The Apology of the Augsburg Confession Part 12

Neither does Christ or Paul praise virginity because it justifies, but because it is freer and less distracted with domestic occupations, in praying, teaching, [writing,] serving. For this reason Paul says, 1 Cor. 7, 32: He that is unmarried careth for the things which belong to the Lord. Virginity, therefore, is praised on account of meditation and study. Thus Christ does not simply praise those who make themselves eunuchs, but adds, for the kingdom of heaven's sake, i.e., that they may have leisure to learn or teach the Gospel; for He does not say that virginity merits the remission of sins or salvation.

To the examples of the Levitical priests we have replied that they do not establish the duty of imposing perpetual celibacy upon the priests. Furthermore, the Levitical impurities are not to be transferred to us. [The law of Moses, with the ceremonial statutes concerning what is clean or unclean, do not at all concern us Christians.] Then intercourse contrary to the Law was an impurity.

Now it is not impurity, because Paul says, t.i.tus 1, 15: Unto the pure all things are pure. For the Gospel frees us from these Levitical impurities [from all the ceremonies of Moses, and not alone from the laws concerning uncleanness]. And if any one defends the law of celibacy with the design to burden consciences by these Levitical observances, we must strive against this, just as the apostles in Acts 15, 10 sqq. strove against those who required circ.u.mcision and endeavored to impose the Law of Moses upon Christians.

Yet, in the mean while, good men will know how to control the use of marriage, especially when they are occupied with public offices, which often, indeed, give good men so much labor as to expel all domestic thoughts from their minds. [For to be burdened with great affairs and transactions, which concern commonwealths and nations, governments and churches, is a good remedy to keep the old Adam from l.u.s.tfulness.] Good men know also this, that Paul, 1 Thess. 4, 4, commands that every one possess his vessel in sanctification [and honor, not in the l.u.s.t of concupiscence]. They know likewise that they must sometimes retire, in order that there may be leisure for prayer, but Paul does not wish this to be perpetual, 1 Cor. 7, 5. Now such continence is easy to those who are good and occupied. But this great crowd of unemployed priests which is in the fraternities cannot afford, in this voluptuousness, even this Levitical continence, as the facts show. [On the other hand, what sort of chast.i.ty can there be among so many thousands of monks and priests who live without worry in all manner of delights, being idle and full, and, moreover, have not the Word of G.o.d, do not learn it, and have no regard for it.

Such conditions bring on all manner of inchast.i.ty. Such people can observe neither Levitical nor perpetual chast.i.ty.] And the lines are well known: The boy accustomed to pursue a slothful life hates those who are busy.

Many heretics understanding the Law of Moses incorrectly have treated marriage with contempt, for whom, nevertheless, celibacy has gained extraordinary admiration. And Epiphanius complains that, by this commendation especially, the Encrat.i.tes captured the minds of the unwary. They abstained from wine even in the Lord's Supper; they abstained from the flesh of all animals, in which they surpa.s.sed the Dominican brethren who live upon fish. They abstained also from marriage; and just this gained the chief admiration. These works, these services, they thought, merited grace more than the use of wine and flesh, and than marriage, which seemed to be a profane and unclean matter, and which scarcely could please G.o.d, even though it were not altogether condemned.

Paul to the Colossians, 2, 18, greatly disapproves these angelic forms of wors.h.i.+p. For when men believe that they are pure and righteous on account of such hypocrisy, they suppress the knowledge of Christ, and suppress also the knowledge of G.o.d's gifts and commandments. For G.o.d wishes us to use His gifts in a G.o.dly way.

And we might mention examples where certain G.o.dly consciences were greatly disturbed on account of the lawful use of marriage. This evil was derived from the opinions of monks superst.i.tiously praising celibacy [and proclaiming the married estate as a life that would be a great obstacle to salvation, and full of sins]. Nevertheless we do not find fault with temperance or continence, but we have said above that exercises and mortifications of the body are necessary. We indeed deny that confidence should be placed in certain observances, as though they made righteous. And Epiphanies has elegantly said that these observances ought to be praised dia tehn egkrateian kai dia tehn politeian, i.e., for restraining the body or on account of public morals; just as certain rites were inst.i.tuted for instructing the ignorant, and not as services that justify.

