The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Article XXIV (XII) The Mass

[1] At the outset, we must again make this preliminary statement: we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously keep and defend it. Masses are celebrated among us every Lord’s Day and on the other festivals. 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 such things.

[2] The adversaries have a long speech about the use of the Latin language in the Mass. In this speech, they joke about how it benefits an unlearned hearer to hear, in the faith of the Church, a Mass that he does not understand [cf. 1 Corinthians 14:9–12]. They clearly imagine that the mere work of hearing is a service, that it benefits without being understood. [3] We are unwilling to rebelliously 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 we keep also the Latin lessons and prayers.

However, ceremonies should be celebrated to teach people Scripture, that those admonished by the Word may conceive faith and godly fear, and may also pray. (This is the intent of ceremonies.) So, we keep the Latin language to aid those who are learning and understand Latin. We mix with it German hymns so that the people also may have something to learn, and by which faith and godly fear may be produced. [4] This custom has always existed in the churches. Some more frequently, and others more rarely, introduced German hymns into the service. Yet almost everywhere the people sang something in their own tongue. [5] However, it has never been written or presented that people benefit from hearing lessons they cannot understand or that ceremonies benefit, not because they teach or admonish, but by the outward act (ex opere operato) because they are performed that way or are looked upon. Away with such pharisaic opinions!

[6] The fact that we hold only public or common Mass is no offense against the Church catholic. For even today private Masses are not held in the Greek churches. 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. Before Gregory no ancient writer mentions private Masses. [7] We no longer recognize how they got started. Clearly after the begging monks came to power, mostly from false opinions and because of financial gain, private Masses increased to the point that for a long time all good people desired to set some limit on private Masses. St. Francis wished to correct this matter, so he decided that each fraternity should be content with a single, daily, common Mass. Later this was changed, either by superstition or for the sake of financial gain. [8] So, where it is advantageous to them, they themselves change the institutions of the Fathers. Later they cite the Fathers’ authority against us. Epiphanius writes that in Asia Communion was celebrated three times a week, and that there were no daily Masses. Indeed, he says that this custom was handed down from the apostles. For he says, “Assemblies for Communion were set up by the apostles to be held on the fourth day, on the evening of the Sabbath, and on the Lord’s Day.”

[9] The adversaries compile many references on this topic to prove that the Mass is a sacrifice. Yet this great war of words will be quieted when the single reply is put forward that this line of authorities, reasons, and references, however long, does not prove that the Mass bestows grace by the outward act (ex opere operato) or that, when applied on behalf of others, it merits the forgiveness of venial and mortal sins, of guilt and punishment for them. This one reply overthrows all objections of the adversaries, not only in this Confutation, but in all writings about the Mass that they have published.

[10] This is the issue our readers are to be reminded about. Aeschines reminded the judges that, just as boxers struggle with one another for their position, so they should labor with their adversaries about the disputed point and not permit him to wander beyond the discussion. In the same way our adversaries should be compelled to speak on the subject as presented. When the disputed point has been thoroughly understood, a decision about the arguments on both sides will be very easy.

[11] We showed in our Confession our belief that the Lord’s Supper does not give grace by the outward act (ex opere operato) and that, when applied on behalf of others, alive or dead, it does not merit for them the forgiveness of sins, guilt, or punishment by the outward act. [12] This position is supported by a clear and firm proof. It is impossible to receive the forgiveness of our sins because of our own work by the outward act. The terrors of sin and death must be overcome through faith when we comfort our hearts with the knowledge of Christ and believe that for His sake we are forgiven and that His merits and righteousness are granted to us, “since we have been justified by faith, we have peace” (Romans 5:1). These things are so sure and so firm that they can stand against all the gates of hell [Matthew 16:18].

[13] If we are to say only as much as is necessary, the main point has already been stated. No sane person can accept that pharisaic and pagan opinion about the outward act (opus operatum). Yet, this opinion still exists among the people and has increased countlessly the number of Masses. For Masses are purchased to reconcile God’s anger, and by this work they want to receive the forgiveness of guilt and of punishment. They want to obtain whatever is necessary in every kind of life. They even want to free the dead. Monks and philosophers have taught this pharisaic opinion in the Church.

[14] Although our main point has already been stated, because the adversaries foolishly pervert many Scripture passages to defend their errors, we will add a few things on this topic. In the Confutation, they said many things about “sacrifice,” although we purposely avoided this term in our Confession because of its ambiguity. We have presented what those persons (whose abuses we now condemn) understand by “sacrifice.” To explain the Scripture passages that have been wickedly perverted, we must first present what a sacrifice is. [15] For ten years the adversaries have published many volumes about sacrifice, and yet not one of them so far has defined sacrifice. They only grab the word sacrifices either from the Scriptures or the Fathers. Afterward, they add their own thoughts, as though a sacrifice means whatever they please.

