VIII

After the formation of the Confession of Augsburg in 1530 a reply was drawn up on behalf of the papal party by John Maier von Eck, the Professor of Theology in the University of Ingolstadt, and other divines, and after some revision to please the Emperor was read in the Diet on 3rd August, 1530. The comment on the tenth article of the Confession of Augsburg was as follows:—

“The tenth article is not verbally hurtful, because they acknowledge that in the Eucharist after consecration lawfully made the body and blood of Christ are substantially and really present, if only they would believe that the whole Christ is present under each species, so that the blood of Christ is no less under the species of bread by concomitance than it is under the species of wine, and the body of Christ under the species of wine. Otherwise, the body of Christ in the Eucharist would be dead and bloodless.… One very necessary addition to the article of the Confession is that they should believe the Church rather than any who wrongly teach differently, so as to acknowledge that by the almighty word of God in the consecration of the Eucharist the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ.… They are to be praised because they condemn the Capernaites who deny that the reality of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist.”

In the course of a lengthy defence of existing practices in the celebration of the Mass, the following statements on important doctrinal matters occur:—

“Neither can the assumption be properly understood that Christ made satisfaction by His passion for original sin and instituted the Mass for actual sin; for this idea was never heard of by Catholics, and very many of them on now being asked strongly deny that there has been any such teaching. For the Mass does not blot out sins, which are removed by means of Penance as it were by a special medicine, but it blots out the penalty due for sin; it supplies satisfactions; and it confers increase of grace and healthful protection on souls that are in life; lastly, to certain needs and necessities of ours it affords hope of comfort and divine aid.”

“Neither are St. Paul’s words to the Hebrews, that ‘by one offering we have been justified once for all by Christ,’ contrary to the offering of the Mass. For St. Paul is speaking of the offering of the victim, that is, of the bloody sacrifice, of the slain lamb, to wit, on the altar of the cross. This offering certainly was made once for all; and from it all the Sacraments and also the sacrifice of the Mass have their efficacy. Therefore He was offered once only on the cross with shed blood; to-day He is offered in the Mass as a peaceful and sacramental victim. Then He was offered in a passible manner in visible form; to-day He is offered in the Mass impassibly, veiled in mysteries, as in the Old Testament He was sacrificed typically and figuratively.”

With the repudiation in this manifesto of the papal party of the idea that the sacrifice of the cross availed only for original sin, and that the sacrifice of the Mass was a separate and new sacrifice for actual sins, may be compared a statement written a little later by the eminent theologian Albert Pighi, the Provost of the Church of St. John at Utrecht, in his treatise On the Sacrifice of the Mass. Referring to the Confession of Augsburg, he wrote:—

“They are to be told that they have not acted candidly, and do not so act, in ascribing to us in their Confession the ‘opinion which increased private Masses infinitely, namely, that Christ by His passion made satisfaction only for original sin, and instituted the Mass, in which there should be an offering for daily mortal and venial sins’. In truth I, who for very many years have had experience of the schools, which are open to all kinds of discussions and examinations of the truth and assertions, have yet never heard or read of any one advancing an opinion of this kind before I read their Confession. Nor do I think that they will be able to produce any one, whether a schoolman or anybody else, who puts forth an opinion of this kind; and, even if they had found any such person, they still would not have acted candidly in ascribing the stupidity of one man to us all, who never heard or read of any such thing among ourselves; and by monstrosities of this kind they asperse our doctrine, and defile it, and misrepresent it among a populace ignorant of these matters and ready to believe them.”

Yet some justification for the opinion of the Reformers that a doctrine was held which regarded the Sacrifice of the Mass as a separate and independent sacrifice may be seen in the writings of Lancelot Politi, usually known as Ambrose Catharinus, a skilful if somewhat eccentric theologian whose life extended from 1487 to 1553. In some passages in his works he writes as if he thought the efficacy of the redemption accomplished on the cross to be limited to sins committed before Baptism; and this was understood to be his meaning not only by anti-Roman Catholic controversialists such as Bishop Jewel, but also by Roman Catholic divines, notably Melchior Cano, Vasquez, and Suarez. In other passages, however, he very distinctly represents the sacrifice of the Mass as deriving its efficacy from the sacrifice of the cross. The following quotations afford instances of both types of language, and supply two interesting allusions to the heavenly presentation of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews Catharinus writes:—

