On the Canon of the Mass
Context
Zwingli’s On the Canon of the Mass (1523) emerged at a decisive early stage of the Zurich Reformation, when questions of liturgy, authority, and the meaning of the Eucharist moved to the center of public debate. In January 1523, Huldrych Zwingli had presented his Sixty-Seven Articles before the Zurich city council, establishing Scripture as the sole authority for doctrine and rejecting practices not grounded in the biblical text. Although the council supported reform in principle, it proceeded cautiously, preferring gradual change to avoid social unrest and political isolation within the Swiss Confederation. At issue was the Mass, and particularly its Canon, the central prayer of consecration, long regarded in the medieval Church as the sacrificial heart of the liturgy. For Zwingli, the Canon represented the most problematic element of traditional worship. He saw in it not only unscriptural accretions but a theology that obscured the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ by presenting the Mass as a repeated offering performed by the priest. This critique placed him within a broader current of reform, yet his approach was distinctive in its combination of humanist philology and pastoral urgency. Zwingli subjected the Canon to close textual scrutiny, arguing that its language, structure, and claims lacked clear biblical foundation and were the result of historical development rather than apostolic institution.
The immediate context of the treatise was the growing pressure in Zurich to clarify and justify liturgical reform. While some evangelicals urged rapid abolition of the Mass, others feared the consequences of abrupt change. Zwingli’s text sought to guide this transition by exposing what he regarded as the theological errors embedded in the Canon while grounding reform in careful exegesis rather than mere polemic. He emphasized that Christ’s words at the Last Supper instituted a commemorative meal, not a sacrificial rite, and that the Church’s role was to proclaim and remember, not to re-offer Christ. Politically, the issue carried high stakes. The Mass was not only a religious practice but a cornerstone of social and communal life, tied to endowments, guilds, and patterns of patronage. To challenge the Canon was therefore to unsettle entrenched institutions and provoke resistance both within Zurich and among the Catholic cantons. Zwingli’s argument reflects this tension: he frames reform as a return to divine truth while insisting on orderly, magistrate-led change. In this setting, On the Canon of the Mass marks a critical moment in the transition from critique to transformation. It helped prepare the way for the abolition of the Mass in Zurich in 1525 and the establishment of a new Reformed liturgy, while also revealing the deeper theological divide over the Eucharist that would shape the course of the Reformation.
Argument
Zwingli’s On the Canon of the Mass is a sustained critique of the theological, historical, and linguistic foundations of the Roman Canon, combined with a constructive proposal for reform. At the outset, Zwingli argues that the Canon cannot legitimately claim the authority its defenders assign to it. It is not an apostolic institution nor the product of a single moment of composition, but a historical accumulation of prayers from different periods. This alone undermines its status as a binding “rule” (canon), since a true rule would not admit later additions or alterations. Its uneven style, linguistic faults, and theological inconsistencies further reveal it to be a late and human construction rather than a sacred, unified inheritance.
The central theological argument concerns sacrifice. Zwingli insists that the Canon falsely represents the Eucharist as a repeated offering to God. Against this, he sets the New Testament teaching, especially in Hebrews, that Christ’s sacrifice was offered once for all and is therefore neither repeatable nor supplementable. Any suggestion that priests “offer” Christ in the Mass is, for Zwingli, a profound misunderstanding that diminishes the sufficiency of Christ’s work. The Eucharist is not an offering but a proclamation and reception of that once-for-all sacrifice, a strengthening of faith through the Word. From this follows a critique of several elements embedded in the Canon. Prayers for the dead, invocations of saints, and references to the “merits” of others all rest on theological assumptions that lack scriptural warrant and, in Zwingli’s view, detract from reliance on Christ alone. Likewise, the idea that the Mass benefits specific individuals through priestly performance is tied to what he sees as a system of financial and spiritual “trafficking,” in which religious acts are commodified.
Zwingli also challenges the language and structure of the Canon. He points out grammatical incoherence, rhetorical awkwardness, and conceptual confusion, using these not merely as stylistic criticisms but as evidence that the text does not derive from the early, more theologically and linguistically disciplined Church. Its very form betrays its origins. Positively, Zwingli proposes that Christian worship should be governed by Scripture alone. The words of institution must remain unchanged, but prayers should be free, intelligible, and shaped by the Word of God rather than fixed tradition. The Eucharist becomes a communal act of remembrance and thanksgiving, not a sacerdotal sacrifice. In sum, Zwingli’s argument attempts to dismantle the Canon’s authority, reject its sacrificial theology, and redefine the Mass as a scripturally grounded, communal remembrance centered entirely on Christ’s completed work.
Source
Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1908) (Corpus Reformatorum 89), 556-608.
On the Canon of the Mass
1523
Contents
Text
On the Canon of the Mass (De canone missae epichiresis) 29 August 1523
On the Canon of the Mass: An Epichiresis of Huldrych Zwingli. To Theobald of Geroldsegg, administrator of the Hermitage of the Blessed Virgin among the Swiss, Huldrych Zwingli wishes grace and peace from God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
You see, most humane and most devout Theobald, why should I even mention that learning which once you held above all things, which now you count as dung that you may gain Christ [cf. Phil. 3:8]?, you see, I say, how by divine providence it comes about that the harvest of Christ flourishes so prosperously, even amid so many thorns and brambles, amid so many birds of the air lying anxiously in wait [cf. Matt. 13:1–8. Mark 4:3–8. Luke 8:4–8], amid so many, yes, to speak more plainly, raging tyrants who take up arms against the heavenly truth. amid so many thorns and briars which the enemy has secretly sown among the wheat [cf. Matt. 13:25], I mean wicked bishops. Yet why do I say “wicked”? For this alone, that one should be called a bishop and comport himself as a prince, is disgrace enough to stain the glory of the Christian name. Amid so many envoys of the devil’s kingdom, whose sole aim is to lie in wait for the word of God and to snatch it from the hearts of the faithful, and for this purpose they even acquire eloquence, skill in languages, indeed expertise in the sacred writings themselves, so that they may do harm. Just as we see emperors act: they do not so much train their own troops as they reconnoitre the enemy’s camp, intelligence, arms, strength, and plans, in order to do greater damage. All these things, obstacles to the Word of God, weapons, hypocrisy, lamentation, stratagems, are unable to halt its growth. It increases under persecution. Pressed down, it expands. In our own time the grain of mustard seed has grown, so that it now gives lodging to the birds of the air [Matt. 13:31–32. Mark 4:31–32. Luke 13:18–19]. And there is scarcely a corner, especially in Germany, where the good fragrance of the Gospel is not perceived.
Why, then, do we delay? Why do we not at last bring the matter to print and demolish those strongholds that have exalted themselves against the knowledge of God? Why do we hesitate? Do we not have everything already explored and laid bare [cf. 1 Cor. 2:10]? Our enemies are bereft of counsel. For if they relied on the truth of Scripture, they would long since have drawn up their battle line. Throughout their whole camp there is panic. They hurl only savage threats, utterly empty weapons. Whoever yields to these has taken up the preaching of Christ in vain. For what other use will there be for our decaying body than that it be cut down in the vineyard of the Lord [Matt. 21:35f.] and, by enriching the soil with its manure, make the ground fertile, so that the vines nourished thereby may yield abundant fruit to the Lord? Christ begot the Church by his blood. by blood he will again cleanse it. Therefore, there is no reason why we should be overly anxious about giving offence. For whom can now be offended except, for the most part, those who, hardened in their treachery, refuse to receive the word?
Some regard must indeed be had for those who have received the doctrine of Christ, lest, while everything is set forth plainly, yet nothing that contradicts Christ is abolished, those who had already come over to his side begin to falter and take offence. We must shake the dust from our feet against those who refuse to receive us [Matt. 10:14. Luke 9:5]. For what injustice would it be to hesitate on account of a few faithless men, in whom there is no hope of change, while meanwhile allowing those to slip away whom you have already gathered into Christ? Such considerations, dearest lord and brother in Christ, moved me to dare to take the field against the canon of the Mass, a matter, by Hercules, easy enough and by no means dangerous if one considers the strength of the adversaries. yet one bound up with the greatest hatred, if one considers those whose profit from it has been most abundant. For these men will rage not otherwise than those charlatans whose slave-girl Paul freed from a demon [cf. Acts 16:16–22], or those silversmiths at Ephesus who, stirred up, threw the city into turmoil [cf. Acts 19:23–29]. Yet the situation at last demanded that someone expose himself to danger. And although for some years now I have been turning over in my mind what I now first undertake, I am not satisfied even with myself. for I have been compelled to complete whatever there is within four days. So urgently did the printer press me, hastening to the Frankfurt fair. We have therefore called it an epichiresis, that is, an attempt. We have advanced. The main battle line, however, will follow, if the enemy should emerge from the hiding-places of their camp into the open and draw up their ranks. Meanwhile those who are somewhat too timid, though upright, will learn a certain holy boldness, by which they will see that it is permitted them, according to the measure of their piety and spirit, to pray as they desire when they seek to refresh their soul with heavenly food and drink.