What Is a Sacrifice, The Kinds of Sacrifice

[16] In the Phaedrus of Plato, Socrates says that he is especially fond of distinctions, because without these nothing in speech can either be explained or understood. If he discovers anyone skilful in making distinctions, he says that he pays attention and follows his footsteps as those of a god. (He instructs the one to separate the parts of speech in their very joints. So like an inept cook, he breaks some part of speech to pieces.) But the adversaries truly hate these basic rules and, according to Plato, are truly poor butchers. For they break the parts of “sacrifice.” This can be understood when we have listed the kinds of sacrifice. [17] Theologians are rightly familiar with distinguishing between a Sacrament and a sacrifice. Therefore, let them be subdivided into either a ceremony or a sacred work. [18] A Sacrament is a ceremony or work in which God presents to us what the promise of the ceremony offers. Baptism is not a work that we offer to God. It is a work in which God baptizes us. In other words, a minister baptizes us on God’s behalf. God here offers and presents the forgiveness of sins, and so forth, according to the promise “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). A sacrifice, on the contrary, is a ceremony or work that we give to God in order to provide Him honor.

[19] Furthermore, there are two kinds of sacrifice and no more. One is the atoning sacrifice, that is, a work that makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment. It reconciles God, or reconciles His wrath and merits the forgiveness of sins for others. The other kind is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does not merit the forgiveness of sins or reconciliation. It is practiced by those who have been reconciled, so that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the forgiveness of sins that has been received, or for other benefits received.

[20] In this controversy, as well as in many other discussions, we should especially have these two kinds of sacrifice in view and present them. Special care must be taken lest they should be confused. (If the limits of this book would permit it, we would add the reasons for this distinction. It has many references in the Epistle to the Hebrews and elsewhere.) [21] All Levitical sacrifices can be referred to either of these two distinctions as if [they were] their own homes. In the Law certain sacrifices were named atoning because of their meaning or by comparison. They were not called sacrifice because they merited the forgiveness of sins before God, but because they merited the forgiveness of sins according to the righteousness of the Law, so that those for whom they were made might not be excluded from that commonwealth ‹from the people of Israel›. Therefore, for a trespass, the sacrifices were called sin offerings and burnt offerings. But the eucharistic sacrifices were the grain offering, the drink offering, thank offerings, firstfruits, tithes [Leviticus 1–7].

[22] In fact there has been only one atoning sacrifice in the world, namely, Christ’s death, as the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (10:4). A little later, of the will of Christ, “By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body” (10:10). [23] Isaiah interprets the Law, so that we may know Christ’s death is truly a satisfaction for our sins, or remedy, and that the ceremonies of the Law are not. He says, “When his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring,” and so on (Isaiah 53:10). The word used here means a victim for transgression (asham). In the Law this illustrated that a certain Victim was to come to make satisfaction for our sins and reconcile God. This was so that people might know that God wishes to be reconciled to us, not because of our own righteousnesses, but because of another’s merits: Christ. Paul interprets the same word (asham) as sin, “For sin, he condemned sin” (Romans 8:3), that is, He punished sin for sin, that is, by a Victim for sin. The meaning of the word is more easily understood from pagan customs. These were adopted from their misunderstanding of statements by the Fathers. The Latins called a victim a piaculum, which was offered to reconcile God’s anger in great calamities, where He seemed to be especially enraged. Sometimes they sacrificed human victims, perhaps because they had heard that a human victim would reconcile God for the entire human race. The Greeks sometimes called them cleansing (katharmata)and sometimes wiping away (peripsemata). Isaiah and Paul, therefore, mean that Christ became a victim, that is, a remedy, that by His merits, and not by our own, God might be reconciled. [24] Let this remain the case: Christ’s death alone is truly an atoning sacrifice. For the Levitical atoning sacrifices were so called only to illustrate a future remedy. Because of a certain resemblance they were satisfactions delivering the righteousness of the Law and preventing those persons who sinned from being excluded from the commonwealth. But after the revelation of the Gospel, those sacrifices had to end. Since they had to end in the revelation of the Gospel, they were not true atoning sacrifices, for the Gospel was promised specifically to present an atoning sacrifice.

[25] Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise (Leviticus 3; 7:11[–18]; Psalm 56:12). These are the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the troubles of saints, yes, all good works of saints. These sacrifices are not satisfactions for those making them, nor can they be applied to others to merit the forgiveness of sins or reconciliation by the outward act (ex opere operato). They are made by those who have been reconciled. [26] These are the sacrifices of the New Testament, as Peter teaches, “a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices” (1 Peter 2:5). Spiritual sacrifices, however, are contrasted not only with those of cattle, but even with human works offered by the outward act, because spiritual refers to the movements of the Holy Spirit in us. Paul teaches the same thing, “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1). “Spiritual worship” means, however, a service in which God is known and is grasped by the mind. This happens in the movements of fear and trust toward God. Therefore, it contrasts not only with the Levitical service, in which cattle are slain, but also with a service in which a work is imagined to be offered by the outward act. The Epistle to the Hebrews teaches the same thing, “Through Him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God” (13:15). He adds the interpretation, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. He asks us to offer praises, that is, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, and the like. These benefit not by the outward act, but because of faith. This is taught by the clause “Through Him then let us continually offer,” that is, by faith in Christ.

