Augsburg Confession – Article 25 – Confession

Article 25 of the Augsburg Confession in the Book of Concord of 1580

(To read Article 24, click here.)

Confession has not been done away with by the preachers on our side. For we observe the custom of not giving the Sacrament to those who have not first been heard and absolved.1 Thereby the people are diligently instructed how comforting the pronouncement of absolution is and how much they ought to esteem and cherish absolution. For it is not the voice or word of the person on hand that forgives sin, but God’s word that does so.2 For it is spoken in God’s stead and by God’s command. We teach with great diligence how comforting and how necessary this command and power of the keys is for terrified consciences. We also teach how God requires us to believe this absolution, no less than if God’s own voice were booming from the sky, and gladly to take comfort in the absolution and to know that we obtain forgiveness of sins through such faith. In the past, the preachers who did a lot of teaching about confession did not touch on a single word about these necessary points. Instead they only tortured consciences with prolonged enumeration of sins, with satisfaction, with indulgences, with pilgrimages and the like. And many of our opponents themselves confess that our side has treated and written about true Christian repentance more competently than has been done in a long time.

And this is what we teach about confession: No one should be forced to enumerate their sins one by one. For such a thing is impossible, as the psalm says, “Who can know his misdeeds?” And Jeremiah says, “The human heart is so corrupt that no one can completely understand it.” The wretched human nature is stuck so deep in sins that it cannot see or know them all, and if we were only to be absolved of those that we could list, there would be little help for us. Therefore it is not necessary to force the people to enumerate their sins one by one. That was also the position of the Fathers, as one finds in Part 2, Subject 33, Question 3 (concerning repentance), Distinction 1, where the words of Chrysostom are cited: “I am not saying that you should indict yourselves publicly or accuse yourself or admit your guilt with each other. Rather obey the prophet, who says, ‘Reveal your ways to the Lord.’ Therefore confess to God the Lord, the true Judge, along with your other prayers. Do not speak your sins with the tongue, but in your conscience.”3 Here one can clearly see that Chrysostom does not compel the enumerating of sins one by one. That is also what the gloss teaches in Question 3, Distinction 5 of the Decrees, that confession is not commanded by Scripture, but was instituted by the churches.4 Nevertheless, the preachers on our side do diligently teach that confession should be retained on account of the absolution, which is the chief and most important component of it, for the comfort of terrified consciences, and for several other reasons as well.5

(To continue to Article 26, click here.)

Notes

1 See 1 Corinthians 11:28 for Paul’s inspired instruction that would-be communicants should examine themselves before partaking of the Holy Supper. Private confession was regarded as an excellent way to aid in such self-examination. Five questions that are useful for self-examination are:

  1. Do I realize and confess that I am a sinner in need of what Jesus offers and gives in the Sacrament? (Matthew 26:26-28)
  2. Do I believe that Jesus does truly forgive my sins and assure me of his love through the Sacrament? (Matthew 26:26-28)
  3. Do I believe that Jesus miraculously gives his actual body and blood to me in this Sacrament, the same body that hung on the cross for me, the same blood that was shed on the cross for me? (Matthew 26:26-28; 1 Corinthians 11:23-32)
  4. Do I also recognize and believe that this Supper is an expression of unity with my fellow believers, and that I should therefore approach the Supper and depart from the Supper with conduct that reflects this? (1 Corinthians 10:16,17; 11:20-34)
  5. Am I holding a grudge against anyone or deliberately and willingly persisting in any other sin? (Matthew 6:14,15; 18:21-35; Hebrews 10:26-31)

Private confession with a clergyman was/is especially helpful with the first and second questions. However, see the remainder of this article and Notes 3 & 4 below; the Lutherans did/do understand that private confession to a clergyman was a tradition, not a scriptural mandate.

2 Melanchthon’s German appears to be sloppy here. Following his grammar strictly yields something like: “For it is not the voice or word of the person on hand, but God’s word, the One who forgives sin.” But this does not flow well or read smoothly in the context.

3 See Gratian’s Decretum, Part 2, Subject 33, Question 3, Distinction 1, Chapter 87 here (type 1185 in the “Jump to page” field and click Go). The original quote from Chrysostom is found in Homily 31 on Hebrews, §6 (original Greek in §3 in col. 216 here).