For who is so dull as to think that one and the same prayer, unless it be wholly divine, such as the Lord’s Prayer and others framed according to the rule of God’s Word, can suit the devotion of all? Indeed, how many, even among the learned and the devout, do you suppose have not already fallen into weariness, when they were compelled to pray in so cold, indeed not infrequently impious, a manner? I myself know not a few who, when they were forced to celebrate the Mass and yet strongly recoiled from the canon, omitted many things that would offend them. These I would sooner praise than condemn. But from this the ill-disposed have seized an occasion for clamour. Therefore, that it might be plain to all that the canon is nothing other than a patchwork of various prayers by various authors, I first dragged it out of its cave, like some Cacus, into the light, so that even the half-blind might see its blemishes and wrinkles. Indeed, I have said too little: they will see that it is a monster, a Chimera. For where you hope to find an incitement to piety, you end by discovering a dragon. It contains as many impieties as it does prayers. Apart from the sacred words themselves, and with the exception of a single prayer, there is none that does not carry the stench of impiety. Hence it will come about that we shall no longer be so inclined to marvel at the folly of the Egyptians, who held not only Apis and the crocodile, but even onions and garlic, in place of gods, and who feared the rumbling of the belly as though it were the thunder of Jupiter. For we, who have attained the true religion, have judged it more religious to speak of the canon than of the words of Christ. Of this it was said: “Do not touch, do not look, do not read. for if you do otherwise, you shall be anathema and maranatha.” And when we penetrated into the very sanctuary, the treasure, so called, proved to be coals, indeed something more impure than coals. For what is more impure than impiety? And the canon itself teems with impiety. When we had pointed this out, marking it in its proper places with the finger, we began a new canon, not one which we wish to be received by all, so may Christ love us! For what power have we, that we should demand or prescribe such a thing? Rather, we intended to offer an opening and an occasion to those who are better equipped than we are in all things necessary for this task, so that they might produce something more pious. At the head of our canon we have placed a general prayer, in which the state of the first man, his fall, and his restoration are briefly comprehended. Then follow three prayers, the rationale of which we have explained briefly in their proper place. All these things, in my judgment, ought to be free, so long as we do not celebrate the synaxis publicly in the language which each church uses. But when a public form of prayer is adopted, each church will use such prayers as it judges fitting, provided they are shaped according to the rule of the word of God. As for the very words of Christ, no one will alter them. these must always remain untouched, not as we have hitherto used them, but as they are written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul [Matt. 26:26–29. Mark 14:22–25. Luke 22:19–20. 1 Cor. 11:23–26]. If these are always preserved whole and unchanged, then the substance of the matter remains intact. For it matters little in what words one addresses God, provided one knows that it matters greatly to render the word of God faithfully. It is sacred. it must not be subjected to us, nor indeed can it be. In the consecration of the cup, it makes no difference whether you say “which is poured out for you” [Luke 22:20] or “which is poured out for many” [Matt. 26:28. Mark 14:24]. for they have the same sense. For when Christ said to the disciples “for you,” he spoke to the whole number of mortals. Mark 13 [Mark 13:37]: “What I say to you, I say to all.” Therefore “for you” has the same force as “for the whole multitude.” And we have placed the consecration itself at the end of our canon. for the disciples also, as soon as it had been given, ate and drank the body and blood [Mark 14:22f.]. So, it is fitting for us as well, as soon as we have inaugurated the elements of bread and wine by the word of God, to call all who hunger and generously to feed them, and afterward to add a brief thanksgiving. We have composed no prayers, either for the living or for the dead, and this deliberately. for whatever I might devise, I saw that a window was being opened to trafficking. Yet we are not of such a view that public prayers ought not elsewhere to be made for the church, for magistrates, and for those placed in tribulations. indeed, through Christ we exhort all ministers of the word of God to do this immediately upon the promulgation of the gospel. And let them take pains that, if anywhere anything of scandal still remains, they purge it, so that all things may at length be conducted openly in the language of each church. For the word of God has nothing that ought not to be made manifest, nor is there anything in it that shrinks from the light (Luke 8:17). Therefore we have judged that this little work, such as it is, ought to be dedicated to you for many reasons, but chiefly this: that after you have put your hand to the plough, you do not look back (cf. Luke 9:62). Which indeed one may see certain men doing, to whom Christ smiles fair. but when anything begins to be taken away from their interest or their reputation, it is a shame how they grow cold, how they torment themselves, into how many shapes they transform themselves. You act otherwise, who allow yourself not even a little to be bent by any wind of adversity (cf. Sirach 5:11. Ephesians 4:14), which constancy is a proof of genuine faith. for God commanded this through an angel to Christ our Lord (cf. Luke 22:43). Thus you also be steadfast and strong. He does not depart as victor who abandons the battle line before the enemy has been routed. he who desires to be saved must persevere unto the end (Matthew 10:22). There are, moreover, other causes on account of which all candidates of letters in common owe you very much, because you embrace all almost equally. But I, before all, am your debtor, because for years now not so few you have so cherished, cultivated, and protected me, as a parent could not have done better or more skillfully. Nor have you admitted me only into your friendship, but into the inner recesses of your heart, into which I do not see whether you have ever admitted anyone so closely except your intimates, and besides our Francis Zingg, a man distinguished for learning, prudence, and piety, than whom I would perish if I have ever experienced anything more humane or more friendly. whose union with you I know not whether it brings more splendor to him or more favor to you. for whenever we have ever been without him, we have seemed to be partly absent, so that it is clearly seen to be false what is commonly said among us as a proverb, “Among three, one is superfluous,” since there has always been such harmony and unity of all three. These, I say, are the causes of piety and humanity why I have dedicated these progymnasmata to you, not because I think that I have repaid like with like, but that I might in some way bear witness to my gratitude toward you. Go on, most worthy man of God, as you have begun, and do not abandon your place. God will also give an end to these things. No one will be crowned unless he has contended lawfully (2 Timothy 2:5). Farewell, and may Christ, the best and greatest, preserve you safe and sound. We wish safety to Francis Zingg and to Johannes Bovillus, a faithful fellow worker in the gospel of Christ. Leo Jud also greets you all, our brother and likewise a helper in the gospel. From Zurich, the fourth day before the Kalends of September, 1523.
Epichiresis on the Canon of the Mass.
Being about to undertake the canon of the Mass, as they call it, I am not unaware, at the very threshold, how much envy of many I shall incur. And if I still desired more to please men than to be a servant of Christ (cf. Gal. 1:10), I would surely be strongly deterred from my purpose. But now, since on the one side I see such notable moles standing, yet fierce in their own snout [γρύ]. on the other, such sharp-sighted Arguses, but for some reason not very manly, who indeed easily perceive what has everywhere gone astray in the canon of the Mass, but never set about offering better things even when they could, since those men, being unable to behold the face of truth, do nothing but find fault with what they have never acknowledged, and while they themselves are so far removed from its light, allow no one to come nearer, we have judged it worthwhile, if before all else we drag the said canon out of its cave and present it openly for all to behold. For in this way it will become manifest what and how great power error has, which, just like some most powerful deity, binds to itself the hearts of mortals, so that whatever it has dictated they hold fast tooth and nail, nor can they be torn away by any reasoning. These men indeed, though with pain, I could leave to themselves and to their error (for they are moles and perhaps do not wish to recover their sight), if they did not somewhat too shamelessly raise an outcry. But this I will grant them again: I will spare them and pass them over in silence. For they are moles, whom you ought not to fear lest they see you, but lest they hear you. For if you have deceived their ears, you will now pass by in safety. From here, therefore, I will turn to those of ours who, with eyes unblinking, can fix their gaze even upon the burning sun, leaving those others to their error. And to these I will first point out with the finger the faults of the canon when it has been brought forth. afterwards I will not so much supply better things as furnish the more learned with an opportunity of supplying them. First, therefore, I shall speak about the nomenclature. That a canon is a rule, I think no one is ignorant. But where or at what time it obtained this name, I judge all to be ignorant. For since we find that Gregories and Alexanders, Leos and Sergiuses, Roman pontiffs, have established certain things in it, who nevertheless are separated from one another by various intervals of time, I do not see how it came about that it should rightly obtain the name of canon. For if before the times of Gregory it was called a canon, religion ought to have forbidden anything to be added, unless something necessary had been lacking. But if something was lacking, it was unworthy to be called a canon. For who is there who thinks that anything ought to be added to a rule? Thus thereafter the same must be said of the others who, as it were, have added certain supplements. For if it is permitted to each to add what seems good, it will surely also be permitted to take away what displeases. And we do not say these things for this purpose, that we might begrudge this ordinance the name of canon. For it matters little by what name at last you call it, but that it may plainly be clear that that to which some attribute more than to the very words of Christ, and account it sacred if anyone should pronounce more truly concerning it, was not composed at one and the same time, nor promulgated by any council, to which they attribute so much. For if that had ever been done, the two Gregories, the two Alexanders, Sergius, and Leo would have admitted the crime of fraud, while they added certain things of their own. Add that all things written in it suggest an age later rather than earlier than Gregory. But if you accept this, as I do not doubt all learned men will readily accept it (provided they attend to the sense and the thread of the discourse), it will follow that we are ignorant by what rite and by what words those ancients prepared themselves for this food. Indeed, it will follow that we do not even permit Gregory to have added his own supplement. For how could it have happened that he added to that which did not yet exist? Nay, I will boldly say that if this canon had been presented to Gregory, I think he would never have added anything, but would either have changed it or rejected it, so great is both its barbarism and its rusticity, as will afterwards appear. To Platina and the other writers of affairs in this matter we think little trust ought to be given. Another argument of this assumption is that this canon must necessarily have been composed in the period between Ambrose and Gregory. for if it had been before the times of Ambrose, it would have been impious, that this being set aside, to compose a new one. or if this was permitted, it will tend to a great prejudice against the Roman see, for it will allow that other bishops may do what Ambrose did, namely that they may leave their own canon to the Roman pontiff and each compose one of his own among his own people. Whence it is more probable that this canon which we have in our hands is of more recent origin than that any of those earlier men added anything to it. And it appears to be nothing other than a heap of certain little prayers, though for a time of pious men, yet not altogether learned, which they poured forth either publicly or privately. What therefore is the point of clinging to it so superstitiously, when even now it is permitted to the Insubrians to use the prescription of their own Ambrose, are they not Christians? Therefore, it will be permitted to me also, a Christian, to use a Christian canon without any loss either of faith or of name. For, to gather it briefly: either Ambrose handed down his own rite of performing this, this our canon being disregarded, or when it had not yet been born. If it was disregarded, it is by Hercules no wonder that to a learned and pious man so barbarous a rite, add also not in every respect pious, should have been displeasing. and he will not today be impious who shall have followed him, provided however with regard to Scripture, which it was permitted Ambrose to follow. If in the time of Ambrose the canon had not yet been born, it is manifest that each prepared himself for this food according to the prompting of the Spirit. Therefore, neither today will he be impious who shall pray otherwise than this farrago of the canon contains. The words of Ambrose, book 4 On the Sacraments, chapter 5, I knowingly and willingly pass over, because there he treats only of very few things, although the highest, namely those which Christ himself used, with certain exceptions. and because he himself dared to begin another web of a canon, even if we grant that this canon then existed. If we have established that his example may be imitated, we have already prevailed. So that I do not call into doubt whether that book On the Sacraments is of that great Ambrose, bishop of Milan, or not. As to the oblation there, as he also calls it, we reserve it for its proper place. That some have found in Capnion that the name of the Mass has been borrowed from the Hebrews, on this they triumph, but hear how shamelessly. Capnion relates that missah is an offering which inferiors present to superiors, which he himself also approves to be a personal gift, such as was the tribute about which Christ, once craftily questioned, replied that what is Caesar’s ought to be rendered to Caesar, and what is God’s to God (Matt. 22:31. Mark 12:17. Luke 20:25). That I may differ for a moment from that most learned man: if missah is a personal gift, such as I judge to be not only a tribute but also even a small present by which even now each man at the Saturnalia wins over his prince, what need was there to borrow for the Eucharist that name from the Hebrews? , since certainly piety, even if we were to grant that the eucharist is an offering, would never allow it to be a personal gift. for what comparison is there between tribute and the eucharist? But lest I be thought here to have wished to convict a most pious man of error, I will grant that it has been borrowed from the Hebrews. But come now, you, because you have called the eucharist missah, will it forthwith be missah, that is, a