[27] In short, the worship of the New Testament is spiritual. It is the righteousness of faith in the heart and the fruit of faith. New Testament worship sets aside Levitical services. Christ says, “True worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship Him. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:23–24). This passage clearly condemns opinions about sacrifices that, as the adversaries imagine, benefit by the outward act (ex opere operato). In contrast, it teaches that people should worship in spirit, that is, with the inclinations of the heart and by faith. [28] So, even in the Old Testament, the prophets condemn the opinion of the people about the outward act (opus operatum) and teach the righteousness and sacrifices of the Spirit. “I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God,’” and so on (Jeremiah 7:22–23). How do we suppose that the Jews received this charge, which seems to conflict openly with Moses? God clearly gave the fathers commands about burnt offerings and victims. But Jeremiah condemns the opinion about sacrifices that God had not delivered, namely, that these services please Him by the outward act. Concerning faith, he adds that God had commanded this: “Hear Me,” that is, “believe Me that I am your God, and that I wish to be known when I care for you and help you. I do not need your sacrificial victims. Believe that I want to be God the Justifier and Savior, not because of works, but because of My Word and promise. Truly seek and expect help from Me from the heart.”

[29] Psalm 50:13–15, which rejects sacrificial victims and requires prayer, also condemns the opinion about the outward act (opus operatum): “Do I eat the flesh of bulls …?” “Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify Me.” The psalmist testifies that this is true service and true honor if we call upon Him from the heart.

Likewise, “Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but You have given me an open ear” (Psalm 40:6), that is, “You have offered me Your Word that I may hear it, and You do require that I believe Your Word and Your promises. You truly desire to care for me and to help,” and so on. Likewise, “You will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, You will not despise” (Psalm 51:16–17). “Offer right sacrifices, and put your trust in the LORD” (Psalm 4:5). He asks us to hope, and says that this is a righteous sacrifice, meaning that other sacrifices are not true and righteous sacrifices. And, “I will offer to You the sacrifice of thanksgiving and call on the name of the LORD” (Psalm 116:17).

[30] Scripture is full of such references that teach that sacrifices by the outward act (ex opere operato) do not reconcile God. Since Levitical services have been repealed, the New Testament teaches that new and pure sacrifices will be made: faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the preaching of the Gospel, troubles on account of the Gospel, and the like.

[31] Malachi speaks about these sacrifices, “For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to My name, and a pure offering” (1:11). The adversaries perversely apply this passage to the Mass and quote the authority of the Fathers. A reply, however, is easy. Even if this passage spoke most particularly about the Mass, it would not make sense that the Mass justifies by the outward act (ex opere operato) or that, when applied to others, it merits the forgiveness of sins. The prophet says nothing about those things that the monks and philosophers rudely make up. [32] Besides, the very words of the prophet express his meaning. First, his words say this: the name of the Lord will be great. This is accomplished by the preaching of the Gospel. Through this preaching, Christ’s name is made known and the Father’s mercy, promised in Christ, is recognized. The preaching of the Gospel produces faith in those who receive the Gospel [Romans 10:17]. They call upon God, give thanks to God, bear troubles for their confession, and produce good works for Christ’s glory. So the name of the Lord becomes great among the Gentiles [Malachi 1:11]. Therefore, incense and a pure offering means not a ceremony by the outward act, but all those sacrifices through which the name of the Lord becomes great: faith, invocation, the preaching of the Gospel, confession, and so on. [33] If anyone would have this term include the ceremony ‹of the Mass›, we readily concede it, provided he neither understands the ceremony alone nor teaches that the ceremony benefits by the outward act. We include the preaching of the Word among the sacrifices of praise, that is, among the praises of God. So the reception itself of the Lord’s Supper can be praise or thanksgiving. But it does not justify by the outward act, neither is it to be applied to others to merit the forgiveness of sins for them. Later we will explain how even a ceremony is a sacrifice. Malachi speaks about all the services of the New Testament, and not only about the Lord’s Supper. Likewise, since he does not favor the pharisaic opinion of the outward act (opus operatum), he is not against us, but rather helps us. He requires services of the heart, through which the name of the Lord becomes truly great.

[34] Another passage also is cited from Malachi, “He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness” (3:3). This passage clearly requires the sacrifices of the righteous, and so does not favor the opinion about the outward act (opus operatum). But the sacrifices of the sons of Levi, that is, of those teaching in the New Testament, are the preaching of the Gospel and the good fruit of preaching. About this Paul says, “To be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15:16). He means that the Gentiles may be offerings acceptable to God through faith. In the Law the slaying of victims illustrated both Christ’s death and the preaching of the Gospel, by which this old flesh should be put to death and new and eternal life be begun in us.

But everywhere the adversaries wrongly apply the name sacrifice to the ceremony alone. They leave out the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, and similar things, although the ceremony has been established because of these. The New Testament should have sacrifices of the heart, not ceremonies for sin that are to be performed like the Levitical priesthood.

