_What a Sacrifice Is, and What Are the Species of Sacrifice._
[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.
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.]