personal gift? As if indeed that Dromo of comedy, because he had borrowed his name from running, had at once become most swift, and not rather most sluggish and inactive. just as also the Cumaean lion, not as soon as it was so called was a lion, nor are native wares, as soon as they receive foreign names through merchants, Indian, especially since among the ancients you scarcely find that name, if my memory does not deceive me, who otherwise call it an oblation. Whence it appears that the name of Mass has been imposed recently, and that very inconsiderately, upon the eucharist, which neither Christ nor Paul nor the ancients, as I now recall, so called. From this indeed I am led to believe that, according to the mind of the later writers, it has been so called from “sending,” because they have thought, falsely indeed, that the victim is sent into heaven, which, having once been offered, cannot thereafter be sacrificed again. But whatever it may be, while Christ, while the apostles, never call it Mass, what did it matter to call it Mass, when it was not a personal gift, which nevertheless is signified by the very name? Missah signified a personal gift before Christ was clothed in flesh. afterwards it signifies the same. What now does it matter to me by what word you name anything according to your pleasure? We are contending about this, whether the eucharist is an offering or not. But while you bring against me from the name nothing but a conjecture, you achieve nothing. For by whatever reasoning you strive to prove your proposition from the name, we resist by the same method, since Christ called it his body and blood, not missah. But we defer this question, as we have said, to its proper place. It is enough here to have seen that the name of Mass, whether it is ours or foreign, is nevertheless recent, and imposed without just reason, since Christ, the apostles, and the ancients abstained from it, though it is certain that they would have named the thing thus if it were an offering, whether personal or of any other kind. But what can be said more foolish than to impose upon any thing whatever a name as it pleases, and then immediately to contend that it is the thing which the name indicates? For in this way you will make Venus out of a little dog, because little dogs often receive that name. Nor here should you object to me the name of the eucharist, since this too has no authority either from Christ or from the apostles, inasmuch as they nowhere used it. For the name of eucharist proclaims nothing other than that this food and drink is the generous and good gift and grace of God, and thus it ventures this, that it already sees and perceives that God has generously bestowed this grace. whence the name has arisen from that which has already been done. By contrast you act, who make the Mass, that is, a personal gift, out of that which has been given to you as a gift, and thus you venture this with no authority. If Christ had ever said, “Go, offer me, or to the Father, myself,” you would not unjustly have given to the offering the name of Mass, although it would indicate less than the thing itself is in itself. Now, since Christ commands only to eat and to drink, do you not sin, when you make out of it something other than he himself made it? Let these trifles therefore depart, and let us come to the matter itself. I also wish the reader to be admonished of this, that I shall set forth not only those things which have been wrongly handed down in the canon, but also those which are rightly so. Barbarisms and solecisms I shall point out for this purpose, that those whose judgment is more untrained may gradually see that the canon was not born among the ancients, among whom the art of eloquence was far more intact than that they could have tolerated so great an infancy. Thus, therefore, we approach the heavenly Father, after we have sung to him an angelic encomium: “Thee therefore, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, we humbly beseech and ask that thou wouldst accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy unspotted sacrifices.” We rightly pray when we supplicate the Father through Christ. for thus the promise stands in John 14: “Whatever you shall ask the Father in my name, this I will do.” And again: “If you shall ask anything in my name, this I will do.” The same he promises in John 15. Therefore it has been piously said: “Thee, O most merciful Father, through Christ we beseech.” But very inconsiderately: “and we ask that thou wouldst accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, etc.” For what are those gifts of which mention is here made? Are they the body and blood of Christ? But those are not yet present. for the words of consecration, as they call them, have not yet been uttered. But if these gifts are bread and wine, how are these an unspotted sacrifice, since the schools do not admit either that before the sacred words there is a sacrifice, or after them bread and wine? Nor is that loophole for escaping open, that that pronoun “haec” might indicate that which will immediately come to pass, and that which a little later follows: “which we offer to thee,” not: “we shall offer.” Nor yet this, that the pronoun “haec” designates the whole action. for at present gifts, offerings, sacrifices are expressed. Then that phrase, “haec sancta sacrificia illibata,” can be faulted on two counts. First, because “sacrifices,” placed in the plural number, stands against that position which the schools also admit, that there is one sacrifice, even if it be offered in innumerable places and as many times, as they themselves speak. Hence indeed I am led to suspect that by these words he who first composed it wished to understand bread and wine. Secondly, because here a fault is committed against the Latin language, when two adjectives without a conjunction are attached to one substantive: “sancta sacrificia illibata”. which indeed I do not severely censure, if you regard only the sense. But by this mark and others like it it is given to see that this canon of ours is of more recent origin than some assert. for before the time of Gregory no one would ever have spoken thus. It would have been more advisable here to pray that the Father through Christ would make for us this bread and wine the food of the soul. “In the first place, which we offer to thee for thy holy catholic Church.” Here again we will refrain from speaking of the oblation until a more fitting place, namely this: “Hanc igitur oblationem, etc.” “For thy holy catholic Church” has the same flavor of infancy as “sancta sacrificia illibata”. nor can it be excused as an asyndeton, since it has in no way that form. “Catholic.” Even from here, from their own canon, those who today so stubbornly contend about the Roman Church might have been able to find out what the catholic Church is, which they say they cannot grasp, when we press upon them Ephesians 5: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water through the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle.” This, I say, either through dullness of understanding or of mind, or, what is nearer the truth, through malice, they refuse to grasp, since indeed we assert that those are included within that Church who through faith and the washing of water are joined to God. In what way they are to understand this, Matthew 16: “Upon this rock I will build my Church”, I do not find. For when we say that the whole assembly of believers, scattered everywhere among the nations, is saved in this way, if it trust in Christ alone, they say that they cannot grasp this assembly. when we say that it is known and fully discerned to God alone, but conceived by us only in understanding, again they say that they do not understand. as if indeed they could not grasp it, if someone were to say that not all are Romans who dwell within the boundaries of the Roman empire, but only those who in virtue of mind and in faith are Romans, whether they dwell among the Indians or among the Britons utterly separated by the whole world. But if they should ever begin to understand this, they will at once understand what that Church is which bears neither spot nor wrinkle: namely, that those are this Church who cling to Christ with unspotted faith, to whose sight, wherever they are, they are open, although they are hidden from ours. and that this assembly, while we are pilgrims here (cf. Heb. 11:13), never comes together, yet is perceived by the eyes of the mind through faith. And this alone is the catholic, that is, universal Church. Holy Scripture knows no other, although the pontifical law does not fail to know one, which calls the gathering of certain bishops, exalting itself without the authority of Scripture, the catholic Church. which is so far from deserving to be called “catholic,” that I, for my part, do not deem it worthy even of the name of a particular church, just as I shall not deem worthy of hearing those who, puffed up with empty philosophy, thus quibble: “The same is the relation of the whole to the whole as of the part to the part,” wishing thereby to establish that representative church of theirs, as they call it. For what will the doctrine of Christ be, if you regulate it by philosophical reins? Christ will be idle, if one must yield to philosophical cavils. For we, who are faithful, acknowledge this one and only catholic Church, which has been shown to us by the testimony of Holy Scripture, as those passages above and these indicate clearly: “Christ is the head of the body, the Church” (Col. 1:18), and: “He gave him as head over all the Church” (Eph. 1:22), and: “I persecuted the Church of God” (1 Cor. 15:9), and countless others. Nevertheless there is a particular church, to which it is commanded that it cut off a diseased member (Matt. 18:17), such as that at Corinth, to which Paul writes (1 Cor. 5:11–13), and others, the care of which he declares himself to bear, and in which he asserts that he teaches in the same way, saying: “The care of all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28), and: “As in all the churches I teach” (1 Cor. 7:17). You will scarcely find any other mention of the Church in the sacred Scriptures, even if you search most carefully. It remains, therefore, that the church of bishops running together, not to say conspiring, is no other than that to which the prophet gave the name of the malignant. For what is beyond the truth is from evil. But God alone is true, and every man a liar (Rom. 3:4). Whatever therefore is from God is just, true, and good. whatever has proceeded from man is unjust, false, and evil. This church of theirs is not from God. therefore it is from evil. These things we wish to have said briefly here concerning the Church, which is either universal or particular. Of these, the former never comes together here. it will come together at the consummation of the world, nor can it err, because it cleaves to the one word of God. The latter, which use requires, according to the rule of the divine word discerns, rejects the shameless, recalls the penitent, is nourished at once by the word of God and is fed at once by the body and blood of Christ. If anyone desires fuller treatment, let him read the conclusion of our farrago. Without arrogance we refer to our own writings, not unaware to what degree of infancy they belong. but since we have gathered into one book what others have handed down scattered and sometimes otherwise than we, we wish it to seem to be done without boasting, while we do not demand it as a sacrament. for just as we swear in the words of no master, so we wish our writings rather to be read and weighed than to be accepted. Here, therefore, the priest declares that he offers for the catholic Church, namely that which embraces all who are reckoned by the name of Christ, even if they are most wicked. which indeed, if it were an offering, I would not condemn if someone should offer for the wicked, just as we also pray for the wicked. But since the wicked are not within the Church, the name of catholic cannot be extended as far as the wicked. But by the wicked I do not mean those who sin through weakness, but unbelievers. For these alone are wicked and are in no way to be reckoned within the Church. Just as, on the contrary, those are good who believe. for these are born of God (John 1. 1 John 5) and are members of that Church which is the spouse of Christ. Therefore to offer for the catholic Church would be nothing other than to offer for all the faithful. Into these matters again we have deliberately turned aside, that we might meet those who judge good and evil from works. Wherefore take care here that you do not understand the faithful as those who proclaim themselves faithful. but reckon as both faithful and good and sons of God only those who cast all their hope upon God. these, however, are known to God alone. Behold how we return again to our Church. “Which thou mayest deign to pacify, guard, unite, and govern throughout the whole world, together with thy servant our pope and our king and our bishop, and all orthodox and catholic and apostolic worshippers of the faith.” This prayer would not be so impious, although it is childish, if it had imitated the rule of the apostle Paul, who in 1 Timothy 2 commands that prayers first be made for all men, then for kings. yet we have preferred our popes to them, for no other reason, as I suppose, than that even from this kings might learn their servitude and be accustomed to reins. Lest I make this openly clear, the most ancient canons, of which we have collected some, make no mention at all of kings, although the more recent have added it. But why do we here cloak the superstition of the Romans, when a few years ago among the Insubrians we did not find the Roman canon which would deem kings or emperors worthy of a place? But after we also judged kings worthy that we should pray for them, how great, I ask, is the vanity then to have set both the Roman pontiff and one’s own bishop before the king, him whom Paul placed second after all men? especially since no one can think otherwise than that the canon has been composed by ecclesiastics, as they are called. would it not have been far more courteous, after we were also to admit kings to this banquet, to place them even in the first seat? “Which thou mayest pacify,” etc., where “which” is put for “that it.” “Our pope.” And this too is a mark of a canon of recent birth. for the name of pope is unheard of among the ancients. “Orthodox” are those who think rightly, namely concerning the faith. and they think rightly who think with Christ. “Worshippers of the catholic and apostolic faith” are those who through the faith preached by the apostles have been joined to the whole company of the faithful, which is the Church, which is the spouse of Christ, which is the universal assembly. Something in this name “apostolic” here and in the second creed composed later gives us a suspicion. but this is not the place to examine it. If you wish to think the same, read Distinction 16 of the Decretum. “Remember, Lord, thy servants and handmaids, N., and all those standing around, whose faith is known to thee and their devotion known, for whom we offer to thee, or who offer to thee this sacrifice of praise,” etc. Wherever brothers in Christ pray for one another, it is commendable, even if they do it in an unprepared prayer. But in this prayer there is such childishness and smallness that it savors of no antiquity at all. For to what end did it pertain to distinguish “those standing around” specifically, when mention had already been made of all worshippers of Christ? To what end did it pertain to make God more certain, so that the “faith and devotion of those standing around” might be known to him? unless, as I suspect, we wished to flatter those present in order to squeeze out some small gift, and at the same time to establish those fictitious promises of Masses. For what if they were not standing around but standing by, or altogether absent, intent upon work? “All the ancient canons do not have this whole part. ‘For whom we offer to thee.’ Whence it appears that the author of the canon was of that opinion, that whoever eats this food at the same time also offers, from which indeed all the ancients also dissent, who call it an oblation. For to what end would profit accrue, if the people also offered? It is therefore more likely that the oblation is attributed to those standing around for this reason, that by their payment or gift the priest, enticed, may offer. Of the same flour are those things which follow: ‘for themselves and all theirs, for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their salvation and safety, they render their vows to thee, the eternal, living, and true God.’ For not only are these childish, but also unlearned and impious. for is it not impious to ascribe the redemption of our souls to the offering of a priest, when Christ alone and the only one did this once? ‘They render their vows to thee, the eternal, living, and true God.’ As all things have a certain coldness rather than fervent charity, so they also openly display the trafficking of the sacrificers. For what are those vows which those standing by have here vowed? Have they vowed that they will eat? But this is not the offering which we here say they render. for a little before it has preceded, ‘who offer to thee,’ that they do not offer by eating, but by hiring the priest (as they themselves think). Whence it appears that here also ‘their vows’ look to nothing else than that the priest here praises those who, having promised that they would redeem the Mass for a fixed price, now perform it. Concerning the diabolical trafficking of the priests this is not the place for clamoring. Each will be more than sufficiently indignant within himself when he shall see the matter as it were depicted on a tablet. ‘Communicating and venerating the memory, first of all, of the glorious and ever-virgin Mary, mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, but also of thy blessed apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul,’ etc. This whole prayer is imperfect. for to this subject, ‘communicating and venerating the memory,’ no verb at all corresponds. But if it had been said thus, ‘communicating, we also venerate the memory of the blessed Mary, the mother of Christ,’ the sentence would not so collapse. Now, since it is evident that there is an anantapodoton, who will believe that the canon has flowed down to us from those ancients, at once pious and learned? especially since the gain of private Masses did not at all exist among them, which nevertheless in the foregoing prayer ‘Memento’ we plainly see to rise up. Whither now will those seditious slanderers turn themselves, who fill everything with senseless outcries, crying out: ‘Good faith of God and men!’?” These innovators now even dare to touch the canon, a most sacred thing, by which we consecrate the body and blood of Christ. nothing is safe from them, they will soon drag Christ down from heaven. These men, when summoned to the rod, I shall thus address: Construe! They will say: “Communicantes et memoriam venerantes” is a copulative construction. I shall add: What is predicated of this subject?, which the Greeks call ὑποκείμενον, but you would more rightly call the subject. They will be silent. for they will find no verb at all, unless those two, “concedas” and “muniamur,” neither of which can be joined. Behold what error does: how many learned men do you suppose have read this prayer so many times, and through a certain superstition have never dared to weigh the words? This is that canon which it is not permitted to touch, full of ignorance, of childishness, of impiety. As to the number of saints here recited, I would have you know that it was once permitted to add whom one pleased. which the ancient canons clearly indicate, two of which had many more names, but these have been erased by later writers, which has been done not only in this part, but in many other places I have found certain words written very differently from how we use them today. yet not of such importance that it could not be passed over. “And of all thy saints, by whose merits and prayers grant that we may in all things be fortified by the help of thy protection.” First of all it must be said that from this the occasion of that most received error of invoking the saints has arisen, which we constantly maintain to have been born from ignorance. For those “saints,” whom the Greeks call ἅγιοι, the later writers did not perceive to have been called Christians by the apostles. Romans 1: “To the saints who are at Rome,” that is, to the pious, the faithful, the Christians. Ephesians 3: “To me, the least of all the saints,” that is, of all the brothers in Christ, the pious, the faithful. And in countless other places you will find the same. Add that even among the Latins “saint” is called one who is commended by innocence of life. But after “divi” began to be called “saints,” and the saints were accustomed to pray for one another, at the same time it began to be said that the saints pray for us, which nevertheless can be proved by no Scripture. For what they object from Genesis 48: “Let my name be invoked upon them,” cannot be forced to this end, that it should teach that the names of the saints are to be invoked. For Jacob by these words wished nothing else than to pray to the heavenly Father that he would deign to hear his grandsons, if at any time they should invoke him in the name of their grandfather. For then it was permitted, as it were, to reproach God with the names of those fathers to whom he himself had promised the seed, which is Christ. In this form Moses also uses (Exodus 32:13): “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou didst swear,” etc. “Remember them,” he says, “to whom thou didst swear.” Behold, that he may demand the faithfulness of the promises. but he in no way invokes Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which certain impostors of our time strive to prove from these passages. Nor can this support them, that God, threatening through the mouth of Jeremiah 15 (Jer. 15:1), says: “If Moses and Samuel should stand before me, my soul is not toward this people.” Here they thus quibble: God says, “if these should intercede,” etc.. therefore they intercede for some. Here, if it did not weary me to delay, I would reproach them with ignorance of their own profession. But I spare them. The sense of Jeremiah is this: if Moses and Samuel, each of whom had great power in appeasing God, were still among men and were to intercede for this people, indignation would overcome favor. Just as also Ezekiel 14 (Ezek. 14:14) speaks: “And if these three men were in the midst of it, Noah, Daniel, and Job,” etc., where in a similar manner God threatens a sinful land that he would in no way spare it, even if the said three men dwelt in it. Whence it is clear that God speaks as if imagining: if these were still among men, indeed by their own innocence they would redeem their own life, but on account of them I would by no means spare others. There are also many other passages which they twist to this end, that they may assert that those who have been enrolled among the saints pray for us in the presence of God: one in Job, as in chapter 5: “Turn to some of the saints”. another in David: “Praise the Lord in his saints” (Ps. 150:1). another likewise in Baruch 3 (Baruch 3:4), which nevertheless has not been received into the canon. others finally in the Apocalypse. All these they twist so violently that, while they wish to seem to rely on Scripture, they display nothing but their ignorance, so completely does the whole sense fight against their proposition. Yet these and other weapons of theirs we have battered in the farrago of conclusions. This, however, must not be omitted: our dispute does not contend against the mutual prayers of the saints living among men. for just as we are commanded frequently to impart these to one another, so I think that they alone are profitable to mortals. Our contest does not admit the prayers of the departed saints for this reason: first, because the sacred writings teach nothing of this. next, because it is repugnant to true faith. finally, because it makes obsolete the mercy of God, which nevertheless so comes forth to meet us that it of its own accord calls us to itself (Matthew 11:28): “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.” He does not call the righteous, to whose calling he says he did not come, but sinners (cf. Mark 2:17). and not merely sinners, but those who labor, indeed those most heavily burdened. What cause therefore frightens us, that we should not flee to him with the greatest confidence? I think no one will bring forward any other than that which human vanity has brought forward. “If,” they say, “you wish to present yourself in the presence of an earthly prince, you must bring satisfaction, and you need patrons who may appease and soften the prince’s anger. Thus in vain you prepare to go into the presence of a threatening God, unless you have first secured for yourself favorable patrons.” This reasoning, indeed, as all human reasonings are wont, most perniciously deceives, and in this respect is also insulting toward God. for it reduces him to the model of a tyrant, which is most perverse. For that princes are so inaccessible arises from no other cause than tyranny. A just and good prince ought to be open to all, to come to the aid of the straits of all, and to become all things to all. When they act otherwise, they trample upon the office of princes. Such a one you imagine for me to be the most pious Father, who is so far from turning away from anyone or hesitating to bring help, that he first sees our evils and prepares to bring aid before we ask. Whoever proceeds to know him in this way from his own words is so kindly received that afterward he neither desires nor is able to flee to anyone else. This even faith itself, if only it be faith and not a fiction, requires: for if God is my hope, if I know him to be Father, what do I not hope from him? what do I not ask from him? But, as we have said, it would be superfluous here to speak to satiety about this question, since elsewhere we have pursued it to weariness. Yet I would not have you meanwhile think thus: if all things are so certainly to be hoped for from God, how do we not also despise the mutual prayers of men? For I judge that by this means God wished to bind us more closely to one another. For he says: “If two of you shall agree on earth concerning any matter whatever that they shall ask, it shall be done for them by my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 18:19). For when one bears the burden of another, if he is a lover of God, he desires to lighten it, and that it may be done quickly, he hastens with him who is oppressed to God. Therefore, when the canon has thus: “by whose prayers grant,” etc., this could be borne, if you were to understand the saints as the faithful in this world. But the catalogue of the saints recited, which precedes, does not allow it to be so understood. Whence that compiler of the canon, whoever he was, has assigned prayers to the saints there, where there is the highest rest and security, not very considerately. The length of time, which some throw against us as though it were the shield of Achilles, and the bitter rather than firm weapons of Jerome against Vigilantius, I do not regard. For we have not learned Christ thus from his own words. our faith admits no other under its cloak, for the bed is too narrow. I have held him and will not let him go. “Meritis concedas.” The passage concerning merit is difficult to explain even for those greatest of Herculeses, much less for us, scarcely even rank-and-file soldiers. For in the sacred Scriptures we find at once that Christ has made satisfaction for all sins, and that rewards are promised for our deeds, which nevertheless, among those who weigh the word of God by their own judgment and have not learned to subject it to the word of God, seem to differ widely. Therefore, as is fitting, we shall begin by setting forth the merit of Christ, insofar as he himself has given it. That a man who is conceived in iniquity (cf. Ps. 51:7) should be able to merit anything, I confess that I do not at all see. for he who is by nature evil (Gen. 8:21), who is wholly darkness and shadow, indeed who is dead, in what way can it come about that he performs anything worthy of God? And, to pass over this lack, who will hope that we are able to act rightly, plunged as we are in so many and so great affections, such as self-love, anger, favor, hatred, love, joy, sorrow? For who is there who does not act, not to say in some but in all things, from these affections? What we say will be made clear by an example. To give a gift to one in need is, before all things, a blameless work. but if it proceeds from self-love, as if you give only for this, that men may applaud you, or if you give ungenerously, that you may receive a hundredfold from God, or from fear of hell, that you may redeem yourself from torments, then your almsgiving is already a transaction, merchandise, and trafficking. For according to that form in which God gives, namely, having regard to this one thing alone, that it may benefit him to whom it is given, you yourself have not given. If you do not keep this manner, you have sinned. For nothing can be done rightly and well which is not fashioned according to the heavenly archetype. For what are we? As therefore we have spoken of almsgiving, so must it be said of all other works. for there is fear lest we perform other things far more perversely, if so many dangers threaten a work so pious. Now, with death prevailing, by which in Adam we all die (1 Cor. 15:22), and with so many affections thereafter rebelling, who is there who can promise from himself a good work or one worthy of reward? Where, do you think, will those hypocrites fall, who nourish themselves on the gain of their works, when here even the most innocent man is cast down in despair of himself, distrusting his deeds for himself, let alone thinking that he can give them for the benefit of others? By what way, therefore, shall we merit blessedness, when our merit is nothing? For how will it come about that he who is dead should do anything worthy of life? Here the light of the gospel sets itself forth. Therefore God had compassion on this so great poverty of ours. and when he saw that the wretched were attempting everything in vain, he found a counsel by which at once his justice, which must remain untouched and most sacred, might be satisfied, and we might be most strongly kindled to love him in return. For he sent a priest who might appease the divine majesty, who, when he had offered a most innocent victim, inasmuch as it had not been conceived in iniquity nor corrupted by the depraved affections with which we abound, readily suffered for the guilty (cf. Heb. 7:26–28). Thus it came about that divine justice laid aside wrath, and that we, unless we are most ungrateful, being drawn by so great a benefit, never cease to love him in return. Nor did he so offer himself once only, that he might expiate guilt once only. but since through the eternal Spirit he offered himself, in this one and only offering he has for ever perfected those who are sanctified, that is, the faithful. For he is the Lamb who did not remove the sin of one age or one nation, but by one death expiated at once the transgression of the whole world. for as he was most innocent, so also he was eternal God. and when he expended his innocence for us, the price of that innocence could not but be at the same time eternal. Hence it comes to pass that not only those who then lived when he died were set at liberty, nor have we, who afterward have come to this hope of grace, been freed only once in baptism, but it is an eternal pledge by which we approach God. for as he has been made ours, so he is also ours perpetually, that through him we may come to God for ever. Nor is this stated doctrine a fiction of our heart: he himself declares that he is the door and the way (cf. John 10:7, 9. John 14:6), and denies that anyone can come to the Father