[35] They cite also the daily sacrifice. (See Exodus 29:38–39; Daniel 8:11; 12:11.) Just as there was a daily sacrifice in the Law, so the Mass should be a daily sacrifice of the New Testament. The adversaries have made out well if we allow ourselves to be overcome by allegories. Clearly allegories do not produce firm proofs. We readily allow the Mass to be understood as a daily sacrifice, as long as that includes the entire Mass: the ceremony with the preaching of the Gospel, faith, invocation, and thanksgiving. Joined together, these are a daily sacrifice of the New Testament because the ceremony ‹of the Mass, or the Lord’s Supper,› was set up because of these things. The Mass is not to be separated from them. So Paul says, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). But it cannot be shown from this Levitical type that a ceremony justifying by the outward work (ex opere operato) is necessary, or should be applied on behalf of others, that it may merit the forgiveness of sins for them.

[36] The type represents appropriately not only the ceremony, but also the preaching of the Gospel. In Numbers 28:4–8, three parts of that daily sacrifice are represented: the burning of the lamb, the drink offering, and the offering of wheat flour. The Law had pictures or shadows of future things [Colossians 2:17]. So Christ and the entire worship of the New Testament are shown in this picture. The burning of the lamb illustrates Christ’s death. The drink offering illustrates that everywhere in the entire world, by the preaching of the Gospel, believers are sprinkled with the blood of that Lamb, that is, sanctified. Peter says, “In the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood” (1 Peter 1:2). The offering of wheat flour means faith, prayer, and thanksgiving in hearts. [37] Therefore, in the Old Testament, the shadow is discerned. In the New, the thing illustrated should be sought, and not another type, as sufficient for a sacrifice.

[38] Although a ceremony is a memorial of Christ’s death, it alone is not the daily sacrifice. The memory itself is the daily sacrifice, that is, preaching and faith. Faith truly believes that, by Christ’s death, God has been reconciled. A drink offering is required, that is, 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. Offerings also are required, that is, thanksgiving, confessions, and troubles.

[39] The pharisaic opinion of the outward act (opus operatum) being cast aside, let us understand that spiritual worship and a daily sacrifice of the heart are meant, because in the New Testament the substance of good things should be sought for. This means the Holy Spirit, putting the flesh to death, and new life. [40] These things should make it clear that the type of the daily sacrifice declares nothing against us, but rather for us, because we look for all the parts illustrated by the daily sacrifice. The adversaries falsely imagine that the ceremony alone is meant, and not also the preaching of the Gospel, putting the flesh to death, and enlivening of heart, and so forth.

[41] Now, good people, it can easily be determined that the complaint against us—that we abolish the daily sacrifice—is entirely false. Experience shows what sort of Antiochi they are who hold power in the Church. Under the appearance of religion, they assume to themselves the kingdom of the world. They rule without concern for religion and the teaching of the Gospel. They wage war like kings of the world, and they set up new services in the Church. [42] The adversaries keep only the ceremony in the Mass and publicly apply this to sacrilegious gain. Afterward, they misrepresent that this work, as applied for others, merits grace and all good things for them. [43] They do not teach the Gospel in their sermons, they do not comfort consciences, they do not show that sins are freely forgiven for Christ’s sake. Rather, they present the worship of saints, human satisfactions, and human traditions, and they affirm that people are justified before God by these. Although some of these traditions are clearly godless, they still defend them by violence. If any preacher wants to be regarded as more learned, he presents 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 about the righteousness of faith.

[44] In the Confutation, the adversaries fuss over the desertion of churches. Altars stand unadorned, lacking candles and images. They regard these trifles as ornaments to churches. [45] It is a far different desertion that Daniel means (11:31; 12:11), namely, ignorance of the Gospel. Overwhelmed by the multitude and variety of traditions and opinions, the people were in no way able to welcome the sum of Christian doctrine. [46] Among the people, who ever understood the doctrine of repentance as presented by the adversaries? Yet this is the chief topic of Christian doctrine.

Consciences were tormented by the listing of offenses and by satisfactions. The adversaries never mention faith, by which we freely receive the forgiveness of sins. All the books and all the sermons of the adversaries were silent about the exercises of faith, struggling with despair, and the free forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake. [47] To these, the horrible profanation of the Masses and many other godless services in the churches were added. This is the desertion described by Daniel.

[48] On the contrary, by God’s favor, our priests attend to the ministry of the Word, teach the Gospel about Christ’s blessings, and show that the forgiveness of sins happens freely for Christ’s sake. This doctrine brings sure comfort to consciences. The doctrine of good works that God commands is also added. The worth and use of the Sacraments are declared.

[49] If the daily sacrifice was the proper use of the Sacrament, we would keep the sacrifice. The adversaries would not. For their priests use the Sacrament to make money. There is a more frequent and more conscientious use. The people use it after having first been instructed and examined. People are taught about the true use of the Sacrament. It was set up to be a seal and testimony of the free forgiveness of sins, and so that it should remind alarmed consciences to be truly confident and believe that their sins are freely forgiven. Since we keep both the preaching of the Gospel and the lawful use of the Sacrament, the daily sacrifice remains with us.

[50] If we must speak of outward appearances, Church attendance among us is better than among the adversaries. The audiences are held by useful and clear sermons. (Neither the people nor the teachers have ever understood the doctrine of the adversaries.) ‹There is nothing that keeps people at church more than good preaching.› [51] The true adornment of the churches is godly, useful, and clear doctrine, the devout use of the Sacraments, fervent prayer, and the like. Candles, golden vessels, and similar adornments are fitting, but they are not the specifically unique adornment belonging to the Church. If the adversaries make these things the focus of worship, and not the preaching of the Gospel, in faith (and the struggles of faith) they are to be numbered among those whom Daniel describes as worshiping their god with gold and silver [Daniel 11:38].