“When they [that is, the Lutherans] object ‘Where there is remission of sins, there is no more offering for sins,’ I answer that the Apostle is speaking of the sins which were under the first covenant, as was original sin, and the sins which had their source in it.… And so it is necessary that sacrifice should remain for faults which are admitted after the remission of the old sins and the reception of grace.… They [that is, the Levitical priests] offered sacrifices for that original sin, which returns no more if once taken away. Wherefore it was not right that, when this was once removed, they should sacrifice any more for it. But we, since we offer sacrifice for continual sins, are not forbidden, or rather are obliged, continually to sacrifice and at the same time continually to supplicate, so that those sins which are continually committed may be continually expiated by sacrifice. For the sacrifice is not always offered by us for the same sins.… We say that the priests who are now on earth are not without occupation, because He is in the presence of God in heaven and makes intercession for us.… The holy of holies is in heaven, whither our High Priest has now entered with His own blood in the midst, that one offering whereby it was brought about that expiation was made for the former faults which were under the first covenant, and that for the new faults which should arise under the new covenant the ancient useless priesthood should be removed, and a new priesthood appointed for doing away with the faults which are continually repeated under the new covenant.… We have blood, and real blood, which we offer to appease God for the new faults, because without blood there is no remission; and the outpouring of this blood, which took place once, ought always to be of profit, provided it is continually offered. Nor is it offered only for those faults which are committed but also for the thanksgiving and the praise which we owe to God. And not only to do away the sins which have been committed but also to obtain benefits and to prevent their being lost. For as often as we offer, so often that blood is poured out before the face of God, that is, so often it affords the efficacy of that outpouring; because, when there is a memorial of that outpouring (for we do it for His memorial), in a kind of way it is renewed. For so did the Lord most wisely institute. For it is needful, in order that it may profit, for that sacrifice to be applied to us. Now in respect of the former faults, which were under the old covenant, it is applied by means of Baptism. But in respect of the new faults it is applied by means of this new sacrifice, and by means of the other Sacraments, which would not avail without this sacrifice as neither would Baptism avail without that sacrifice of Christ.… Since then these reasons for sacrifice undoubtedly remain under the new covenant, this one bloodless sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ was ordained for us, that it might be sufficient for all purposes, that is, for rendering praise and thanksgiving to God, and for obtaining new benefits, and for blotting out fresh sins; yet it has force from that one offering which was made by Christ, which is renewed in our offerings. For, as it is right for us to pray for ourselves and also for the whole body of the Church (although Christ prayed for us all), so it is right for us also to sacrifice for ourselves, although Christ sacrificed for us and for the whole world, because we thus apply to ourselves both His prayer and His sacrifice.”

“This place also smites our opponents [that is, the Lutherans] hard. For from this it is seen that for the sins committed under the new covenant after the reception of the efficacy of the saving sacrifice in Baptism we have not for sin that offering which Christ offered for the sin of the world and for the offences preceding Baptism. For He died only once, and therefore that sacrifice is only once applied to this effect. Nevertheless another way of remission by means of Penance is not excluded, Christ being present in heaven and making intercession for us, provided we also make satisfaction for the penalties that are due.”

With these quotations from the Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews the following extracts from the treatise Concerning the Reality of the Bloodless Sacrifice should be compared.

“This is the Catholic and most holy truth, that in the new covenant and the law of grace there has been instituted by the word of the Lord an outward and sensible sacrifice to be offered visibly on the altar by the priests and ministers of God for the expiation of their own sins and the sins of others both living and departed. This sacrifice is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ hidden in the Sacrament.”

“To effect this result—which is to be set free from sin and to be justified and to enter into Christ and so into the way to wage war, as He Himself waged war and conquered, all which are signified and come to pass in Baptism—there never has been, and there is not, and there will not be, any other priest except Him alone, or any other sacrifice except the bloody sacrifice of His body alone, or any other offering except that one offering made by Him on the cross with prayer and tears.… That one offering was sufficient for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the first covenant, which signifies nothing else but what we have said, original sin together with its fruits, since they who were under original sin were shut up guilty of death under the first covenant.… But at this point some one will attack us and say, If the thing is so, that Christ by His bloody offering wrought redemption for us only for the preceding offences, which are under the first covenant, it seems to follow that in the new covenant either there are no offences or, if there are any, they are inexpiable; and, if so, that the heresy of Novatus is here again, … from which heresy if we shrink, it seems to remain that we say (as the new heretics lay down) either that after Baptism there are no transgressions, because there is no law, or that, if there are any, God does not care about them, but considers them to have been expiated by that first bloody offering of the Lord, and so does not now impute them to believers, so that they be expiated by faith and assurance alone without any sacrifice.… It is altogether false and irrational to say that the sins committed in the new covenant are not imputed because of the bloody sacrifice of Christ already once for all offered, which, as has been said, pertained to the faults of the first covenant.… But that the sins committed under the new covenant are inexpiable is a perverse opinion, long ago condemned and refuted by the Church. Since then there are sins, and they are expiable, and they do not pertain to the bloody sacrifice of Christ, inquiry must be made in what way they are expiated, whether it is without sacrifice.… We say that sacrifice is altogether necessary, since without sacrifice there could not be any Sacrament.… Now, as the sins which are committed under the new covenant are of a different kind from those of old, so they ought to have their own proper sacrifice and priesthood and offering and suitable oblations, not one only, as those which were under the former covenant; because all the sins which were under that were in a sort of way reckoned as one, as being derived from that one sin which was committed once in Paradise. Wherefore it required only one offering to expiate it, as we have said. For those sins which are committed under the new covenant are considered individually by themselves, and each one demands its own expiation.”