It is interesting to note the historical context in which Chrysostom preached these words. He was bishop of Constantinople at the time (398-404 AD), having succeeded Bishop Nectarius (381-397). Up until Nectarius’ time, there had been a so-called presbyter of penitence or penitentiary in the Eastern Christian churches, who was appointed to hear the confessions of the faithful before they were communed. The story is slightly different depending on which of the two church historians you read, Socrates Scholasticus (c. 440) or Sozomen (c. 445), but either way a lady of the nobility is involved. She was either raped by a deacon while fasting and praying in the church after confession, or after having confessed once, she returned to confess again, this time admitting that she had slept with a deacon. This ruined the reputation of the clergy as a whole, and the practice of private confession also suffered. Bishop Nectarius, after consulting with others, decided to abolish the office of penitentiary, and to leave everyone to his own conscience with regard to self-examination and preparation for Communion. This is the setting into which Chrysostom arrived when he succeeded Nectarius. One can see Chrysostom’s sensitivity to the matter both in asserting that confessing to others was not absolutely necessary and in nevertheless stressing the importance of examining oneself regularly and confessing one’s sins to God.

4 See Gratian’s Decretum, Part 2, Subject 33, Question 3, Distinction 5, Chapter 1 here (type 1245 in the “Jump to page” field and click Go). Melanchthon’s citation found in gloss a, on the words “In pænitentia,” and reads:

But it is better to say that [private confession] was instituted from some tradition of the universal church rather than from the authority of the New or Old Testament. And the tradition of the church obligates just like a command does… Therefore confession is necessary among us in the case of mortal sins; among the Greeks it is not, because such a tradition did not arise among them.

However, see Note 3 above, which demonstrates that it did arise among them, but was subsequently abolished, which was able to be done because, though the practice was useful, it was not mandated by Scripture.

5 This article is an expansion of Article 11; refer back to that article for more notes and proof passages.

Advertisements

Augsburg Confession – Article 24 – The Mass

Article 24 (misprinted as 23) of the Augsburg Confession in the Book of Concord of 1580

(To read Article 23, click here.)

Our churches are charged with supposedly having abolished the Mass,1 but unjustly so. For it is obvious – and we may say this without boasting – that we observe the Mass with greater devotion and seriousness than our opponents do. The people are also frequently instructed with the utmost diligence about why the Holy Sacrament was instituted and how it should be used, namely so that terrified consciences may be comforted with it. In this way the people are drawn to Communion and the Mass. Along with that, instruction against other incorrect teachings about the Sacrament is also given. Nor has any noticeable change been made in the public ceremonies of the Mass, except that in several places German songs are sung in addition to Latin singing, for the teaching and training of the people. After all, this is the chief purpose that all ceremonies should serve, that the people learn from them what it is necessary for them to know about Christ.2

But since in times past the Mass has been abused in a number of different ways (a fact as clear as day), so that it was turned into a retail fair where people were buying and selling them and the majority of masses in all the churches were said for the sake of money,such abuse has been rebuked by learned and pious people more than once, even before our time.3 Now when our preachers preached about this and the priests were reminded of that terrible threat, which really should stir up every Christian, that whoever uses the Sacrament in an unworthy manner is guilty of sinning against the body and blood of Christ,4 such masses for sale and private masses, which had hitherto been said out of compulsion for the sake of money and prebends,5 consequently fell out of use in our churches.6

In addition, we also rebuke the appalling error that has been taught, that our Lord Christ has only made satisfaction for inherited sin through his death and that the Mass was instituted as a sacrifice for the other sins, thus turning the Mass into a sacrifice offered for both the living and the dead that is used to take away sin and appease God. This has furthermore led to people disputing whether a Mass said for many people merits as much as if a special one were said for each individual. This has resulted in the countless multitude of masses, with people using this work to try to obtain everything they need from God, while at the same time faith in Christ and true worship have been forgotten.

Second page of Article 24 of the Augsburg Confession in the Book of Concord of 1580

Therefore instruction has been given about this, as necessity has unquestionably required, so that people may know the proper use of the Sacrament. We have taught them, first of all, that Scripture shows in many places that there is no other sacrifice for inherited sin and other sin besides the one and only death of Christ. For this is what stands written in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ has sacrificed himself once and has thereby made satisfaction for all sin.7 It is quite an unheard-of innovation in church doctrine that Christ’s death was meant to make satisfaction only for inherited sin and not also for other sin besides. It is therefore to be hoped that one and all will understand that such an error is not rebuked unjustly.

Secondly, St. Paul teaches that we obtain grace before God through faith and not through works.8 This abuse of the Mass is obviously contrary to this, if people are imagining that they can obtain grace through this work. For it is well known that the Mass has been used for that purpose, to pay for sin and to obtain grace and every blessing from God, not just the priest for himself, but also for the whole world and for others, both living and dead.