[52] They quote also from the Epistle to the Hebrews, “For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins” (5:1). They conclude that, since there are high priests and priests in the New Testament, that means there is also a sacrifice for sins. This passage particularly impresses the unlearned, especially when the showiness of the priesthood and the sacrifices of the Old Testament are spread before the eyes. This resemblance deceives the ignorant, so that they decide that a ceremonial sacrifice should also exist among us in the same way, which should be applied for the sins of others, like in the Old Testament. The service of the Mass and the rest of the polity of the pope is nothing more than false zeal for the misunderstood Levitical order.

[53] The main proofs for our belief are in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Yet, the adversaries twist mutilated passages from this Epistle against us, as in this very passage, where it is said that every high priest is ordained to offer sacrifices for sins. Scripture immediately adds that Christ is the High Priest (Hebrews 5:5–6, 10). The preceding words speak about the Levitical priesthood and show that the Levitical priesthood was an image of Christ’s priesthood. The Levitical sacrifices for sins did not merit the forgiveness of sins before God. They were only an image of Christ’s sacrifice, which was to be the one atoning sacrifice, as we said before. [54] To a great extent the Epistle speaks about how the ancient priesthood and the ancient sacrifices were set up not to merit the forgiveness of sins before God or reconciliation, but only to illustrate the future sacrifice of Christ alone. [55] In the Old Testament, saints had to be justified by faith, which receives the promise of the forgiveness of sins granted for Christ’s sake, just as saints are also justified in the New Testament. From the beginning of the world all saints had to believe that Christ would be the promised offering and satisfaction for sins, as Isaiah 53:10 teaches, “when His soul makes an offering for sin.”

[56] In the Old Testament, sacrifices did not merit reconciliation, except as a picture (for they merited civil reconciliation), but they illustrated the coming sacrifice. This means 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.

[57] Those who imagine that Levitical sacrifices merited the forgiveness of sins before God, and by this example require sacrifices in the New Testament that are to be applied on behalf of others in addition to Christ’s death, are completely mistaken. This imagination absolutely destroys the merit of Christ’s passion and the righteousness of faith, and it corrupts the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments. Instead of Christ, it makes for us other mediators and atonement makers out of the priests and sacrificers, who daily sell their work in the churches.

[58] If anyone argues that in the New Testament a priest is needed to make offering for sins, this can only be said about Christ. The entire Epistle to the Hebrews confirms this explanation. In addition to Christ’s death, if we were to look for any other satisfaction that applies to the sins of others and so to reconcile God, this would be nothing more than to make other mediators in addition to Christ. [59] The priesthood of the New Testament is the Spirit’s ministry, as Paul teaches (2 Corinthians 3:6). So it has only Christ’s one sacrifice, which is enough and applies to the sins of others. Besides, this priesthood has no sacrifices like the Levitical order, which could be applied by the outward act (ex opere operato) to others. Rather, it offers the Gospel and the Sacraments to others, so that they may conceive faith and the Holy Spirit through them and be brought from death to life. So the Spirit’s ministry conflicts with the application of an outward act (opus operatum). The Spirit’s ministry is that through which the Holy Spirit is powerful in hearts. Therefore, this ministry is beneficial to others when it is powerful in them and regenerates and enlivens them. This does not happen by applying someone’s work to another.

[60] We have shown why the Mass does not justify by the outward act (ex opere operato) and why, when applied to others, it does not merit forgiveness. This is because both conflict with the righteousness of faith. For it is impossible that sins should be forgiven and the terrors of death and sin be overcome by anything other than faith in Christ, according to Romans 5:1, “Since we have been justified by faith, we have peace.”

[61] Also, we have shown that the Scriptures, which are quoted against us, do not approve the godless opinion of the adversaries about the outward act (opus operatum). Every person everywhere can determine this. [62] Therefore, Thomas’s error is to be rejected. He wrote:

[63] The other common errors are also to be rejected, such as that the Mass by the outward act (ex opere operato) gives grace to the one using it. Or, that when the Mass is applied for others (even wicked persons, provided they do not introduce an obstacle), it merits the forgiveness of sins, guilt, and punishment for them. All these things are false and godless and are recently invented by unlearned monks. They cloud over the glory of Christ’s passion and the righteousness of faith.

[64] From these errors sprang countless others, such as Masses benefit when applied for many, just as much as when applied individually. The philosophers have particular degrees of merit, just as moneychangers have varying weights for gold or silver. Besides, they sell the Mass as the cost for receiving what each one seeks. Merchants pay so that business may be prosperous, hunters so that hunting may be successful, and countless other things. Finally, they also apply it to the dead. By applying the Sacrament, they free souls from the pains of purgatory, even though the Mass does not even help the living without faith. [65] The adversaries are unable to produce even one syllable from the Scriptures to defend these fables, which they teach with great authority in the Church. They do not have the testimonies of the ancient Church or of the Fathers.