“This sacrifice … is the sacrifice of the new covenant, which presupposes, as I have said, the redemption by and the acceptance of that bloody sacrifice.”

“This new and bloodless sacrifice has its efficacy from that bloody sacrifice of which it is the commemoration.… Although that first bloody offering of Christ freed the whole world from the ancient sin and the guilt of it, and consequently from all the guilt of the sins which have been mentioned, yet, as we have said, it did not free in such a way that there be no necessity of the merits of that sacrifice being applied to each individual.”

“There is not one power of the Sacrament and another of the sacrifice, but by means of the Sacrament of the Eucharist itself the power of the bloodless sacrifice is applied, which we obtain (mutuamur) from the bloody sacrifice, as by means of Baptism the power of the bloody sacrifice is applied without any other sacrifice being intermediate.”

“Insofar as we are priests, what should we have to offer unless He has given Himself as a sacrifice? And with what face could we hope to make the sacrifice acceptable when offering it on earth, unless we had received with a sure faith that the same sacrifice is borne by Him or His angel to the altar on high in heaven, which is the glorious presence of the Holy Trinity, and is presented by Him, as we declare in the canon?”

“We entreat that our sacrifice may be borne by the angel, that is, by Christ, that the spiritual thing which we offer on the earthly altar, may be brought by the hands of the Holy Angel Himself to the altar of the Most Holy Godhead.”

Whatever the right explanation of the meaning of Catharinus may be, it is easy to understand that some of the passages which have been quoted were thought to indicate a doctrine that the efficacy of the sacrifice of the cross was limited to the sphere of sins remitted in Baptism; and there are not wanting slight signs elsewhere either of a popular teaching or of a popular misunderstanding of teaching to this effect. Whatever may be the truth of the belief of the authorities at Nuremberg in 1524 that a friar had taught that “Christ suffered only for original sin and for the actual sins committed before He came,” or in the popular accusation against Johann Rode, the Rector of the Church of Our Lady at Luebeck, in 1529 that he had maintained that the death of Christ was effectual only for men of former times, they may afford evidence, if not of misconceptions of this kind in popular teaching, at least of what some uninstructed persons supposed to be taught.

A statement made in defence of the sacrificial character of the Mass at the second Disputation at Zurich held in October, 1523, by Martin Steinly, a representative from Schaffhausen, is not without interest. Steinly in his thesis in opposition to Zwingli gave four reasons why the Mass is a sacrifice. First, the universality of sin prevents the sacrifice of themselves offered by individual Christians, or the sacrifice of itself offered by the Church, from being a pure and holy and spotless sacrifice; and the words of the prophet Malachi show that there is to be a “pure offering” not only in Jerusalem, like the sacrifice on the cross, but also “in every place”. “That pure offering which is offered among the Gentiles is nothing else than the sacrifice of the altar, which the Christian Church, established among the Gentiles and dispersed throughout every place, is wont to offer by means of her ministers to the Name of God.” Secondly, the institution of the Eucharist was the fulfilment by our Lord of the type of Melchizedek, who offered bread and wine; and the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, as distinct from that of Aaron, is an abiding priesthood, the exercise of which remains in the Mass. “The Priest after the order of Melchizedek abides for ever in such a way that He sacrifices after the pattern of Melchizedek; and this takes place invisibly daily in the Mass, when the Church sacrifices His flesh and blood under the species of bread and wine.” Thirdly, in view of the promise of our Lord that the Holy Ghost, who is the Spirit of truth, shall be with the Church, the unvarying Christian tradition proves that the Mass is a sacrifice. “Whatever has been received with unanimous consent by the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth, which contains both sheep and shepherds, ought to be received as delivered by the Holy Ghost, who rules the Church.” Fourthly, the Mass was instituted by our Lord to be in remembrance of Him; and it is a commemoration of His passion, in which there is both the sign and the reality of sacrifice. “Since that same blood of Christ, and that same body which hung on the cross, and that same Christ who suffered on the cross, are actually a sacrifice in the Mass itself, the Mass is assuredly a sacrifice actually as well as in name, and it is both a sacrifice and the commemoration of a sacrifice.”