except through him. and, lest I omit this, he affirms that for men it is impossible to attain salvation, but that with God all things are possible (Matt. 19:26). Therefore through him alone and only is one to come to God. For he alone is righteous, holy, and innocent, and whatever he is is ours. For he has been made for us by God wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30). He alone is the one who reconciles the enmity that has arisen between God and us. For as there is one God, so also there is one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). He is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2), and not for ours, that is, not only for those of the Jews or of the disciples, but for those of the whole world. Therefore he makes expiation not only in baptism, but as often as we have recourse to God through him, as can be most clearly seen from the passage of John just cited. From this, I think, it is sufficiently clear that the merit of Christ is the one and only cause of our salvation. for he alone has immortality, whereas we are not only mortal but dead. He alone by his blood has made peace both in heaven and on earth, whereas we, on the contrary, are such a diseased and corrupt flock that God forbids a sacrifice to be made to him from us because of the indelible stains. Whatever therefore comes to us from God comes through Christ. for he alone has merited that God, by his justice, spare us (provided that we firmly believe this and ask it from God through him), and that he most abundantly exercise his mercy. Such is the merit of Christ, that without him it is impossible to come to God. These things being so, what is the point of devising many arguments about our own merit, when Christ alone is he who merits blessedness for us, and commands that, when we have done all things even according to the will of God, which in no way can be done, we should nevertheless declare ourselves unprofitable servants? For we are not fit or sufficient to think anything from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who did not choose us. nor, on the contrary, did we choose him. And he forbids us, by the most splendid parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:9–14), to trust in ourselves. But if we were to merit anything by our actions, we would not unjustly rely upon them. Yet since in the sacred Scriptures one may see very many things which attribute something to our merit, such as this: “Whoever shall have given only a cup of cold water to one who belongs to Christ shall truly not lose his reward” (cf. Matt. 25:35, 40). and what is written in Matthew 25: “Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you. for I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty,” etc., it appears, therefore, that since God promises and even grants rewards to our work, there is not nothing of merit, about which we so greatly contend in this age. And further it seems to me that this must be said: just as the work of a silversmith is not attributed to the hammer, nor to the anvil, nor finally to any instrument whatsoever, although the work is accomplished by it, so we ourselves should attribute nothing to ourselves. For it is God who works in us both to will and to accomplish (Phil. 2:13). for we are his workmanship, his instruments. Yet we sometimes see it happen through misuse that, as with Alcimedon’s sky, we attribute to the instrument what in no way belongs to it. Thus God sometimes promises most generous rewards to our work, although he himself is the one who works in us both to will and to accomplish. Why then do we transfer anything to ourselves, when neither the plan nor the work itself proceeds from us? Unless God, as to little children still needing milk (cf. Heb. 5:12–13), stimulates them by the hope of reward, as some think he does in Matthew 5, when he says: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth.” Here they suppose that this earth, in which we now sojourn, is promised to the meek. for some are found who are drawn to God by the hope of earthly things. But what does it matter to be subtle in this matter? since God works in us both to will and to accomplish, what will be ours? Since we ourselves are nothing, what audacity is it to despoil the name of God, which alone ought to be sanctified, and to deck oneself in borrowed plumes? Already we clearly see, unless I am mistaken, that it is impious, when we ask that by the merits of the saints, that is, of the “divi”, we be protected or fortified. For by no merits of our own can we come to God, but by Christ alone. “No one,” he says, “comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6), nor does anyone come to Christ by his own merits, but with the Father leading. “no one,” he says, “comes to me unless my Father draws him” (John 6:44). Since therefore all who approach God are compelled to go through Christ, no one will be so rich in merits that he can expend them for others. For who abounds as Christ does, from whose fullness we all draw (John 1:16)? and we draw freely, without money, as God has promised through the prophet (Isa. 55:1). Therefore Christ by his abundance empties all merits. for this is what Christ is, that in the fragrance of his ointments the maidens run (cf. Song of Songs 1:2–3), that is, the little souls desirous of the heavenly chamber. And although God promises or renders something for our deeds, he promises nothing except from mere liberality, by which he imitates rather his kindness and paternal readiness than regards the weight of our merit. and when he renders a reward to a perfect work, he does nothing other than reward his own work. For what sort of work would that of Paul have been, if Christ had not struck him from heaven and inaugurated him into the ministry of his word (cf. Acts 9:3ff.)? Do we not, when we have done all things which have been commanded us, have to confess that we are unprofitable servants (Luke 17:10)? Therefore it cannot be done without injury to Christ that we should trust in the merits of anyone. for however much we attribute to the creature, so much we take away from Christ. We ought to imitate more attentively the examples of the saints than to rely upon their merits. For Christ alone is he by whom we are made safe. for this reason also he bears both the name Christ and Jesus. “May we be fortified by the help of thy protection.” This is not worthy of much censure, although it has been said carelessly. It would have been more fitting: “That we may in all things be fortified by the protection of thy help.” For by protecting we fortify, nor is every help protection. A prudent mind, such as the early brothers in Christ had, would never have prayed so ineptly. “Therefore this oblation of our service, but also of thy whole household, we beseech thee, Lord, that thou wouldst receive appeased.” There are those who do not attribute this first part to Gregory and here at last begin: “and dispose our days in thy peace,” etc. We refer the whole to Gregory. Thus the following parts cohere, and these alone seem too brief if nothing follows. Add that to these preceding words “quam oblationem” does not so much correspond, as if this clause “diesque nostros” is inserted. This prayer therefore asserts that this oblation is “of our service,” and not only “of ours but also of thy whole household,” which indeed is nothing other than the catholic Church, that is, the whole company of believers. For if you understand “household” as any parish, it remains that you refer “our service” to the order of priests alone, which how arrogant and impious it is will soon become manifest. The position therefore stands: that the whole household is the Church, for which the priest boasts that he offers himself, as has also been heard above. and since this is most contentiously disputed in this age, we have reserved it for examination in this place. We said a little before how it comes about that we perform nothing at all worthy of God, because we are dead in Adam and weighed down by so many affections, whence no hope remains for us of approaching God. This calamity God has repaired by the price of his Son. Whoever believes this word is already, through him in whom he believes, saved, having been mercifully and generously redeemed. Here he has already been fed by that word of faith. for the human conscience cannot be made secure except when it trusts in the word of God. Therefore the word of God is food, which sustains the fasting mind just as bodily bread strengthens the heart of man. The word of God therefore feeds the human mind. it is not offered by man, but man is strengthened through it. For who, being aided by another’s strength, has ever said that he has offered strength to him? Since therefore this word, “Christ suffered for us, that he might reconcile us to the Father” (1 Pet. 2:21. 3:18), is the one hope of the soul, who has rightly said that he has offered this word to the Lord, when this word strengthens us? The word, therefore, is that by which the mind is nourished, and it is the word of God. Therefore the bread of the soul is the word of God. for man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4). What, then, is this word which is bread or food of the soul? This is the word, that is, this is the reality, that Christ gave his body and blood, that we who were dead might be restored to life. For thus he himself says in John 6: “The bread, of which I have spoken much to you, is nothing other than my flesh, which will be given for the life of the world.” You now have the food of which I have spoken so magnificently: I, offered for men, shall be their most certain hope of salvation. Therefore, just as the word feeds, and the word is nothing other than the flesh of Christ given for the life of the world, it follows that as we are fed by the word alone, so the power of this word depends upon one offering alone. That is, when we believe this, that Christ once offered has washed away all the sins of all, so that we are now satisfied and secure of salvation. This faith is not an offering but an illumination of God. for we would never have believed this, unless the Father had drawn us inwardly. Therefore to believe the word of salvation is not an offering but the work of God, the gift of God, the kindness of God. thus also to eat the body and blood of Christ is not to offer, but to sustain and strengthen the mind, which of its own accord is prone to wavering, and to establish it by the presence of that reality upon which the word rests. Therefore Christ, as by one offering of himself he redeemed the whole race of men, so he was offered only once (Heb. 9:26). Which will be most manifest from the words of the holy Paul, Hebrews 10: “For by one offering he has perfected for ever those who are sanctified” (Heb. 10:14). Here there is no need of more. for all who believe feel this, that this one and only Lamb was so free from every stain that, being offered, he could expiate every fault of sin. But not all admit this, that he was offered only once. For thus they cry out: Christ indeed is one, but the same is offered often. He himself offered himself once. we offer the same often, not at one time one, but always the same. nor can he be consumed or diminished, for God is unchangeable (cf. Jas. 1:17). This stubbornness of their contention would long since have been crushed by the word of Paul to the Hebrews 7 (Heb. 7:22–28), if only they had eyes to see or a heart to understand. There he sets this our priest, to whom alone this is proper, that he himself is both priest and victim, over against the priests of Moses, because it was necessary that they be many, since death prevented them from continuing always as priests. But this one, since he is eternal God, is also an eternal priest. Those offered beasts and the blood of another (Heb. 9:12). this one of ours offered his own, his body and blood. Those, because of the weakness of their victims, were compelled to repeat them (Heb. 10:11). this one, because nothing can be lacking to what is perfect, is so far from being able to be repeated that no greater injury can be said against it than that it ought to be offered again and again. for in this way it would differ in nothing from those victims which were its shadow. Whence in chapter 7 (Heb. 7:27) he says: “Who has no need daily, as the priests, first to offer sacrifices for his own sins, then for the people’s. For this he did once, offering himself.” Here, that they may understand nothing by understanding, they say that it is true that Christ offered himself only once, but they assert that we offer him often, and not without reason. for nothing here stands in the way, provided Christ himself does not offer himself. To these, although we have often given satisfaction, we shall attempt to give satisfaction even here in this manner: If Christ were today offered first for the sins of the priest, then for those of the people, I ask, as far as repetition is concerned, what difference will there be between the victim which is Christ and the victim which is a beast? For as that one was repeated, so this also would be repeated, which Paul here especially opposes. Then, how can it be that a man offers God to God? For who has ever offered anything more precious than himself? Whence also Christ, having nothing more precious than himself to offer, offered himself (Heb. 8:3–6). Therefore a mortal priest cannot offer him who is the immortal God. For just as it was foretold of Christ: “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire” (Ps. 40:7), “but a body thou hast prepared for me,” so much more fittingly may it be said of us: Thou requirest no other sacrifice from us than that we expend body and soul to thy glory. Again Paul says, Hebrews 9: “Christ by his own blood entered once into the holy places, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). Likewise there: “Now once, at the consummation of the ages, he has appeared for the putting away of sin by his own sacrifice.” Behold, here by his own sacrifice once he has put away the power of sin. There, chapter 10: “In which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once” (Heb. 10:10). Since these testimonies are clearer than the sun, those whose trafficking in Masses is now being brought into straits attempt to weaken them. for thus they cry out: we do not deny that there is one victim. but that it has been offered only once, we understand thus, that he died only once, never thereafter to die again (Rom. 6:6). yet living he can be offered by us daily to himself living. As if it were one thing for Christ to die and another for Christ to be offered, or as if one thing were accomplished by dying, another by offering, or as if anything could be slain for God which is not at the same time offered, or any victim be offered which is not slain. But let us hear the very words of Christ. In Matthew 26 Christ says: “This is my blood, the blood of the new testament, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.” Here tell me, I ask, what it is that has taken away sin, offering, or death, or the shedding of blood? If you answer me that a voluntary offering has wiped away the debt of sin, I shall object that the shedding of blood has wiped away sin, as you see here before your eyes in the words of Christ: “the blood of the new testament is poured out for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). You are therefore compelled to admit that offering and the shedding of blood are the same, namely that when the blood was poured out, he offered himself, and while he was being offered, his blood was also poured out. Once you are forced to concede this, it will follow that Christ is offered when he is slain and his blood is shed, and again that when he is slain, then he is offered. But Christ was slain only once, and his blood was poured out only once. therefore he was offered only once. To the same effect is what Paul writes in Romans 6 (Rom. 6:9–10), though they try to twist it to defend their error: Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more. death no longer has dominion over him. For in that he died, he died to sin once. but in that