What the Fathers Thought about Sacrifice

[66] Since we have explained the Scripture passages that are quoted against us, we must also reply about the Fathers. We know well that the Fathers call the Mass a sacrifice. Yet, they do not mean that the Mass gives grace by the outward act (ex opere operato) and that, when applied to others, it merits the forgiveness of sins, guilt, and punishment for them. Where can such freakish stories be found in the Fathers? The adversaries openly declare that they speak about thanksgiving. So they call it a eucharist. [67] However, we have said before that a eucharistic sacrifice does not merit reconciliation, but is made by those who have been reconciled, just as troubles do not merit reconciliation, but are eucharistic sacrifices when those who have been reconciled tolerate them.

In general, this reply to the sayings of the Fathers defends us well enough against the adversaries. Certainly these daydreams about the merit of the outward act (opus operatum) cannot be found in the Fathers. But so that the whole matter may be better understood, we will also state those things that actually agree with the Fathers and Scripture about the use of the Sacrament.

The Use of the Sacrament and of the Sacrifice

[68] Some clever men imagine that the Lord’s Supper was set up for two reasons. First, that it might be a mark and reference of profession, just as a particular shape of a hood is the sign of a particular monastic profession. Second, they think that such a mark was especially pleasing to Christ, namely, a feast to illustrate mutual union and friendship among Christians, because banquets are signs of covenant and friendship. But this is a secular view. It does not show the chief use of the things delivered by God. It speaks only about the exercise of love, which people, however profane and worldly, understand. It does not speak of faith, the nature of which few understand.

[69] The Sacraments are signs of God’s will toward us and not merely signs of people among one another. Those who define Sacraments in the New Testament as signs of grace are correct. There are two things in a Sacrament: a sign and the Word. In the New Testament, the Word is the promise of grace added. The promise of the New Testament is the promise of the forgiveness of sins, “This is My body, which is given for you. This [cup] is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” [See Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20;
1 Corinthians 11:24–25.] [70] So the Word offers the forgiveness of sins. A ceremony is a sort of picture, or seal, as Paul (Romans 4:11) calls it, the Word making known the promise. Therefore, just as the promise is useless unless it is received through faith, so a ceremony is useless unless faith, which is truly confident that the forgiveness of sins is here offered, is added. This faith encourages penitent minds. Just as the Word has been given to excite this faith, so the Sacrament has been set up so that what meets the eyes might move the heart to believe. The Holy Spirit works through these: Word and Sacrament.

[71] Such a use of the Sacrament, in which faith enlivens terrified hearts, is a service of the New Testament. That is because the New Testament requires spiritual inclinations, making dead and alive. Christ instituted the Sacrament for this use, since He commanded the disciples to do this in remembrance of Him. [72] Remembering Christ is not the useless celebration of a show. It is not something set up for the sake of example, as the memory of Hercules or Ulysses is celebrated in tragedies. Rather, it is remembering Christ’s benefits and receiving them through faith, to be enlivened by them. So Psalm 111:4–5 says, “He has caused His wondrous works to be remembered; the LORD is gracious and merciful. He provides food for those who fear Him.” The Sacrament illustrates that God’s will and mercy should be discerned in the ceremony. [73] Faith that grasps mercy enlivens. This is the chief use of the Sacrament. It is clear who are fit for the Sacrament (namely, terrified consciences) and how they should use it.

[74] The sacrifice also is added. For there are several reasons with one purpose. After a conscience encouraged through faith has determined from what terrors it is freed, it fervently gives thanks for Christ’s benefit and passion. It also uses the ceremony itself to God’s praise, to show its gratitude by this obedience. It declares that it holds God’s gifts in high esteem. So the ceremony becomes a sacrifice of praise.

[75] The Fathers certainly speak of a twofold effect: the comfort of consciences and thanksgiving, or praise. The former of these effects has to do with the nature of the Sacrament; the latter has to do with the sacrifice. Ambrose says about comfort:

This passage declares that the forgiveness of sins is offered in the Sacrament. It also declares that this should be received through faith. Countless references with this meaning are found in the Fathers, all of which the adversaries pervert to the outward act (opus operatum) and to a work applied to others. Yet the Fathers clearly require faith and speak of the comfort belonging to everyone, and not of the application.

[76] Besides these, expressions are also found about thanksgiving. One beautiful expression by Cyprian is about those communing in a godly way. “Piety, in thanking the Bestower of such abundant blessing, makes a distinction between what has been given and what has been forgiven.” This means piety regards both what has been given and what has been forgiven, that is, it compares the greatness of God’s blessings and the greatness of our evils, sin and death, with each other, and gives thanks, and so on. In this way the term eucharist arose in the Church. [77] Certainly the ceremony itself—the giving of thanks by the outward act (ex opere operato)—does not apply to others. It does not merit the forgiveness of sins for others and free souls of the dead. These opinions conflict with the righteousness of faith. Without faith, a ceremony cannot benefit either the one performing it or others.