But it is not through superst.i.tion that our adversaries require celibacy, for they know that chast.i.ty is not ordinarily rendered [that at Rome, also in all their monasteries, there is nothing but undisguised, unconcealed inchast.i.ty. Nor do they seriously intend to lead chaste lives, but knowingly practise hypocrisy before the people]. But they feign superst.i.tious opinions, so as to delude the ignorant. They are therefore more worthy of hatred than the Encrat.i.tes, who seem to have erred by show of religion; these Sardanapali [Epicureans] designedly misuse the pretext of religion.

Sixthly. Although we have so many reasons for disapproving the law of perpetual celibacy, yet, besides these, dangers to souls and public scandals also are added, which even, though the law were not unjust, ought to deter good men from approving such a burden as has destroyed innumerable souls.

For a long time all good men [their own bishops and canons] have complained of this burden, either on their own account, or on account of others whom they saw to be in danger. But no Popes give ear to these complaints. Neither is it doubtful how greatly injurious to public morals this law is, and what vices and shameful l.u.s.ts it has produced. The Roman satires are extant. In these Rome still recognizes and reads its own morals.

Thus G.o.d avenges the contempt of His own gift and ordinance in those who prohibit marriage. But since the custom in regard to other laws was that they should be changed if manifest utility would advise it, why is the same not done with respect to this law, in which so many weighty reasons concur, especially in these last times, why a change ought to be made? Nature is growing old and is gradually becoming weaker, and vices are increasing; wherefore the remedies divinely given should have been employed. We see what vice it was which G.o.d denounced before the Flood, what He denounced before the burning of the five cities. Similar vices have preceded the destruction of many other cities, as of Sybaris and Rome. And in these there has been presented an image of the times which will be next to the end of things. Accordingly, at this time, marriage ought to have been especially defended by the most severe laws and warning examples, and men ought to have been invited to marriage. This duty pertains to the magistrates, who ought to maintain public discipline. [G.o.d has now so blinded the world that adultery and fornication are permitted almost without punishment, on the contrary, punishment is inflicted on account of marriage. Is not this terrible to hear?] Meanwhile the teachers of the Gospel should do both, they should exhort incontinent men to marriage, and should exhort others not to despise the gift of continence.

The Popes daily dispense and daily change other laws which are most excellent, yet, in regard to this one law of celibacy, they are as iron and inexorable, although, indeed, it is manifest that this is simply of human right. And they are now making this law more grievous in many ways. The canon bids them suspend priests, these rather unfriendly interpreters suspend them not from office, but from trees. They cruelly kill many men for nothing but marriage. [It is to be feared therefore, that the blood of Abel will cry to heaven so loudly as not to be endured, and that we shall have to tremble like Cain.] And these very parricides show that this law is a doctrine of demons. For since the devil is a murderer, he defends his law by these parricides.

We know that there is some offense in regard to schism, because we seem to have separated from those who are thought to be regular bishops. But our consciences are very secure, since we know that, though we most earnestly desire to establish harmony, we cannot please the adversaries unless we cast away manifest truth, and then agree with these very men in being willing to defend this unjust law, to dissolve marriages that have been contracted, to put to death priests if they do not obey, to drive poor women and fatherless children into exile. But since it is well established that these conditions are displeasing to G.o.d, we can in no way grieve that we have no alliance with the mult.i.tude of murderers among the adversaries.

We have explained the reasons why we cannot a.s.sent with a good conscience to the adversaries when they defend the pontifical law concerning perpetual celibacy, because it conflicts with divine and natural law and is at variance with the canons themselves, and is superst.i.tious and full of danger, and, lastly, because the whole affair is insincere. For the law is enacted not for the sake of religion [not for holiness' sake, or because they do not know better; they know very well that everybody is well acquainted with the condition of the great cloisters, which we are able to name], but for the sake of dominion, and this is wickedly given the pretext of religion. Neither can anything be produced by sane men against these most firmly established reasons. The Gospel allows marriage to those to whom it is necessary. Nevertheless, it does not compel those to marry who can be continent, provided they be truly continent. We hold that this liberty should also be conceded to the priests, nor do we wish to compel any one by force to celibacy, nor to dissolve marriages that have been contracted.