Thirdly, the Holy Sacrament was instituted not to set up a sacrifice for sin – for the sacrifice has been made already – but so that our faith might be awakened through it and that consciences might be comforted when they perceive through the Sacrament that grace and forgiveness of sin is promised to them by Christ.9 This sacrament therefore requires faith, and without faith it is used in vain.10

Now since the Mass is not a sacrifice for others, living or dead, to take away their sin, but is meant to be a communion where the priest and others receive the Sacrament for themselves, this is the way in which we observe it: We hold Mass on holy days and other days when communicants are present, and all those who desire it are communed. In this way we retain the Mass in its proper use, the way it used to be held in the church, as one can prove from St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 and from the writings of many Fathers besides. For Chrysostom tells how the priest daily stands and summons some to Communion, while forbidding others to come forward.11 The ancient canons also indicate that one man officiated and communed the other priests and deacons. For this is how the words read in the Nicaean canon: The deacons should receive the Sacrament from the bishop or priest in an orderly way after the priests do.12

If then, in doing this, we have not undertaken any innovation that has not existed in the church of old, and if in the public ceremonies of the masses no noticeable change has been made except that the other unnecessary masses have fallen out of use, which were observed in addition to the parish Mass through an abuse somewhere along the line, it is therefore unjust that this way of holding Mass should be condemned as heretical and unchristian. For in the past, even in the large churches where there were many people, and even on the days where the people came together, Mass was not held every day. For Book 9 of the Tripartite History indicates that on Wednesday and Friday in Alexandria, Scripture was read and expounded and all other services were held without the Mass.13

(To continue to Article 25, click here.)

Notes

1 The term “the Mass” was and is sometimes used to refer to an entire service with Communion, but it is especially used to refer specifically to the rite of the Sacrament of Holy Communion, as it is in this article. The term comes from the Latin word missa, which was allegedly one of the concluding words of the ancient rite of the Sacrament: “Ite, missa est. [Go, the assembly is dismissed.]”

Melanchthon is referring to Dr. Johann Eck’s 404 Articles, a publication that lumped Luther together with Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Carlstadt, Pirkheimer, Hubmaier, and Denck, and charged them with every conceivable heresy. This publication had a significant influence on the final form of the Augsburg Confession. Depending on the edition and the numbering, the articles in which Eck dealt with alleged errors about the Mass began with either 269 or 270. You can read the original Latin here, a German translation here, and an English translation here.

2 1 Corinthians 14:26. The content of this paragraph in Latin is ordered differently and expanded upon:

Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. For the Mass is retained among us and celebrated with the utmost reverence. And almost all of the usual ceremonies are preserved, except that here and there German songs are added to the Latin ones, which is done in order to teach the people. For that is what ceremonies are especially useful for—teaching the ignorant. Plus, Paul instructed that a language understood by the people should be used in church [1 Corinthians 14]. The people are accustomed to receiving the Sacrament together, as many as are fit for it; this also increases the reverence and piety of the public ceremonies. For none are admitted unless they have first been examined and heard. People are also reminded of the value and use of the Sacrament, how much comfort it affords to troubled consciences, in order that they may learn to trust in God and to expect and ask for everything good from God. This worship pleases God; using the Sacrament this way strengthens devotion to God. And so one cannot find masses among our adversaries that are conducted with greater piety than they are among us.

3 Such “learned and pious people” included Johannes Tauler (c. 1300-1361), Jean Charlier de Gerson (1363-1429), Nicolaus Cusanus (1401-1464), and Gabriel Biel (c. 1420-1495), among others; cf. Acts 8:20.

4 1 Corinthians 11:27

5 A prebend was the portion of the revenues of a cathedral formerly granted to a priest connected to a cathedral (serving under a bishop) as his stipend; cf. 1 Peter 5:2.

6 In the Latin version, a paragraph is added here:

Nor were the bishops ignorant of these abuses; if they had corrected them in time, there would be less dissension now. In the past, many vices were allowed to creep into the church through their negligence. Now, when it is too late, they are beginning to complain about the troubles in the church, even though this tumult had no source other than those very abuses, which were so obvious that they could not be tolerated any longer. Great dissensions have arisen over the Mass, over the Sacrament, perhaps as punishment for the way the world has been profaning masses for so long—a sacrilege that has been tolerated in the church for so many centuries by the very men who both could have and ought to have corrected it. For it is written in the Decalogue that the one who misuses the name of God will not go unpunished [Exodus 20:7]. And from the beginning of the world there does not seem to be any divine thing that has ever been exploited for gain the way the Mass has.

7 Hebrews 2:14-17; 7:27; 9:12,26,28; 10:12,14; see also 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:2.

8 Romans 3:21-24; 4:4-8; Galatians 2:15,16; Ephesians 2:8,9

9 Jeremiah 31:31-34; Matthew 26:26-28; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

10 The Latin version has a somewhat different train of thought here:

But Christ commands us to do this in memory of him. That is why the Mass was instituted, in order that faith in those who receive the Sacrament may recall the benefits it receives through Christ and may cheer up and console the troubled conscience. For to remember Christ means to remember his benefits and to sense that they are truly presented to us. Nor is it enough to recall the history, since the Jews and the impious are able to recall this too. This is therefore the purpose for which the Mass should be celebrated, that there the Sacrament might be distributed to those who are in need of consolation, just as Ambrose says, “Because I am always sinning, I should always be taking the medicine.”

