_Of the Mass for the Dead._
Our adversaries have no testimonies and no command from Scripture for
defending the application of the ceremony for liberating the souls of
the dead, although from this they derive infinite revenue. Nor,
indeed, is it a light sin to establish such services in the Church
without the command of God and without the example of Scripture, and
to apply to the dead the Lord's Supper, which was instituted for
commemoration and preaching among the living [for the purpose of
strengthening the faith of those who use the ceremony]. This is to
violate the Second Commandment, by abusing God's name.
For, in the first place, it is a dishonor to the Gospel to hold that
a ceremony _ex opere operato_, without faith, is a sacrifice
reconciling God, and making satisfaction for sins. It is a horrible
saying to ascribe as much to the work of a priest as to the death of
Christ. Again, sin and death cannot be overcome unless by faith in
Christ, as Paul teaches, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have
peace with God, and therefore the punishment of purgatory cannot be
overcome by the application of the work of another.
Now we shall omit the sort of testimonies concerning purgatory that
the adversaries have: what kinds of punishments they think there are
in purgatory, what grounds the doctrine of satisfactions has, which
we have shown above to be most vain. We shall only present this in
opposition: It is certain that the Lord's Supper was instituted on
account of the remission of guilt. For it offers the remission of
sins, where it is necessary that guilt be truly understood. [For
what consolation would we have if forgiveness of sin were here
offered us, and yet there would be no remission of guilt?] And
nevertheless it does not make satisfaction for guilt, otherwise the
Mass would be equal to the death of Christ. Neither can the
remission of guilt be received in any other way than by faith.
Therefore the Mass is not a satisfaction, but a promise and Sacrament
that require faith.
And, indeed, it is necessary that all godly persons be seized with
the most bitter grief [shed tears of blood, from anguish and sorrow]
if they consider that the Mass has been in great part transferred to
the dead and to satisfactions for punishments. This is to banish the
daily sacrifice from the Church; this is the kingdom of Antiochus,
who transferred the most salutary promises concerning the remission
of guilt and concerning faith to the most vain opinions concerning
satisfactions; this is to defile the Gospel, to corrupt the use of
the Sacraments. These are the persons [the real blasphemers] whom
Paul has said, 1 Cor. 11, 27, to be guilty of the body and blood of
the Lord, who have suppressed the doctrine concerning faith and the
remission of sins, and, under the pretext of satisfactions, have
devoted the body and blood of the Lord to sacrilegious gain. And
they will at some time pay the penalty for this sacrilege. [God will
one day vindicate the Second Commandment, and pour out a great,
horrible wrath upon them.] Therefore we and all godly consciences
should be on our guard against approving the abuses of the
adversaries.
But let us return to the case. Since the Mass is not a satisfaction,
either for punishment or for guilt, _ex opere operato_, without faith,
it follows that the application on behalf of the dead is useless.
Nor is there need here of a longer discussion. For it is evident
that these applications on behalf of the dead have no testimonies
from the Scriptures. Neither is it safe, without the authority of
Scripture, to institute forms of worship in the Church. And if it
will at any time be necessary, we shall speak at greater length
concerning this entire subject. For why should we now contend with
adversaries who understand neither what a sacrifice, nor what a
sacrament, nor what remission of sins, nor what faith is?
Neither does the Greek canon apply the offering as a satisfaction for
the dead, because it applies it equally for all the blessed
patriarchs, prophets, apostles. It appears therefore that the Greeks
make an offering as thanksgiving, and do not apply it as satisfaction
for punishments. [For, of course, it is not their intention to
deliver the prophets and apostles from purgatory, but only to offer
up thanks along and together with them for the exalted eternal
blessings that have been given to them and us.] Although they speak,
moreover, not of the offering alone of the body and blood of the Lord,
but of the other parts of the Mass, namely, prayers and thanksgiving.