he lives, he lives to God. Here I will ask in this way: when Christ died to sin once, did he then offer himself as he died, or not? If you answer (for to this sort of people everything is permitted) that he was not offered when he died, I shall ask how you understand this in Ephesians 5 (Eph. 5:2): “Christ loved us and gave himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor.” I ask, then, where or when did he give himself as an offering and sacrifice? Was it not then, when according to the word of Peter (1 Pet. 2:23) “he committed himself to him who judges justly,” that is, when he obeyed the will of the Father and, suffering, did not threaten? Was it not when he bore our sins in his body upon the tree? You will therefore be driven to admit that he offered himself when he died. Therefore, if being offered extinguished sin, and dying to sin accomplished the same, then dying and being offered are the same. for who would ever say that a victim is at one time offered and at another time slain, and not rather that it is offered when it is slain, and slain when it is offered? Since therefore Paul here says, “he died to sin once,” he says nothing other than “he was offered for sin once.” Thus it is clear that these three are equivalent: the blood of Christ was shed only once, Christ died only once, and Christ was offered only once, for the taking away of the sins of humankind. For in this the sacrifice which is Christ differs from all other sacrifices: those were repeated, but this one, having been offered once, has perfected for ever those who are sanctified, that is, the faithful, and has rendered them complete. for no sacrifice for sins remains for us (Heb. 10:26). These things will become even clearer from the words of Paul in Hebrews 10 (Heb. 10:10): “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once.” What, I ask, do you hear here except that we have been sanctified through the voluntary offering of Christ? And that this voluntary offering was accomplished when he gave his body for us? And finally, that both the offering and the giving of his body were done only once? What could be said more plainly? Let them therefore depart, and depart quickly, who continue to cast the fog of their ignorance, indeed their malice, over the clarity of Holy Scripture, those who distinguish offering from death, though it is the same reality, merely named differently, relying on no testimony of Scripture but only on the shouting of the Fathers. To whom they attribute so much that they say it cannot be accepted that, if nothing were offered by us, God would have winked at it for so long and permitted the Fathers to err, as though God had ever drawn anyone to himself in such a way that he did not at the same time bear with their weakness, while binding them to himself most firmly in faith. The occasion for the error of the Fathers was the neglect of the word of God. For if they had fixed their gaze upon this alone as their single aim, they would never have called the Eucharist anything other than what Paul calls it, a commemoration, a testament. But such is the judgment of God: after those who above all ought to have been intent upon the simple word of God turned to their own preferences and designs, God allowed them to go in their own inventions and caught them in their own craftiness (Job 5:13). On the contrary, God has not in the same way allowed those to fall who, unskilled in the sacred writings, have entrusted themselves to his goodness. Hence we see that the unlearned people use the body and blood of Christ as food for the soul, not abusing it as an offering. And conversely we see that those who ought to have been the eyes of the church have fallen into such error that, although they most consistently maintained that the sacrament which they themselves and the people receive is the same, yet they contended that what they themselves eat is an offering. Profit pleased them. authority and preeminence delighted them, the worst plagues of heavenly doctrine. Thus it is clear that the church of God has not been deserted, but preserved by a wondrous providence. For although in not a few other matters the error of teachers has drawn the multitude along with it, here the vigilance of God has ensured that only the authors of the error have erred. Yet I perceive that some, even though they called it an offering, thought nothing other than that it is a remembrance. Among these is John Chrysostom, who, on the words of Hebrews 9 (“he entered once into the holy places”), after struggling long with himself, finally comes to think that it is rather a remembrance than an offering. From this one may conjecture that the ancients called it an offering in the same way that we still speak of the resurrection and the nativity of Christ, not because Christ is now born or rises again, but because, although it happened once, we retain the name for a more vivid remembrance. So it seems this may have been done here as well. We have written more fully on this matter in the conclusions. There follows: “And that thou wouldst order our days in thy peace, and deliver us from eternal damnation, and command that we be numbered in the flock of thine elect.” This final part of the prayer, as we have said, they ascribe to Gregory the Great. we attribute the whole to him. Here one can see how the entire style of the canon departs from the diction of the ancients. Nowhere else in the whole canon will you find a prayer more elegant than this, or more carefully composed, though both only moderately so. Whether it is Gregory’s or not, we allow it to be his on account of its elegance alone, for we would never otherwise believe that a man so pious and learned would have added anything to so barbarous a canon. Hence I am almost led to think that Gregory prayed in this way among other things, and that this prayer has come down to us. “Order,” he says, “our days in thy peace,” so as to exclude our own peace, when we are at peace with sinners. In short, apart from this “offering”, unless you wish, as we have said, to take it as a remembrance, this section alone in the whole canon bears some taste of a moderate antiquity such as belonged to Gregory. Add that the diction too is very similar to his, not attaining the polished style of the ancients, yet not altogether grovelling. “And which oblation we beseech thee, O God, in all things to make blessed, approved, ratified, reasonable, and acceptable.” What, I ask, do I hear here? We assert that we offer Christ, and yet he is not already blessed? You are therefore compelled to say that we are here praying that bread and wine be blessed. But how are bread and wine an oblation?, a thing neither the schools nor the ancients admit. “Approved”, do we, I ask, pray that Christ be entered on record, or that bread and wine be? The former would be impious, since Christ sits at the right hand of God. the latter foolish. For what purpose is it to pray that bread and wine be entered? Is it a banquet? Yet we are compelled to admit one or the other: either, as they say, we offer Christ, or we offer bread. If Christ, what need is there that he be entered? If bread, what does it matter that it be entered, when, according to their teaching, the substance of bread and wine passes into the body and blood? “Ratified”, perhaps we pray that God would keep firm his promise, lest, as men do, he change his testament when offended. “Reasonable”, this word has something of the theology of Paul and Peter (Rom. 12:1. 1 Pet. 2:2), but, as the saying goes, it is out of place. We have pointed these things out so that it may be clear to all how ineptly whoever composed this prayer has prayed, and that we may cease to marvel at the canon no less than children at Juno’s bird. “That it may become for us the body and blood of thy most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here it plainly appears that the bread and wine, earlier called an oblation, are still such, since it is here prayed that they may become the body and blood of Christ. Why, then, do the inquisitors of heretical depravity not inquire into the canon? Why do they not say: it is scandalous to call bread and wine an oblation before consecration? You will say: here it is only prayed that the bread be blessed, enrolled, ratified when it passes into the body, that it may become a spiritual and pleasing sacrifice when it is completed. You say nothing. For you have called it an oblation, which you are compelled to admit is still bread. See what it is to struggle with the utmost ignorance, especially when it is cloaked under religion. Yet this is not impiously said, if we pray that the bread may become the body and blood of the beloved Son of God, provided that “become” is not taken in the sense of that term “transubstantiation” of our theologians, but understood thus: that bread and wine, when eaten in faith, become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, however that may take place. for that curious speculation about transubstantiation has opened the way to many errors, indeed impieties. “Who, on the day before he suffered, took bread into his holy and venerable hands, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, to thee, God his almighty Father…” Here the narrative would proceed well enough, since Christ himself is introduced as acting and speaking, were not the water of human invention again mixed in. For what need is there to add a falsehood, once we have made Christ act and speak? In which of the Evangelists, for Paul too is an evangelist, can you find that Christ lifted up his eyes to heaven to the almighty Father? I would not even touch this point if a human narrator were speaking, who, having often read elsewhere that Christ lifted up his eyes to heaven, might conjecture that he did so here as well. But once we have made Christ himself the speaker, why do we attribute to him what the Evangelists do not? Up to this point decorum would have been preserved, had we added nothing to his action after making him act. But audacity does this: it mixes itself into all things, even divine and most sacred things, lest it seem to be or to have done nothing. “Giving thanks to thee, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying…” Up to this point Christ was acting. here he begins to speak. And just as faithfulness to Christ was not preserved in the action, so neither is it in the speech: “Take and eat of this, all of you. for this is my body.” Here we have added of our own: “of this, all of you” and “for.” About this word even the moderns croak loudly enough to rouse a thousand Dianas. Even if the word is absent, it detracts nothing from the sense. Nor do I accuse anything here except human audacity, which does not think the divine work complete unless it has also added its own contribution. How much more fitting it would have been, once we made Christ the speaker, either to use the words of Gospel of Matthew: “Take, eat. this is my body,” or of Gospel of Luke: “This is my body, which is given for you,” or of First Epistle to the Corinthians: “which is broken for you.” For even in the giving of the cup it is added: “which is poured out for many.” As for our addition “all of you,” I suppose it was done to make it clear that all are permitted to be guests here. But there was no need for such concern. for what Christ said to the disciples, he said to all of us (cf. Gospel of Mark 13:37). Here they will cry out to heaven and sea, those who think it permissible even to make themselves gods: “O deed! O times! This man accuses, mocks, tramples upon the very words of consecration!” To whom I would respond thus: Come now, good sir, tell me, what are the words of consecration? He will say: “For this is my body.” I will add: Who handed them down in this form? Here they are more silent than a fish. Let me then address you gently. I do not think anyone so perversely ignorant or dull as to wish to attribute as much to human words as to God’s. But since you are not content to say that when this bread is eaten and this cup drunk, the body and blood of Christ are eaten and drunk, unless you also assert that before we eat or drink, even if we never eat or drink, the substance of bread is changed into the substance of Christ’s body, by what power, I ask, do you think substance is changed into substance? You will say, no doubt: by divine power. I reply: what then can human words do, if all things depend upon divine power? Therefore additions ought not to have been made, lest John Duns Scotus and others be compelled to pour out such heaps of words. You see, then, which of us treats the words of consecration more unjustly: you, who mix your own words with the divine, or I, who refuse to tolerate this. I do not attack the word of God, but human audacity. and I hold that it is permitted for anyone who wishes to use the words of the Evangelists rather than those prescribed by the canon, to use them freely. What, then, would prevent me from blessing the bread according to the words of Gospel of Luke in this way: “This is my body, which is given for you”? And if that is permitted, I could, omitting the rest of the canon, pray according to the prescription of the divine word. We have said this polemically only on account of those who deny that a single word of the canon ought to be changed, while they themselves see that even in the very words of consecration someone has dared to add something of his own. Is this not the height of perversity? That nothing of yours may be added or taken away, yet you yourself both add to and subtract from the divine words without any reason? “Likewise, after supper, taking this excellent chalice into his holy and venerable hands, again giving thanks to thee, he blessed it, gave it to his disciples, saying: Take and drink from it, all of you. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins.” “Excellent,” and “into his holy and venerable hands”, none of the Evangelists has this, though this need not trouble us greatly. Likewise none has “giving thanks” in this form. Gospel of Matthew has “he gave thanks.” Nor does any have “he blessed.” These things, as we have said, we do not greatly condemn. for here all is effected more by faith than by words. But we marvel at the stubbornness with which these men take liberties with divine words as they please, while they insist that their own, however unlearned and sometimes impious, be preserved so strictly that not even a nail’s breadth may be departed from. “This is the chalice…” The Greeks have “cup,” not “chalice,” and “cup” is taken for what is contained in the cup. The sense is: this drink is the new testament. for it is my blood, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:28). “Of the new and eternal testament” has been brought in here from chapter 13 of the Epistle to the Hebrews. “The mystery of faith” is ours, that is, a later addition. What injustice this is: that they freely patch together the so-called words of consecration from various parts of Scripture, and not content with that, add their own as well, yet do not permit others to do in their own words what they themselves dare to do in divine words without any justification. But in this way the abomination that has set itself in the holy place had to mix its own with divine things. Thus also they mix water, saying that the water in the oblation signifies the people. Here a double fault is committed: first, that they make an offering out of what is a remembrance. secondly, since water is a symbol of the nations, the symbol of unbelievers ought not to be made into that of the faithful. Yet here we may easily see the subtlety of divine judgment. In Book of Isaiah 1:22, the merchants of Israel are accused of mixing water with wine. So it came about that, after man began to subject all divine things to his own control, he added insult to divine things by his own inventions, so that his trafficking might at last become evident on every side. As for the use of this sacrament under both kinds, there is no need to speak here. It is evident to all, even the half-blind, that by human rashness it has come about that the people have been deprived of one kind, though Christ so clearly commanded that all should drink. Go now and cry out that those are heretics who cling to the words of Christ alone and anxiously desire that all rely upon them. Meanwhile consider what sort of men these are: those who have dared to add to sacred words, to alter them, to mix in water as an ill-omened symbol, to cut off one kind, whom God even allowed, when they reserved it to themselves alone, to mix it, so that, when they would not understand, they might at least taste what kind of merchants they were. “As often as you do these things, you shall do them in remembrance of me.” Gospel of Luke has, after the giving of the bread: “Do this in remembrance of me.” I am not unaware that both this word and the others must be referred to both kinds. The words of First Epistle to the Corinthians 11 are closer to our form: after the bread, “Do this in remembrance of me”. after the cup, “Do this, as often as you drink, in remembrance of me.” And lest we fail to understand what Christ intended by this word, he adds: “As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” By these most explicit words it is shown that the very synaxis is nothing other than a commemoration of the Lord’s passion. With what face, then, I ask, have they made an offering out of a commemoration? Thus we who are faithful, when we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, proclaim the Lord’s death, and that as long as the world shall endure. The cause of this proclamation is sufficiently great: that Christ has delivered us by his death and the shedding of his blood, and has given the same to us as food, which we eat by faith, not with the teeth. through this God invisibly enters into us and nourishes the soul. “Wherefore, O Lord, we thy servants, and also thy holy people…” Here I take “servants” to mean the ministering priests, that they might never fail to assign themselves first place. “…remembering the blessed passion of the same Christ thy Son, our Lord and God, and also his resurrection from the dead, and his glorious ascension into heaven.” If one sets aside the barbarous style for the moment, this part of the prayer is not ineptly joined to what precedes. For when Christ said, “Do this in remembrance of me,” we rightly say: therefore we are mindful, O Lord, of thy Son, of his passion, his descent, and so forth. But what follows immediately, I do not see how it is not joined with the utmost carelessness: “We offer to thy most excellent majesty, from thy own gifts and bounties, a pure victim, a holy victim, an immaculate victim.” This is blasphemy: for Christ alone could offer such a victim, and no creature besides. And consider, I ask, how much sense he had who had just said, “O Lord, since you commanded that these things be done in remembrance, behold, we do them,” and before the words of that sentence have passed his lips, immediately adds, “we offer.” But certain petty sophists chatter: this commemoration is an offering, though they bring nothing to prove it. I therefore admonish them to invert their statement and say: this offering is a commemoration. for that is all it is, as has already sufficiently been shown. “The holy bread of eternal life and the chalice of everlasting salvation.” Why do you not inquire here into the canon, you gentle inquisitors? Do you not hear that after the consecration it calls the body of Christ “bread”? Thus blind zeal always raves. They promise to sacrifice to Vulcan anyone who calls it bread after the sacred words, yet they do not condemn their own canon, which they read daily. “Upon which do thou deign to look with a propitious and serene countenance…” This whole prayer tends toward the notion of offering. Thus today they are accustomed to strengthen their case by shadows that have passed away: “Did not Abel offer? Did not Melchizedek?”, not considering that these were but types and shadows of Christ, who was then to offer himself. “Humbly we beseech thee, almighty God…” If you were now to cut away what immediately follows down to the words “that as many as…,” you would not pray impiously. for what is inserted carries the sense of offering. Say rather: “Humbly we beseech thee, almighty God, that all we who partake at this altar of the most holy body and blood of thy Son may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace.” “Remember also, O Lord, thy servants and handmaids…” Unless “handmaids” had been added, there was a danger, it seems, that God might not hear the prayer for women. therefore both sexes are explicitly named, for he with whom we deal is crafty. But some say: what use are these quibbles? This use: that you may see that the canon is a bundle of prayers from different times, and it is not clear when it was laid upon the shoulders of Christ’s servants (cf. Matt. 23:4). From this place purgatory, that most profitable thing for ecclesiastical gain, is thought to be proved. They argue thus: in the canon of the Mass we pray for the dead. therefore there is a purgatory. Nor content with this blow, they strike another two-edged one, drawn from Origen, philosophizing too boldly. Some, they say, depart from here not altogether good, who must be purified before they are allowed into God’s presence. Others depart not altogether evil, whom it would be unjust to consign to hell. therefore they must be sent to be purified in the regions below. We ourselves once followed this line of reasoning and declared that Scripture does not make clear whether there is a purgatory or not, yet that reason readily shows that there must be one. But after I perceived that nothing is more deceptive and treacherous than human reasoning, I learned to assert only what is received from the mouth of God. And when I had long since shown that the passages which these theologians twist in support of purgatory do not support it, indeed, to speak more boldly, when I had freed myself from their dominion, the light of faith itself shone forth, declaring plainly (cf. Gospel of Mark 16:16): “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. he who does not believe shall be condemned.” When I heard this law proclaimed, I recognized that all who depart this life do so either in faith or without faith. If in faith, they are saved. for the law says: “He who believes… shall be saved.” And lest you raise any delay here, hear what Christ says in Gospel of John 5:24: “Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life.” Behold again the words of the law. It follows: “and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life”, indeed has already passed into life, which he possesses now in certain hope, according to the Greek sense. Here is the removal of all delay. Again (Mark 16:16): “He who does not believe shall be condemned.” Thus I learned that there are only two ends: one of the faithful, the other of the unfaithful. Another light followed this, overthrowing entirely the reasoning of Origen: namely, that we are not accounted good by our works, but by faith alone, and that blessedness is not rendered according to the merits of our deeds, but according to Christ. Thus the “not altogether good” and “not altogether evil,” whom Origen assigns to purgatory, I recognized to be a fiction of human ambition. For no one is good except God alone (Matt. 19:17. Mark 10:18. Luke 18:19), and those whom he makes good. “The righteous shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17). and Christ cries out: “He who believes in me has eternal life” (John 6:47). Moreover, Lazarus, whose hope and strength was God, was, as soon as he departed, carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom (cf. Luke 16:19–31). By contrast, the rich man in hell lifts up his eyes to Abraham and Lazarus. And Abraham indicates that there are only two places for those who depart, so arranged that neither can pass over to the other. Thus it is not established that there is a purgatory. yet human conjecture dares everything, and perhaps not without reason, since it produces so much. For what thing has ever amassed so much wealth as the conjecture of purgatorial fire? And although Plato says that no arguments are more frivolous than those based on conjectures, yet we see that no reasoning of philosophers has ever been so certain as to produce so much as the vain conjecture of purgatory. “Grant to them, O Lord, and to all who rest in Christ, a place of refreshment, light, and peace.” They report that Augustine of Hippo and John Chrysostom say that the custom of praying for the dead had come down to their time from the apostles. This I find most astonishing, since none of the apostles has handed down anything on this matter, although they occasionally make mention of the dead. But if the matter were indeed as Augustine of Hippo and John Chrysostom report, I do not think the apostles permitted prayer for the dead for any other reason than out of indulgence toward certain weak believers. For Paul (cf. 1 Thess. 4:13ff.) does not want us to grieve for the dead as unbelievers do, who are without hope of the life to come. I judge that the same should be done today: if some are of such frail faith that they wish, with anxious prayers, to commend their faithful parents to the heavenly Lord, I do not think they should be harshly rejected. For Christ did not break the bruised reed (Isa. 42:3), and he tolerated his “little-faith” disciples (Matt. 8:26. 14:31. 16:8). But to remain in such weakness, and, as some profiteers do, to establish it, that must by no means be permitted. They must be taught and led by the word of God, not into disputes of speculation, but toward the strengthening of a weak mind: namely, that whoever trusts the word of God, which proclaims that Christ is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the whole world (cf. Gospel of John 1:29), that one, believing thus, is saved and does not come into the judgment of fire, but passes from death to life (John 5:24). Meanwhile, so long as one is weak, he should not be permitted to pray otherwise than that the will of God be done, since the judgments of those who have departed are entirely unknown to us. They are known to God alone. Therefore we pray that his will be done, for it is by the merit of Christ alone that blessedness is attained. As for traffickings, prayers for sale, masses, and feigned displays of hypocrisy, send them off, I beg you, to the dogs at once. The rest that pertains to this matter you may seek, if nowhere else more fully, in our collection of conclusions. “To us also, sinners…” This whole prayer does not depart from the teaching of Christ. Yet there is something here, and above in the other catalogue of the saints’ names, that I would wish omitted: namely, that even if it pleases to recite the names of the blessed, we should spare the names of those who departed without the peril of blood or confession. More fitting, however, would be simply to ask that God receive us into the company of those who have already come to him through faith. “Through whom, O Lord, thou dost always create, sanctify, quicken, bless, and bestow upon us all these good things.” Here, as far as I can see, we extol Christ and the Father with praises, since through him God always creates, sanctifies, gives life, blesses, and grants us all good things. If others take it in this way as well, it is entirely acceptable. But for what purpose we draw so many crosses in the air, I do not see. From this I suspect that they wish “create” here to refer to the making of Christ’s body and blood. For it has just preceded: “all these good things,” which even they can easily see is absurd. for they do not say that Christ is created, but that bread is transubstantiated into him. The same must be said of “quicken,” for it seems aimed at asking that the bread be made living through conversion. Yet all will be purer and more in accordance with the truth if you omit the pronoun “these” and the crosses. But if the matter were indeed as Augustine of Hippo and John Chrysostom report, I do not think the apostles permitted prayer for the dead for any other reason than out of indulgence toward certain weak believers. For Paul (cf. 1 Thess. 4:13ff.) does not wish us to grieve for the dead as unbelievers do, who are without hope of the life to come. So too, I judge, we ought to act today: if there are some of such slight faith that they wish, with anxious prayers, to commend their faithful parents to the heavenly Lord, I do not think they should be harshly rejected. For Christ did not break the smoking flax (Isa. 42:3), and he tolerated his “little-faith” disciples (Matt. 8:26. 14:31. 16:8). But to remain in such weakness, and, as certain profiteers do, to establish it, this must by no means be permitted. They must be taught and drawn by the word of God, not into disputes of speculation, but into the strengthening of a weak mind: namely, that whoever trusts the word of God, which proclaims Christ to be the Lamb who takes away the sins of the whole world (cf. Gospel of John 1:29), that one, believing thus, is saved and does not come into the judgment of fire, but passes from death to life (John 5:24). Meanwhile, while one remains weak, he should not be allowed to pray otherwise than that the will of God be done, since the judgments of those who have departed are entirely unknown to us. They are known to God alone. Therefore we pray that his will be done, for it is by the merit of Christ alone that blessedness is attained. As for traffickings, prayers for sale, masses, and feigned displays of hypocrisy, send them off, I beg you, to the dogs without delay. The rest that pertains to this matter you may seek, if nowhere else more fully, in our collection of conclusions. “To us also, sinners…” This whole prayer does not depart from the teaching of Christ. Yet there is something here, and above in the other catalogue of the saints’ names, that I would wish omitted: namely, that even if it pleases to recite the names of the blessed, we should spare the names of those who departed without the peril of blood or confession. More fitting, however, would be simply to ask that God receive us into the company of those who have already come to him through faith. “Through whom, O Lord, thou dost always create, sanctify, give life, bless, and bestow upon us all these good things.” Here, as far as I can see, we ascribe praise to Christ and the Father, since through him God always creates, sanctifies, gives life, blesses, and grants us all good things. If others take it in this way as well, it is entirely acceptable. But for what purpose we draw so many crosses in the air, I do not see. From this I suspect that they wish “create” to refer to the making of Christ’s body and blood. For it has just preceded: “all these good things,” which even they can easily see is absurd. for they do not say that Christ is created, but that bread is transubstantiated into him. The same must be said of “gives life,” for it seems aimed at asking that the bread be made living through conversion. All things, however, will be purer and more in accordance with the truth if you omit the pronoun “these” and the crosses. “Through him, and with him, and in him, is to thee, God the Father almighty, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honor and glory, world without end.” This is the second part of the doxology, in which, if the preceding has been rightly understood, I find nothing at all that is not to be approved, except this one thing: the accompanying action prevents the words from being received as they ought. For this frequent signing with the cross terrifies the mind no less than the symbols of mathematicians terrify the unlearned, when they are introduced, something that should have been entirely avoided here. For the essence and unity, as well as the glory and action, of the one God who is three are here expressed. What, then, do all these crosses contribute? I suspect (with due respect to all) that the one who added so many crosses intended, as it were, to dazzle the simple crowd with a kind of trickery. for the oldest manuscripts of the canon show crosses added by another hand, especially in this place. We do not despise