Melanchthon is concisely paraphrasing paragraph 25 from De sacramentis, Book 5, Chapter 4 (original Latin in col. 452 here), the final two sentences of which read thus: “Whoever has a wound requires medicine. The wound is that we are subject to sin; the medicine is the heavenly and venerable Sacrament.” Ambrose’s authorship of this treatise continues to be debated.

11 Melanchthon is combining portions from two of Chrysostom’s homilies. In Homily 3 on Ephesians (delivered prior to 392 AD), Chrysostom says, “In vain is the daily sacrifice [θυσία], in vain do we stand at the altar; there is no one to partake” (original Greek in col. 29 here). In Homily 17 on Hebrews (many scholars think he delivered these in Constantinople, thus between 398 and 404), he says, “This is also why the priest calls out when it is time, summoning the holy, and through this call inspecting everyone for blemishes, in order to prevent anyone unprepared from approaching. … [W]ith a loud voice, with an awful cry, just like some herald raising his hand into the air, standing aloft, having been made visible to everyone, and after that awful silence shouting out his important message, the priest invites some, but wards off others, not doing this with his hand, but with his tongue more distinctly than with his hand” (original Greek in cols. 132,133 here). In both sermons – worthy of reading in their entirety – Chrysostom rebukes some of his members for sporadic Communion attendance, adding in the Ephesians sermon that many only come to Communion on Epiphany and during Lent. This is eerily similar to the present-day phenomenon of so-called Christmas and Easter Christians. He also rebukes his members who merely come out of “custom and form than [out of] consideration and understanding.”

12 Canon 18 of the First Council of Nicaea. The Latin version adds: “And Paul commands about Communion that some should wait for the others, so that there may be common participation.”

13 The Tripartite History of Cassiodorus (c. 485-c. 585) was his compilation of the church histories of Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Melanchthon’s reference can be viewed on folio 79b here. However, the original chapter on which it is based (Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 22) says that the Wednesday and Friday in question were only those of Holy Week. However, earlier in the same chapter Socrates also says that “almost all churches throughout the world” celebrate the Lord’s Supper on Saturday, but the churches in Alexandria and Rome had ceased to do so. (Presumably they still did so the following day.)

It is indisputable that the Lutheran Church in the United States and elsewhere today celebrates the Lord’s Supper less often than the Christians in earlier times did. This is due to primarily two factors. The first is the influence of Pietism. Pietism was a movement that both affected and infected Lutheranism beginning in the late 1600s, in response to what it perceived as a lifeless Christianity. To try to correct the error, Pietism created errors of its own. Instead of turning people outside of themselves to the means of grace, it turned people inside themselves to search and fix their own minds, hearts, and motives. Examining oneself before Communion ballooned from an important biblical requirement to an exacting and exhausting ritual. Regular communing was seen as a lifeless habit. It was better, the Pietists thought, to commune only a few times a year with the proper heart (which often ended up being a self-righteous heart) than it was to receive it every Sunday in a habitual way (a false dichotomy). Thus, the practice of every-Sunday Communion was in many cases virtually extinguished in favor of communing a handful of times a year. Pietism continued to have an influence on Lutheranism in America. However, especially in the last century or so, as Lutheran leaders and teachers in the United States have studied and taught the need for Communion, the blessings of Communion, and the Communion practice of the ancient Christians and Lutherans, this has had a trickle-down effect, so that the regularity of Communion has gone from a handful of times a year, to once a month, to twice a month (still a common practice in many American Lutheran churches), to the receiving of Communion on all Sundays and church festivals in some churches, as described by Melanchthon in this article.

The second factor is a more nuanced purpose of worship. In the past, worship was very rarely considered as a venue for evangelism, if at all. Evangelism almost always took place outside of worship. However, Lutherans have in many cases done their best to make their regular services another viable option for acquainting people with the gospel, without ignoring the fact that worship is primarily intended for believers (Matthew 18:19,20; Ephesians 5:19,20; Colossians 3:15,16; Hebrews 10:19-25). Where congregations make worship one of the avenues for evangelism, it makes sense that Communion would not be offered in every main service, in order to have some services that pose less stumbling blocks for visitors, since the Scriptures commend the practice of close Communion, i.e. Communion only for those united in the same faith (1 Corinthians 11:17-32; 1:10; 10:16-22; Romans 16:17).

Confessional Lutherans continue to wrestle with this tension—wanting to derive and receive all the benefits from corporate worship that Jesus wants them to have, while at the same time wanting also to attract others to those benefits, in a gentle and loving way.