We have also indicated incidentally, while we have recounted our arguments, how the adversaries cavil at several of these; and we have explained away these false accusations. Now we shall relate as briefly as possible with what important reasons they defend the law.

First, they say that it has been revealed by G.o.d. You see the extreme impudence of these sorry fellows. They dare to affirm that the law of perpetual celibacy has been divinely revealed, although it is contrary to manifest testimonies of Scripture, which command that to avoid fornication each one should have his own wife, 1 Cor. 7, 2; which likewise forbid to dissolve marriages that have been contracted; cf. Matt. 6, 32; 19, 6; 1 Cor. 7, 27. [What can the knaves say in reply? And how dare they wantonly and shamelessly misapply the great, most holy name of the divine Majesty?] Paul reminds us what an author such a law was to have when he calls it a doctrine of demons, 1 Tim. 4, 1. And the fruits show their author, namely, so many monstrous l.u.s.ts and so many murders which are now committed under the pretext of that law [as can be seen at Rome].

The second argument of the adversaries is that the priests ought to be pure, according to Is. 52, 11: Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord. And they cite many things to this effect. This reason which they display we have above removed as especially specious. For we have said that virginity without faith is not purity before G.o.d, and marriage, on account of faith, is pure, according to t.i.tus 1, 16: Unto the pure all things are pure. We have said also this, that outward purity and the ceremonies of the Law are not to be transferred hither, because the Gospel requires purity of heart, and does not require the ceremonies of the Law. And it may occur that the heart of a husband, as of Abraham or Jacob, who were polygamists, is purer and burns less with l.u.s.ts than that of many virgins who are even truly continent. But what Isaiah says: Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord, ought to be understood as referring to cleanness of heart and to the entire repentance. Besides, the saints will know in the exercise of marriage how far it is profitable to restrain its use, and as Paul says, 1 Thess. 4, 4, to possess his vessel in sanctification. Lastly, since marriage is pure, it is rightly said to those who are not continent in celibacy that they should marry wives in order to be pure. Thus the same law: Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord, commands that impure celibates become pure husbands [impure unmarried priests become pure married priests].

The third argument is horrible, namely, that the marriage of priests is the heresy of Jovinian. Fine-sounding words! [Pity on our poor souls, dear sirs; proceed gently!] This is a new crime, that marriage [which G.o.d inst.i.tuted in Paradise] is a heresy! [In that case all the world would be children of heretics.] In the time of Jovinian the world did not as yet know the law concerning perpetual celibacy.

[This our adversaries know very well.] Therefore it is an impudent falsehood that the marriage of priests is the heresy of Jovinian, or that such marriage was then condemned by the Church. In such pa.s.sages we can see what design the adversaries had in writing the _Confutation_. They judged that the ignorant would be thus most easily excited, if they would frequently hear the reproach of heresy, if they pretend that our cause had been dispatched and condemned by many previous decisions of the Church. Thus they frequently cite falsely the judgment of the Church. Because they are not ignorant of this, they were unwilling to exhibit to us a copy of their Apology, lest this falsehood and these reproaches might be exposed. Our opinion, however, as regards the case of Jovinian, concerning the comparison of virginity and marriage, we have expressed above. For we do not make marriage and virginity equal, although neither virginity nor marriage merits justification.

By such false arguments they defend a law that is G.o.dless and destructive to good morals. By such reasons they set the minds of princes firmly against G.o.d's judgment [the princes and bishops who believe this teaching will see whether their reasons will endure the test when the hour of death arrives], in which G.o.d will call them to account as to why they have dissolved marriages, and why they have tortured [flogged and impaled] and killed priests [regardless of the cries, wails, and tears of so many widows and orphans]. For do not doubt but that, as the blood of dead Abel cried out, Gen. 4, 10, so the blood of many good men against whom they have unjustly raged, will also cry out. And G.o.d will avenge this cruelty; there you will discover how empty are these reasons of the adversaries, and you will perceive that in G.o.d's judgment no calumnies against G.o.d's Word remain standing, as Isaiah says, 40, 6: All flesh is gra.s.s, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field [that their arguments are straw and hay, and G.o.d a consuming fire, before whom nothing but G.o.d's Word can abide, 1 Pet. 1, 24].