The Term Mass

[78] The adversaries also refer us to linguistics. They get arguments from the names of the Mass, which do not require a long discussion. For even though the Mass is called a sacrifice, it does not make sense that it must give grace by the outward act (ex opere operato) or, when applied to others, merits the forgiveness of sins for them. [79] Leitourgia, they say, means a sacrifice, and the Greeks call the Mass liturgy. (Why do they leave out here the old name synaxis, which shows that the Mass used to be the communion of many?) Let us discuss the word liturgy. [80] This word does not properly mean a sacrifice, but rather the public ministry. Liturgy agrees well with our belief that one minister who consecrates gives the Lord’s body and blood to the rest of the people, just as one minister who preaches offers the Gospel to the people. As Paul says, “This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Corinthians 4:1), that is, of the Gospel and the Sacraments. And, “We are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20). [81] So the term leitourgia agrees well with the ministry. For it is an old word, ordinarily used in public civil administrations. To the Greeks it meant public burdens, such as tribute, the expense of equipping a fleet, or similar things. For Leptines, the oration of Demosthenes, speaks about such things, discussing at length public duties and exemptions: “He will say that some unworthy men, having found an exemption, have withdrawn from public burdens.” And so they spoke in the time of the Romans, as the reply of Pertinax, On the Law of Exemption, shows: “Even though the number of children does not liberate parents from all public burdens.” And the Commentary on Demosthenes states that leitourgia is a kind of tribute, the expense of the games, the expense of equipping vessels, of attending to the gymnasia and similar public offices. [82] In 2 Corinthians 9:12, Paul uses it for a collection. Taking a collection not only supplies those things that the saints lack, but also causes them to give more thanks abundantly to God. In Philippians 2:25, he calls Epaphroditus a “minister to my need,” where certainly a sacrificer cannot be understood. [83] Further references are not needed, since examples are understandable for those reading the Greek writers, in whom leitourgia is used for public civil burdens or ministries. Because of the pair of vowels, grammarians do not get this term from lite, which means prayers, but from public goods, which they call leita, so that leitourgeo means “I pay attention to,” or “I administer public goods.”

[84] Their argument that, since the Holy Scriptures mention an altar, the Mass must be a sacrifice, is ridiculous. Paul refers to the figure of an altar only by comparison. [85] They invent the idea that the Mass was named from an altar (midzbeah). Why do they need such far-fetched sources for words unless they want to show their knowledge of the Hebrew language? Why seek the sources for words from a distance when the term Mass is found in Deuteronomy 16:10, where it means the collections or gifts of the people, not the offering of the priest? Individuals coming to the celebration of the Passover were obliged to bring some gift as a contribution. [86] Early Christians also kept this custom. Coming together, they brought bread, wine, and other things, as the canons of the apostles declare. From there a portion was taken to be consecrated; the rest was given out to the poor. With this custom they also kept Mass as the name of the contributions. Because of such contributions, it appears also that in other places the Mass was called agape, unless one would prefer that it was so called because of the common feast. [87] Let us leave out these silly things. It is ridiculous that the adversaries should produce such trifling guesses about such an important matter. Although the Mass is called an offering, how does the term favor the dreams about the outward act (opus operatum), and their application, which merits the forgiveness of sins for others? Can it be called an offering because prayers, thanksgivings, and the entire worship are offered there, as it is also called a eucharist? Neither ceremonies nor prayers benefit by the outward act (ex opere operato) without faith. We are not arguing here about prayers, but particularly about the Lord’s Supper.

[88] The Greek canon also says many things about the offering, but it plainly shows 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 this, “Make us worthy to bring to You prayers and requests and bloodless sacrifices on behalf of all people.” When this is rightly understood, it is not offensive. It prays that we be made worthy to offer prayers and supplications and bloodless sacrifices for the people. He calls even prayers “bloodless sacrifices.” Just as also a little afterward, “We offer,” he says, “this reasonable and bloodless service.” Those who would rather interpret this as a reasonable sacrifice, and transfer it to Christ’s very body, do so inappropriately. The canon speaks of the entire worship, and in opposition to the outward act (opus operatum) Paul has spoken of reasonable service (logike latreia; Romans 12:1), namely, of the worship of the mind, of fear, of faith, of prayer, of thanksgiving, and so on.

[The Mass for the Dead]

[89] Our adversaries have no references and no command from Scripture for defending the use of the ceremony for freeing the souls of the dead. Yet they receive unlimited revenue from this. Certainly it is no light sin to establish such services in the Church without God’s command and without the example of Scripture and to apply the Lord’s Supper to the dead. (It was set up for commemoration and preaching among the living.) This violates the Second Commandment by abusing God’s name.

First, it dishonors the Gospel to hold that a ceremony by the outward act (ex opere operato), without faith, is a sacrifice reconciling God and making satisfaction for sins. It is a horrible saying to assign as much importance to the work of a priest as to Christ’s death. Again, sin and death cannot be overcome except by faith in Christ, as Paul teaches, “Since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God” (Romans 5:1). Therefore, the punishment of purgatory cannot be overcome by applying to one person the work of another.

[90] Now we will leave out the sort of references about 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 empty. We will only present the following in opposition. Certainly the Lord’s Supper was set up because of the pardon of guilt. It offers the forgiveness of sins, where it is necessary that guilt be truly understood. Yet, it does not make satisfaction for guilt; otherwise, the Mass would be equal to Christ’s death. The pardon of guilt can be received only through faith. Therefore, the Mass is not a satisfaction, but a promise and Sacrament that require faith.