Augsburg Confession – Article 22 – The Sacrament in Both Kinds

Article 22 of the Augsburg Confession in the Book of Concord of 1580

(To read Article 21, click here.)

Articles of Dissension, Where the Abuses that Have Been Changed Are Enumerated

Now since there are no articles of faith taught in our churches that are contrary to Holy Scripture or ordinary Christian churches, but only certain abuses have been changed, some of which have snuck in over time while others have been introduced by force, we are therefore necessarily required to enumerate these abuses and to provide the reason why changes are tolerated in such matters. That way, the Imperial Majesty will realize that we not acting in an unchristian or impudent manner here, but that we are compelled to allow such changes by God’s command, which one ought to regard more highly than any custom.

Article 22 – The Sacrament in Both Kinds

Among us the Sacrament is given to the laypeople in both kinds. Here is why: This is the clear directive and command of Christ in Matthew 26: “Drink from it, all of you.” Here, in speaking about the cup, Christ clearly commands that they should all drink from it.

And so that no one can attack these words or interpret them to mean that they only apply to the priests, Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 11 that the entire assembly of the Corinthian church used both kinds. And this practice continued in the church for a long time, as one can demonstrate using the histories and the writings of the Fathers. Cyprian mentions in many places that the cup was given to the laypeople at the time.1 Saint Jerome says that the priests who administer the Sacrament distribute the blood of Christ to the people.2 Pope Gelasius himself commanded that the Sacrament not be split up (Gratian’s Decretum, Part 3, Distinction 2, Chapter 12).3 And no canon can be found anywhere that commands that the Sacrament be taken in only one form. Nor is anyone able to determine when or through whom this custom of taking one kind was introduced, although Cardinal Cusanus mentions when this custom was approved.4 Now it is obvious that such a custom, introduced contrary to God’s command and even contrary to the ancient canons, is not right. Therefore it has not been fitting to burden the consciences of those who have desired to make use of the Holy Sacrament according to Christ’s institution and to force them to act contrary to our Lord Christ’s arrangement. And since the division of the Sacrament is at variance with the institution of Christ, we also omit the customary procession with the Sacrament.5

(To continue to Article 23, click here.)

Notes

1 In Epistle 53 (Oxford ed.: 57), Cyprian, together with the entire African Synod, writes to Cornelius, bishop of Rome (252 AD; original quote in cols. 855,856 here):

[We] have decided that [the lapsed who are repentant] ought to be armed and equipped for the battle which is at hand. … And, as the Eucharist is appointed for this very purpose that it may be a safeguard to the receivers, it is needful that we may arm those whom we wish to be safe against the adversary with the protection of the Lord’s abundance. For how do we teach or provoke them to shed their blood in confession of His name, if we deny to those who are about to enter on the warfare the blood of Christ? Or how do we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them to drink, in the Church, the cup of the Lord by the right of communion?

The following year Cyprian wrote to a certain Bishop Caecilius in reference to some priests who were offering water to the people instead of wine. He did not tell Caecilius to advise the priests not to offer the cup to the people at all, but rather to offer them what the Lord instituted (Epistle 62 [Oxford ed.: 63] in English, in Latin in cols. 372ff here).

2 In his commentary on Chapter 3 of Zephaniah (penned between 391 and 406 AD), Jerome talks about priests “who assist in the Eucharist and distribute the blood of the Lord to his people” (Sacerdotes…qui Eucharistiae serviunt et sanguinem Domini populis ejus dividunt; original in col. 1375 here).

3 Gelasius was the Bishop of Rome from 492 to 496. He opposed the use of only one kind in the Sacrament as an error of the Manichean sect, and ordered the Sacrament celebrated in both kinds to reveal secret Manichaeans in the church. Melanchthon’s source can be read here (type 1319 in the “Jump to page” field and click Go).

4 Nicolaus Cusanus, or Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), asserts in Epistle 3 to the Bohemians (Opera, 1514 Paris edition, vol. 2, fol. Bb iij) that depriving the laity of the chalice dates back to the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.

5 Melanchthon is referring in particular to the Corpus Christi procession, which took place on the Thursday after Holy Trinity Sunday. After Mass, there would often be a procession of the Sacrament (just the bread), generally displayed in what is called a monstrance, an open or transparent receptacle in which the consecrated host is exposed for veneration.

Augsburg Confession – Article 13 – Use of the Sacraments

Articles 13, 14, 15 & 16 of the Augsburg Confession in the Book of Concord of 1580

(To read Article 12, click here.)

Regarding the use of the sacraments, we teach that the sacraments have been instituted not just to serve as signs whereby Christians might be outwardly recognized as such,1 but to serve as signs and testimonies of God’s disposition toward us for awakening and strengthening our faith. For this reason they also require faith and are rightly used when people receive them in faith2 and when their faith is strengthened thereby.3

(To continue to Article 14, click here.)