Whatever may happen, our princes will be able to console themselves with the consciousness of right counsels, because even though the priests would have done wrong in contracting marriages, yet this disruption of marriages, these proscriptions, and this cruelty are manifestly contrary to the will and Word of G.o.d. Neither does novelty or dissent delight our princes, but especially in a matter that is not doubtful more regard had to be paid to the Word of G.o.d than to all other things.

Part 29

Article XXIV (XII): _Of the Ma.s.s._

At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do not abolish the Ma.s.s, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us ma.s.ses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons of prayers, vestments, and other like things.

The adversaries have a long declamation concerning the use of the Latin language in the Ma.s.s, in which they absurdly trifle as to how it profits [what a great merit is achieved by] an unlearned hearer to hear in the faith of the Church a Ma.s.s which he does not understand.

They evidently imagine that the mere work of hearing is a service, that it profits without being understood. We are unwilling to malignantly pursue these things, but we leave them to the judgment of the reader. We mention them only for the purpose of stating in pa.s.sing, that also among us the Latin lessons and prayers are retained.

Since ceremonies, however, ought to be observed both to teach men Scripture, and that those admonished by the Word may conceive faith and fear [of G.o.d, and obtain comfort] and thus also may pray (for these are the designs of ceremonies ), we retain the Latin language on account of those who are learning and understand Latin, and we mingle with it German hymns, in order that the people also may have something to learn, and by which faith and fear may be called forth.

This custom has always existed in the churches. For although some more frequently, and others more rarely, introduced German hymns, nevertheless the people almost everywhere sang something in their own tongue. [Therefore, this is not such a new departure.] It has, however, nowhere been written or represented that the act of hearing lessons not understood profits men, or that ceremonies profit, not because they teach or admonish, but _ex opere operato_, because they are thus performed or are looked upon. Away with such pharisaic opinions! [Ye sophists ought to be heartily ashamed of such dreams!]

The fact that we hold only Public or Common Ma.s.s [at which the people also commune, not Private Ma.s.s] is no offense against the Church catholic. For in the Greek churches even to-day private Ma.s.ses are not held, but there is only a public Ma.s.s, and that on the Lord's Day and festivals. In the monasteries daily Ma.s.s is held, but this is only public. These are the traces of former customs. For nowhere do the ancient writers before Gregory make mention of private Ma.s.ses.

We now omit noticing the nature of their origin. It is evident that after the mendicant monks began to prevail, from most false opinions and on account of gain they were so increased that all good men for a long time desired some limit to this thing. Although St. Francis wished to provide aright for this matter, as he decided that each fraternity should be content with a single common Ma.s.s daily, afterwards this was changed, either by superst.i.tion or for the sake of gain. Thus, where it is of advantage, they themselves change the inst.i.tutions of the Fathers; and afterwards they cite against us the authority of the Fathers. Epiphanius writes that in Asia the Communion was celebrated three times a week, and that there were no daily Ma.s.ses. And indeed he says that this custom was handed down from the apostles. For he speaks thus: a.s.semblies for Communion were appointed by the apostles to be held on the fourth day, on Sabbath eve, and the Lord's Day.

Moreover, although the adversaries collect many testimonies on this topic to prove that the Ma.s.s is a sacrifice, yet this great tumult of words will be quieted when the single reply is advanced that this line of authorities, reasons and testimonies, however long, does not prove that the Ma.s.s confers grace er opere operato, or that, when applied on behalf of others, it merits for them the remission of venial and mortal sins, of guilt and punishment. This one reply overthrows all objections of the adversaries, not only in this _Confutation_, but in all writings which they have published concerning the Ma.s.s.