the sign of the cross. but I would wish all Christ’s disciples to be such that they think more often of what was accomplished on the cross than that they trace the cross in the air. Faith in the cross ought to be supreme. those who live in Christ have no need of painted crosses. In this sense, “to bless” is not to mark with the sign of the cross, as is now commonly believed, but to give or to render thanks. “Let us pray. Instructed by saving precepts…” Why the Lord’s Prayer has been relegated to this place I cannot clearly see, unless, wherever I turn, I am led to conjecture that what is commonly said is true: namely, that the apostles, when they wished to break bread, that is, to share it, began with the Lord’s Prayer. For this reason it ought to have been placed among the first elements, whether or not the apostles actually used it in this way, though I readily believe they did. For almost everything contained in it is most fittingly prayed at the beginning, especially this: that God would give us our daily, or supersubstantial, bread. Thus far we have engaged the canon of the Mass in a light and skirmishing sort of combat. yet even so we have struck at all its parts, so that it is plainly evident that nothing sound has been left in it. We shall press on with greater force, until we see that we have descended into the arena against those who resist us. for I do not think they will yield the victory without dust, those who oppose whatever stands on Christ’s side, and, conversely, embrace whatever rises against him, joining their arms together, not only as the superstitious (a name I once allowed them some time), but even as the impious, since apart from the aids of Scripture, apart from reason and equity, they strive by sheer force to suppress the truth, and not without their Theseus. They conspire with those princes in whom the Lord forbids us to trust (cf. Luke 20:46), whom Book of Isaiah calls companions of thieves (Isa. 1:23), and they take up arms when they do not dare to contend with Scripture. Our task, meanwhile, is to bear witness through endurance how much stronger the word of God is than all the arms, counsels, and assaults of all princes. By this one means alone will the Gospel of Christ recover its brightness. Having refuted the canon, it remains that we offer something better, something which we do not fail to promise, though it may seem full of arrogance, but only to those who dislike whatever is done rightly. We shall therefore propose nothing that is not conformed to the rule of the divine word. and we wish what we shall give to be referred to that canon. First, however, we shall say something about those things which are done before and after the canon. The vestments with which the minister of the heavenly table is clothed we do not greatly condemn, as far as form is concerned. For who is not moved by the head covered in that manner in which Christ was covered in the house of Caiaphas (cf. Mark 14:65)?, provided that our own head too is modestly covered. for as we now display smooth and flushed cheeks, it is more an affectation than an imitation of what Christ endured. The long garment, which we call the “alb,” may represent the garment in which Christ was arrayed in mockery by Herod (cf. Luke 23:11). I would prefer it to hang loose rather than be girded, were it not gathered up for practical use. The purple cloak likewise ought to be present at any time, just like the white garment. The small cloth carried in the left hand, if it is a symbol of the pillar to which he was bound and scourged (cf. John 19:1), may be approved. Likewise what we now call the “stole,” though it is not truly a stole, if it represents the remaining bonds. But the rest, the luxury of gold, silver, jewels, and silks, we are so far from approving that we judge it to be a grave insult to Christ. Such things have been devised by avarice, which thus cloaks itself in the guise of piety. For us, Christ alone must be set before our eyes. whatever is done otherwise than he did is disgraceful. A proper book ought to be written on the luxury of the ecclesiastical world, if anyone wishes to refute it adequately. The beginning, which we call the “Introit,”, for the other preliminaries by which each prepares himself we pass over, should be drawn from nothing other than the sacred Scriptures. If anything has been taken from elsewhere, it should be set aside and replaced with what is scriptural. “Kyrie eleison”, that is, “Lord, have mercy on us”. “Christe eleison,” “Christ, have mercy.” “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men,” and the rest: this seems to us, above all, a prayer most worthy of a Christian. for it has the form of a creed, of praise, and of petition, as is easily seen by one who considers it. The prayer that is then poured forth in the name of all Christians, if it is of the season, as they say, should be spoken openly without hesitation. if it concerns the saints and contains anything about intercession, it should be set aside and replaced with something more general. The reading is to be taken from nothing other than the sacred Scriptures. What I would wish to be done here will be stated later in general terms. The Anabathmicon, which we call the “Gradual,” should be shortened in its musical measure. for what can be more tedious than to bellow so many sounds on a single vowel? And the Gradual too should be drawn only from Scripture. “Hallelujah,” that is, “Praise God,” we use far too superstitiously. Now we abstain from it more stubbornly than the Jews from pork. soon we weary even the deaf with it. Nor do we ever use it without pouring forth innumerable sounds, like a lyre-player who repeatedly strikes the same string out of tune, or without nauseating even ourselves. I pass over the fact that, once the sacred words are set aside, we begin to bellow our own. Here too we long for moderation in sound. The prose pieces, which they call “Sequences,” are for the most part old wives’ tales and exceedingly crude rhymes. I judge that they should be avoided. If, however, there are any that breathe Christ, let them be sung all the more frequently in place of such trifles. Next follows the Gospel, to which a lamp is brought and lit, because the Gospel is light. But since in Germany it is read in Latin, and scarcely one or two understand what is being said, what else is done but to ensure that it is not understood?, which is the same as placing a lamp under a bushel (cf. Matt. 5:15. Mark 4:21. Luke 11:33). Those, therefore, who read the Gospel before the people of God in a language not commonly understood deprive the sheep of the shepherd’s voice. Hence, although I see that something must still be conceded to the weak, yet in the reading of the Gospel whoever concedes anything sins. For this is the word of life. whoever hides it takes away life. I therefore beseech all who belong to God that, above all, they read the Gospel of Christ openly in the language in which they live, and likewise the Epistle, as it is called. And if anything difficult to understand occurs in either reading, let it be briefly explained according to the time, until everything is finally rendered into the common tongue. If it is the Lord’s Day or another feast, let them dwell somewhat longer on the exposition of the Gospel. After the exposition of the Gospel follows the creed, composed at the Council of Nicaea. This is nothing other than a confession of the faith which we have just heard in the exposition of the Gospel. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Rom. 10:10). Then follows a chant by which we are enticed to the offering, no otherwise than by Sirens. Here one runs, another censes, another receives the collected offering into a dish lest anything be lost, and meanwhile the gentle priest wipes the wound with some shred of the altar cloth. This form of avarice must be banished far away, lest it ever sprout again. Everything that has been accustomed to be done or said between the creed and the preface must be cut away entirely. And when we have set in place the bread and wine required for use, we shall thus stir up devotion: “The Lord be with you,” etc. “Lift up your hearts,” etc. “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.” “It is truly worthy and just,” etc. “Holy, holy, holy,” etc. We do not move the canon from its place, but in the place we have hitherto used we substitute another, not unaware how poorly we shall be received everywhere, as some will charge us with audacity, others with impiety. Nor would they do so unjustly if the former canon were free from fault. But since it has been introduced into the churches not only with audacity but with the utmost rashness, and since it has been convicted by us of impiety, it is not audacity to abandon error but virtue. nor is it impiety to overthrow impiety, but true worship of God. Nor do we impose a law on anyone that he must pray only as we shall pray. rather, we allow each to abound in his own judgment. Would that our predecessors had done the same. For what did it matter with what prayers each person entreated God before or after that action which is ascribed to Christ? Must all live according to the prescription of one unlearned man, or even of many, though plainly unlearned, indeed, not to say impious? Let each pray as the inspiration of the divine Spirit moves him. We shall use the following order, both in prayer and in action. If it pleases anyone, let him use it. if it displeases him, let him use his own, or go back to acorns. We also wish to warn the pious reader that for some time we debated whether it would be expedient, for the sake of certain weak persons, to retain the same order and number of prayers, though with different words and meaning, lest they shrink too much from a newly introduced practice. And in deliberating I was almost inclined to imitate the old form. But when I considered everything more carefully, I saw that the order itself in that old canon is as faulty as its words and sense. For, to say nothing of the rest, which we shall address in its place, this above all displeased me: that the eating did not immediately follow the blessing, though the apostles performed it as soon as the mystery was set forth. This was the reason why I decided that provision must be made for the weak in another way, brief indeed, but not unhelpful. Those who are so weak that they cannot at once abandon abuse and embrace what accords with the mind of Christ must be nourished with milk for a time, until they are able to take solid food (cf. Heb. 5:12). Yet this must be considered: we do not provide for them so that they may remain perpetually weak, but that they may grow more and more. Meanwhile, if out of fear they cannot do otherwise, whenever they encounter the terms “host,” or “oblation,” or “we offer,” or similar words, let them inwardly understand something different from what the words seem to convey: namely, by “host” let them understand that sacrifice which Christ once offered. and let them take “host” and “sacrifice” as a remembrance, and “we offer” as “we remember” or “we commemorate.” For he gave himself as food for this purpose: that since he himself had overcome the world, we also, when we partake of him, might be strengthened to overcome the world. We shall vainly boast that we make remembrance of what he did if we proclaim this only in words. You therefore, most merciful Father, through Christ your Son, our Lord, through whom you give life to all things, renew them, and govern them, grant that we may express him in our deeds, so that the image once effaced in Adam may by this means recover its form. And that this may come to us more effectively and firmly, grant that all who are about to partake of the food of this Son’s body and blood may breathe and express one and the same thing, and in him who is one with you may themselves become one. Through the same Christ our Lord.
- O God, who through him than whom no greater has arisen among those born of women were pleased to make known that your Son was the Lamb who takes away our sins, grant that even now through that same Lamb we may call upon you. and when we cry, “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us,” do you in your kindness forgive all guilt. For he suffered for this end, that through him we might continually come to you. for this he willed to be clothed in our weakness, that we might be strengthened in him. for this he gave himself as food, that nourished by him we might grow into a perfect man, into the fullness of his stature. Draw, O Lord, our hearts by the grace of your light, that we may worthily, that is, with the faith required, approach this most holy banquet of your Son, in which he himself is both host and feast.
- For on the night in which he was betrayed, he took bread, and giving thanks, blessed and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying:
- Take and eat: this is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.
- Likewise also the cup, after supper, he took, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying:
- Drink of it, all of you: for this is my blood, that of the new covenant, which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.
- For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Come, therefore, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. May the body of our Lord Jesus Christ avail you unto eternal life. May the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ avail you unto eternal life. Let the minister say the same at his own communion, with the person changed. After the heavenly banquet let him say: “We give thanks to you, Lord, for all your gifts and benefits, who live and reign,” etc. “Now you dismiss your servant, O Lord,” etc. The so-called “complements,” if they are acts of thanksgiving, may be spoken. if not, for example, if they pertain to offering or the intercession of saints, they should be omitted, and recourse made to general prayers. “The Lord be with you.” Let the blessing be given without “Go, the Mass is ended.” Now I shall give the rationale for the parts that were numbered above.
- First, it was necessary to know the creation of the first human being, so that,
- in the second place, the transgression might be better understood, and the condemnation
- that followed, which corrupted all posterity.
- The compassion of God is signified in the shadow of the Gospel.
- The promise of the seed, which is Christ, brings consolation.
- At last the Gospel, the good message of God, arises.
- For Christ, the innocent priest, is given to us.
- He himself becomes the sacrifice.
- And he gives himself to us as food.
- A turning toward the Father, and preparation for the Lord’s Prayer.
- The Lord’s Prayer first requires faith, that we call God Father. then it seeks honor for his name. afterward, what is necessary for us.
- This prayer asks for the nourishment of the Word, which alone is the cause of faith and salvation. We have deliberately omitted here prayer for rulers and for the church, lest any opening be given for profit. for this ought already to have been done openly, according to custom, when the Gospel was expounded.
- The second prayer descends to the food of the body and blood of Christ, that by eating him we may imitate him.
- It tends toward the remission of sins. Nothing beyond what is contained in the Lord’s Prayer seemed necessary to ask. 15–18. These are the words of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and Paul (Matt. 26:26–29. Luke 22:19–20. Mark 14:22–25. 1 Cor. 11:23–25). I had intended to give a fuller explanation of all these things, but the limits of the printer did not permit it, and here we have yielded to that constraint. For the pious, I think, enough has been said and done. whatever is lacking here, each person will supply and will thereby do us a service. We have merely provided an occasion for others to examine the matter more deeply. Our work does not fear public scrutiny, for we know on what it is founded. Judge fairly and kindly, you who are fair and devout. for the rest, I do not concern myself with them. I commend myself to the charity of all the brethren.