[91] Certainly all godly persons should be seized with the bitterest grief if they consider that the greater portion of the Mass has been transferred to the dead and to satisfactions for punishments. This banishes the daily sacrifice from the Church. This is the kingdom of Antiochus, who transferred the most beneficial promises about the pardon of guilt and about faith to the emptiest opinions about satisfactions. This pollutes the Gospel and corrupts the use of the Sacraments. Paul said that these persons are “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27). They have hindered the doctrine about faith and the forgiveness of sins and, under the appearance of satisfactions, have devoted the Lord’s body and blood to sacrilegious profit. At some time they will pay the penalty for this sacrilege. Therefore, we and all godly consciences should guard against approving the abuses of the adversaries.

[92] Let us return to the matter. The Mass is not a satisfaction, either for punishment or for guilt, without faith (ex opere operato). Therefore, applying it to the dead is useless. There is no need here of a longer discussion. Clearly these applications for the dead have no references from the Scriptures. Neither is it safe, without the authority of Scripture, to set up forms of worship in the Church. If it is ever necessary, we will speak at greater length about this entire subject. Why should we now argue with adversaries who misunderstand sacrifice, Sacrament, the forgiveness of sins, and faith?

[93] The Greek canon does not apply the offering as a satisfaction for the dead because it applies it equally for all the blessed patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. Apparently the Greeks make an offering as thanksgiving and do not apply it as satisfaction for punishments. Furthermore, they do not speak of offering solely the Lord’s body and blood, but of the other parts of the Mass, namely, prayers and thanksgiving. After the consecration they pray that it may benefit those who partake of it; they do not speak of others. Then they add:

“Reasonable service” [Romans 12:1], however, does not mean the offering itself, but prayers and all things that are preferred there. [94] Regarding the adversaries’ quoting the Fathers about the offering for the dead, we know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not ban. We disapprove of applying the Lord’s Supper for the dead by the outward act (ex opere operato). The ancients do not favor the adversaries regarding the outward act (opus operatum). Even though they have the references especially of Gregory or the moderns, we hold up to them the most clear and certain Scriptures. [95] There is a great diversity among the Fathers. They were men and could err and be deceived. If they were alive now and would see their sayings assigned as falsehood for the scandalous lies that the adversaries teach about the outward act (opus operatum), they would interpret themselves far differently.

[96] The adversaries also falsely quote against us the condemnation of Aerius, who, they say, was condemned for denying that an offering is made for the living and the dead in the Mass. They often use this clever turn: quote the ancient heresies and falsely compare our cause with them to crush us by this comparison. Epiphanius declares that Aerius maintained prayers for the dead are useless. He finds fault with this. We do not favor Aerius either, but we do argue with you because you defend a heresy that clearly conflicts with the prophets, apostles, and Holy Fathers. This heresy is that the Mass justifies by the outward act (ex opere operato), that when applied it merits the pardon of guilt and punishment even for the unjust if they do not present an obstacle. We object to these deadly errors, which divert people from the glory of Christ’s passion and entirely overthrow the doctrine about the righteousness of faith. [97] In the Law, the godless had a similar belief. That is, they believed they merited the forgiveness of sins, not freely through faith, but through sacrifices by the outward act. Therefore, they increased these services and sacrifices, set up the worship of Baal in Israel, and even sacrificed in the groves in Judah. Therefore, the prophets condemn this belief and war against not only the worshipers of Baal, but also other priests who made sacrifices ordained by God with this godless belief [cf. 1 Kings 18:1–40]. This belief, that such services and sacrifices atone, remains and always will remain in the world. Carnal people cannot tolerate that the honor of an atoning sacrifice belongs solely to Christ’s sacrifice because they do not understand the righteousness of faith. Rather, they assign equal honor to the rest of the services and sacrifices. [98] The godless priests in Judah held a false belief about such sacrifices; Baal worship even continued in Israel. Nevertheless, a Church of God was there that objected to these godless services [1 Kings 19:18]. Baal worship remains in the realm of the pope: the abuse of the Mass. By it they think they can merit the pardon of guilt and punishment for the unrighteous. It seems that this Baal worship will persist as long as the reign of the pope. It will continue until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of His return destroy the reign of the Antichrist [2 Thessalonians 2:1–8]. Meanwhile, all who truly believe the Gospel should condemn these wicked services. Against God’s command, they were created to cloud over Christ’s glory and the righteousness of faith.

[99] We have briefly said these things about the Mass for the following reasons. First, we hope that all good people everywhere understand that we keep the dignity of the Mass and show its true use with the greatest zeal. Second, our reasons for disagreeing with the adversaries are most just. Further, we would encourage all good people not to help the adversaries in the profanation of the Mass, burdening themselves with other people’s sin. This is an important cause and an important subject, no less important than the work of the prophet Elijah, who condemned the worship of Baal. We have presented this important discussion with the greatest restraint and now reply without using abusive words. But if the adversaries push us to collect all kinds of abuses of the Mass, we will not present the discussion with such toleration.