i.+ne, that we might be warned and saved] ought to condemn these wicked services, devised, contrary to G.o.d's command, in order to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith.

We have briefly said these things of the Ma.s.s 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 Ma.s.s 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 Ma.s.s 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 Ma.s.s, 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 pa.s.sages 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 a.s.ses the monks are, the more stubborn, furious bitter, the more venomous asps they are in persecuting the truth and the Word of G.o.d.] 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 G.o.d 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 fact.i.tious services, as some writers call them, and who do not approve of the cruelty which the hypocrites among them exercise.