And this is the issue [the princ.i.p.al question] of the case of which our readers are to be admonished, as Aeschines admonished the judges that just as boxers contend with one another for their position, so they should strive with their adversary concerning the controverted point, and not permit him to wander beyond the case. In the same manner our adversaries ought to be here compelled to speak on the subject presented. And when the controverted point has been thoroughly understood, a decision concerning the arguments on both sides will be very easy.

For in our Confession we have shown that we hold that the Lord's Supper does not confer _grace ex opere operato_, and that, when applied on behalf of others, alive or dead, it does not merit for them _ex opere operato_ the remission of sins, of guilt or of punishment. And of this position a clear and firm proof exists in that it is impossible to obtain the remission of our sins on account of our own work _ex opere operato_ [even when there is not a good thought in the heart], but the terrors of sin and death must be overcome by faith when we comfort our hearts with the knowledge of Christ, and believe that for Christ's sake we are forgiven, and that the merits and righteousness of Christ are granted us, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have peace. These things are so sure and so firm that they can stand against all the gates of h.e.l.l.

If we are to say only as much as is necessary, the case has already been stated. For no sane man can approve that pharisaic and heathen opinion concerning the _opus operatum_. And nevertheless this opinion inheres in the people, and has increased infinitely the number of ma.s.ses. For ma.s.ses are purchased to appease G.o.d's wrath, and by this work they wish to obtain the remission of guilt and of punishment; they wish to procure whatever is necessary in every kind of life [health riches, prosperity, and success in business]. They wish even to liberate the dead. Monks and sophists have taught this pharisaic opinion in the Church.

But although our case has already been stated, yet, because the adversaries foolishly pervert many pa.s.sages of Scripture to the defense of their errors, we shall add a few things on this topic. In the _Confutation_ they have said many things concerning "sacrifice,"

although in our Confession we purposely avoided this term on account of its ambiguity. We have set forth what those persons whose abuses we condemn now understand as a sacrifice. Now, in order to explain the pa.s.sages of Scripture that have been wickedly perverted, it is necessary in the beginning to set forth what a sacrifice is. Already for an entire period of ten years the adversaries have published almost infinite volumes concerning sacrifice, and yet not one of them thus far has given a definition of sacrifice. They only seize upon the name "sacrifices" either from the Scriptures or the Fathers [and where they find it in the Concordances of the Bible apply it here, whether it fits or not]. Afterward they append their own dreams, as though indeed a sacrifice signifies whatever pleases them.

Part 30

_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 G.o.d. 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 G.o.d presents to us that which the promise annexed to the ceremony offers; as Baptism is a work, not which we offer to G.o.d but in which G.o.d baptizes us, i.e., a minister in the place of G.o.d; and G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, or appeases G.o.d'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 grat.i.tude 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 G.o.d, 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 trespa.s.s. Whereas the eucharistic sacrifices were the oblation, the drink-offering, thank-offerings, first-fruits, t.i.thes.

[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 G.o.d in order that men might know that G.o.d 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 (G.o.d) 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 G.o.d seemed to be especially enraged, was offered to appease G.o.d's wrath, a _piaculum_; and they sometimes sacrificed human victims, perhaps because they had heard that a human victim would appease G.o.d 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, G.o.d 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 G.o.d is known and apprehended by the mind, as happens in the movements of fear and trust towards G.o.d. 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 G.o.d 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+pers shall wors.h.i.+p the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to wors.h.i.+p Him.

G.o.d is a Spirit; and they that wors.h.i.+p Him must wors.h.i.+p Him in spirit and in truth [that is from the heart, with heartfelt fear and cordial faith]. This pa.s.sage clearly condemns [as absolutely devilish, pharisaical, and antichristian] opinions concerning sacrifices which they imagine, avail _ex opere operato_, and teaches that men ought to wors.h.i.+p 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, etc. How do we suppose that the Jews received this arraignment, which seems to conflict openly with Moses? For it was evident that G.o.d had given the fathers commands concerning burnt offerings and victims. But Jeremiah condemns the opinion concerning sacrifices which G.o.d had not delivered namely, that these services should please Him _ex opere operato_. But he adds concerning faith that G.o.d had commanded this: Hear Me, i.e., believe Me that I am your G.o.d; 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 G.o.d 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.