Notes

1 This was the teaching of Ulrich Zwingli (see e.g. pp. 535ff here [page numbers in the right margin]; pp. 243ff here; and pp. 392ff here).

2 An additional sentence in Melanchthon’s so-called editio princeps (first edition) of the Augsburg Confession, published in 1531, shows that here the Lutherans were seeking to distance themselves from scholastic teaching within the Roman Church: “We therefore reject those who teach that the sacraments make a person righteous ex opere operato [by the mere performance of the work] apart from faith, and who do not teach that there also needs to be faith that forgiveness of sins is being offered there, which is obtained through faith, not through the work.” The concept of the sacraments benefitting a person ex opere operato had been promoted since the 13th century.

3 The final sentence in the Latin version reads: “And so the sacraments should be used in such a way that faith is also there to believe the promises that are held out and showcased through the sacraments.” In the case of infant baptism, the requisite faith, through which baptism’s promises and blessings are received, is also given through those same promises and blessings. (While we cannot dogmatically assert that such faith is given in every single case, we proceed under the assumption that it is due to the power of the gospel [Romans 1:16; 1 Peter 3:21], God’s general desire to save [1 Timothy 2:3,4], his express desire to save the children of believers through baptism [Acts 2:38,39], and his own statement about the faith of babies and little children [Luke 18:15-17].)

Augsburg Confession – Article 10 – The Lord’s Supper

Articles 9, 10, 11 & 12 of the Augsburg Confession in the Book of Concord of 1580

(To read Article 9, click here.)

Regarding the Lord’s Supper, this is what we teach: Christ’s true body and blood are truly present under the form of the bread and wine in the Supper and are distributed and received there.1 Therefore we also reject the doctrine that runs counter to this.2

(To continue to Article 11, click here.)

Notes

1 For scriptural proof, see Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19,20; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:23-25,27. See Cyril of Jerusalem’s On the Mysteries for a strong example of corroboration of this teaching on the part of the early Church Fathers.

The Latin version reads: “…are distributed to those who eat in the Lord’s Supper.” The point Melanchthon is driving home – at this point in history, at any rate – is that Jesus’ body and blood are truly present in connection with the earthly elements. Sometimes the anti-sacramentarians would use the language of “truly present,” but they meant apart from the elements, the so-called “spiritual eating and drinking.” Melanchthon is teaching that whether you are believer or unbeliever, when you step forward to the Lord’s Supper, when it has been consecrated and is being celebrated in accordance with Christ’s institution, you are receiving his actual body and blood when you receive the bread and wine – either to your benefit or to your detriment.

2 By “the doctrine that runs counter to this,” Melanchthon would have primarily had the anti-sacramentarians in mind—Andreas Karlstadt, Caspar Schwenckfeld, Ulrich Zwingli, and Johannes Oecolampadius. (See post on the Sacramentarian Controversy here.) The fact that Melanchthon does not identify them in any way, and that in the Latin version he uses improbant (a milder word for reject) for the first and only time (vs. damnant or rejiciunt), is early evidence of the “pussyfooting” that Luther both admired and disliked in Melanchthon. Philip, Landgrave of Hesse and one of the signers of the Augsburg Confession, doubtless had some influence here. Philip wanted to confess the true doctrine of Scripture, but he also loved peace and took many measures not to push those in the anti-sacramentarian camp further away. (The term anti-sacramentarian is usually used in retrospect. Luther himself simply called them “the sacramentarians,” since they were constantly obsessing over and attacking his biblical teaching about the sacraments.)

Luther Visualized 17 – Smalcald Articles

The Smalcald Articles

MS (employed in Lucas Cranach’s studio), The Eighteenth Figure, woodcut, 1534.

This figure was printed immediately above Revelation 13 in the first edition of Luther’s translation of the entire Bible (1534). That chapter first describes a seven-headed beast coming out of the sea, representing civil government in its antichristian aspect, and then a beast coming out of the earth with two horns like the Lamb but speaking like the Dragon, representing the Antichrist himself. About the second beast, the apostle John says, “He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast… And he performs great signs so that he even makes fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of men” (Rev 13:12,13). Notice that the artist portrayed the beast out of the earth wearing a monk’s cowl and cloak, as Lucas Cranach had in the 1522 New Testament.

At first Martin Luther was befuddled and frustrated about the refusal of the pope and his legates to hear him out and to join him in reforming the church on the basis of clear testimonies of Holy Scripture. But as he continued to study Scripture, he gradually came to a realization of what or whom he was actually up against. This growing suspicion was confirmed for him when on October 10, 1520, he received the pope’s bull (official decree) threatening his excommunication if he did not retract his teachings. The next day he wrote to his friend Georg Spalatin, the elector’s court secretary: “I feel much more free now that I am made certain that the pope is the Antichrist.”