For after the consecration they pray that it may profit those who
partake of it, they do not speak of others. Then they add: _Eti
prospheromen soi tehn logikehn tautehn latreian huper tohn en pistei
anapausamenohn propatorohn, paterohn, patriarchohn, prophertohn,
apostolohn_, etc. ["Yet we offer to you this reasonable service for
those having departed in faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs
prophets, apostles," etc.] Reasonable service, however, does not
signify the offering itself, but prayers and all things which are
there transacted. Now, as regards the adversaries' citing the
Fathers concerning the offering for the dead, we know that the
ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit, but
we disapprove of the application _ex opere operato_ of the Lord's
Supper on behalf of the dead. Neither do the ancients favor the
adversaries concerning the _opus operatum_. And even though they
have the testimonies especially of Gregory or the moderns, we oppose
to them the most clear and certain Scriptures. And there is a great
diversity among the Fathers. They were men, and could err and be
deceived. Although if they would now become alive again, and would
see their sayings assigned as pretexts for the notorious falsehoods
which the adversaries teach concerning the opus operatum, they would
interpret themselves far differently.
The adversaries also falsely cite against us the condemnation of
Aerius, who, they say was condemned for the reason that he denied
that in the Mass an offering is made for the living and the dead.
They frequently use this dexterous turn, cite the ancient heresies
and falsely compare our cause with these in order by this comparison
to crush us. [The asses are not ashamed of any lies. Nor do they
know who Aerius was and what he taught.] Epiphanius testifies that
Aerius held that prayers for the dead are useless. With this he
finds fault. Neither do we favor Aerius, but we on our part are
contending with you who are defending a heresy manifestly conflicting
with the prophets, apostles and holy Fathers, namely, that the Mass
justifies _ex opere operato_, that it merits the remission of guilt
and punishment even for the unjust, to whom it is applied, if they do
not present an obstacle. Of these pernicious errors, which detract
from the glory of Christ's passion, and entirely overthrow the
doctrine concerning the righteousness of faith, we disapprove. There
was a similar persuasion of the godless in the Law, namely, that they
merited the remission of sins, not freely by faith, but through
sacrifices _ex opere operato_. Therefore they increased these
services and sacrifices, instituted the worship of Baal in Israel,
and even sacrificed in the groves in Judah. Therefore the prophets
condemn this opinion, and wage war not only with the worshipers of
Baal, but also with other priests who, with this godless opinion,
made sacrifices ordained by God. But this opinion inheres in the
world, and always will inhere namely, that services and sacrifices
are propitiations. Carnal men cannot endure that alone to the
sacrifice of Christ the honor is ascribed that it is a propitiation,
because they do not understand the righteousness of faith, but
ascribe equal honor to the rest of the services and sacrifices. Just
as, therefore, in Judah among the godless priests a false opinion
concerning sacrifices inhered, just as in Israel, Baalitic services
continued, and, nevertheless, a Church of God was there which
disapproved of godless services, so Baalitic worship inheres in the
domain of the Pope, namely, the abuse of the Mass, which they apply,
that by it they may merit for the unrighteous the remission of guilt
and punishment. [And yet, as God still kept His Church, i.e., some
saints, in Israel and Judah, so God still preserved His Church, i.e.,
some saints, under the Papacy, so that the Christian Church has not
entirely perished.] And it seems that this Baalitic worship will
endure as long as the reign of the Pope, until Christ will come to
judge, and by the glory of His advent destroy the reign of Antichrist.
Meanwhile all who truly believe the Gospel [that they may truly
honor God and have a constant comfort against sins; for God has
graciously caused His Gospel to shine, that we might be warned and
saved] ought to condemn these wicked services, devised, contrary to
God's command, in order to obscure the glory of Christ and the
righteousness of faith.
We have briefly said these things of the Mass in order that all good
men in all parts of the world may be able to understand that with the
greatest zeal we maintain the dignity of the Mass and show its true
use, and that we have the most just reasons for dissenting from the
adversaries. And we would have all good men admonished not to aid
the adversaries in the profanation of the Mass lest they burden
themselves with other men's sin. It is a great cause and a great
subject not inferior to the transaction of the prophet Elijah, who
condemned the worship of Baal. We have presented a case of such
importance with the greatest moderation, and now reply without
casting any reproach. But if the adversaries will compel us to
collect all kinds of abuses of the Mass, the case will not be treated
with such forbearance.