Luther most clearly articulated his views on the Antichrist in the articles of faith he prepared in 1536 in preparation for a council that Pope Paul III had convoked, to be held in Mantua, Italy, in May 1537. Elector John Frederick had asked Luther to compose the articles on the Lutherans’ behalf. He wanted Luther to distinguish between articles of faith in which they could not yield anything without committing treason against God and his Word and articles in which they could perhaps yield something for the sake of Christian love without violating God’s word. But he also asked Luther for a confession that was clearer than the Augsburg Confession with respect to the pope.

Luther finished the rough draft in December 1536 and submitted it to seven other theologians. With very few changes it was unanimously adopted (though Melanchthon gave it a somewhat qualified subscription), and the elector was also pleased with it. The council never took place during Luther’s lifetime, but the confession Luther composed still gained widespread acceptance among Lutheran theologians in the following years. It became known as the Smalcald Articles because it was circulated and read at Schmalkalden by the large number of theologians and scholars that assembled there in February 1537. Even though it was never officially discussed or accepted there due to Melanchthon’s intrigues and Luther’s illness, Johannes Bugenhagen did present it to them for their voluntary, personal subscription after official business had been concluded, and 44 men signed it in all. It received official confessional status when it was included in the Book of Concord of 1580. (You can read it online here.)

MS (employed in Cranach’s studio), The Twenty-First Figure, woodcut, 1534. This image is based on Revelation 17. The great prostitute of Babylon, representing the unfaithful element within the visible Christian church, sits upon the seven-headed, ten-horned beast (Rev 13:1-10). In her left hand she holds “a golden cup…full of abominations and the filth of her adulteries” (17:4). Note also the triple-tiered papal tiara on her head.

The Smalcald Articles stand out in at least three ways. First, Luther presents the doctrine of justification by God’s grace alone through faith in Christ alone as the core of Scripture from which all other scriptural doctrine emanates and radiates. Second, he also gave a clearer confession about the Lord’s Supper than even the Augsburg Confession did. And third, he also gave a clear confession about the bishop of Rome. He wrote:

[T]here stand all [the pope’s] bulls and books, in which he roars like a lion…that no Christian can be saved without being obedient and subject to him in all that he wishes, all that he says, all that he does. … All of this powerfully demonstrates that he is the true christ of the end times or Antichrist, who has opposed and exalted himself over Christ [cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4]. For he will not permit Christians to be saved apart from his power, even though his power is nothing, neither established nor commanded by God. … Finally, it is nothing but the devil himself at work when [the pope] pushes his lies about masses, purgatory, the monastic life, and human works and worship [cf. Mark 7:6-8] (which is in fact the essence of the papacy) over and against God, and condemns, kills, and harasses all Christians who do not exalt and honor this abomination of his above all things.

Lucas Cranach’s Studio, woodcut opposite Chapter 11 of Revelation in the September 1522 edition of Luther’s translation of the New Testament (left) and the December 1522 edition (right). Note the difference between the beast’s crown in each.

Once Luther was convinced that the Roman papacy was the Antichrist, he wasted no time making it known in his writings and using the artist at his disposal, Lucas Cranach, to reinforce it visually. He had Cranach portray “the beast that comes up from the Abyss” with the triple-tiered papal tiara to accompany Revelation 11 in the first edition (September 1522) of his translation of the New Testament. Probably at the complaint of the Imperial Council of Regency (Reichsregiment), the papal tiara had to be replaced in the second edition (December 1522) by a simple crown.

MS (employed in Cranach’s studio), The Fifteenth Figure, woodcut, 1534. This image corresponds to Cranach’s images from 1522 above.

However, when Luther’s translation of the entire Bible was being prepared for publication in 1534, and the as-yet-unidentified MS from Cranach’s workshop was preparing woodcuts for it based in large part on Cranach’s previous woodcuts, the triple-tiered papal tiara was restored. (See image on the right.)

Christoph Walther, a proofreader and typesetter in Hans Lufft’s print shop in Wittenberg, confirmed that Luther wasn’t just responsible for the translation, but also for much of the artwork:

Luther himself dictated to some extent how the figures in the Wittenberg Bible were supposed to be depicted and portrayed, and demanded that the content of the text be portrayed and depicted in the simplest way, and he would not tolerate anything superfluous or useless that did not benefit the text getting smeared in with the rest.

Lucas Cranach’s Studio, woodcut opposite Chapter 17 of Revelation in the September 1522 edition of Luther’s translation of the New Testament (left) and the December 1522 edition (right). Note the difference between the prostitute’s crown in each. These images were the basis for MS’s The Twenty-First Figure above.

Sources
Dr. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, ed., Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken, erster Theil (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1825), pp. 238ff (no. 127), 419f (no. 204), 494f (no. 262)

Friedrich Bente, Historical Introductions to the Lutheran Confessions (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), pp. 109-138

Hans Lietzmann, Heinrich Bornkamm, et al., eds., Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955), pp. xxiv-xxvii

Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), pp. 46-56

Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), pp. 95-102,178-185

Stephan Füssel, Die Luther-Bibel von 1534: Ein kulturhistorische Einführung (Cologne: Taschen, 2012), pp. 43-44,61

The September (New) Testament (1522)

The December (New) Testament (1522)

Biblia / das ist / die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch: Das Newe Testament (Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1534)

“Die Schmalkaldischen Artikel” in the Weimarer Ausgabe, vol. 50, pp. 160ff, esp. pp. 213ff

Luther Visualized 13 – Sacramentarian Controversy

The Sacramentarian Controversy

Left: Hans Asper, Huldrychus Zvinglius (Ulrich Zwingli), woodcut, 1531. Right: Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) wins the award for longest book title in the Sacramentarian Controversy: That These Words of Jesus Christ, “This Is My Body Which Is Given for You,” Will Forever Retain Their Ancient, Single Meaning, and Martin Luther With His Latest Book Has by No Means Proved or Established His Own and the Pope’s View: Ulrich Zwingli’s Christian Answer (Zurich: Christoffel Froschouer, June 1527).

Martin Luther often cited the German proverb, “Wherever God builds a church, the devil builds a chapel nextdoor.” Nowhere was that more noticeably true in Luther’s lifetime than in the Sacramentarian Controversy. The two most public opponents of Luther in the controversy were Ulrich Zwingli, a priest in Zurich, Switzerland, and Johannes Oecolampadius, a professor and preacher in Basel, Switzerland. Both of them at first publicly declared their agreement with Luther’s teachings, including his teaching on the Lord’s Supper. But around 1524 and 1525, they began teaching that Christ was not really present, but only symbolically present in the Supper. When a literature battle between both sides ensued, Luther continually based his sacramental teaching on the clear words of Jesus and the apostle Paul in passages having to do with the Lord’s Supper, while Zwingli and Oecolampadius based their sacramental teaching on John 6 (where Jesus’ discourse predates his institution of Lord’s Supper and speaks of faith, not the Sacrament) and on human reasoning.

The controversy culminated at the Marburg Colloquy on October 1-4, 1529. While the in-person meeting did take the vitriol out of the controversy, it also confirmed that an irreparable rupture had divided the evangelical camp. Those present agreed to the first 14 of the so-called Marburg Articles that Luther drew up at the end of the meeting, but the Lutherans and the Zwinglians disagreed on the last point concerning the essence of the Lord’s Supper. As a result Luther said the Zwinglians did not have the same spirit, and Luther and his followers refused to acknowledge them as brothers and members of the body of Christ. And as it turned out, the unity on the other 14 articles was not as strong as it first appeared. The sixth, eighth, ninth, and fourteenth of the Marburg Articles affirmed God’s word and baptism as means of grace, but in the seventh point of the personal presentation of faith (fidei ratio) that Zwingli drew up for Emperor Charles V the following year, he rejected the concept of any means of grace.

Sources
Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), pp. 293-334

Ulrich Zwingli, Das dise wort Jesu Christi / Das ist min lychnam der für üch hinggeben wirt / ewigklich den alten eynigen sinn haben werdend / vnd M. Luter mit sinem letsten buoch sinen vnd des Bapsts sinn / gar nit gelert noch bewaert hat. Huldrych Zuinglis Christenlich Antwurt. (Zurich: Christoffel Forschouer, June 1527)

“Die Marburger Artikel” in Weimarer Ausgabe 30/3:160-171

Ulrich Zwingli, Ad Carolum Romanorum Imperatorem Germaniae comitia Augustae celebrantem, Fidei Huldrychi Zuinglii ratio (Zurich: Christoffel Froschouer, July 1530)

Woodcut of Marburg from Sebastian Münster’s Cosmographiae universalis Lib. VI. (Six Books of Universal Cosmography) (Basel: Henrich Petri, March 1552)

The Marburg Colloquy was held in the Royal Castle, pictured here on a hill in the center background. The city of Marburg is viewed from “Der Leynberg” or the Lahnberge, Striped Mountains, in the foreground (east), with St. Elizabeth Church on the right (north) and St. Mary’s Parish Church beneath the castle. The university is to the left (south) of St. Mary’s. The hill behind the castle to the southwest is identified as “Der Geyne” (in a 1572 woodcut from a different atlas, “Der Geine”), and the hill to the south of that as “Der Kesselberg” or Copper Mountain.