But where in all the world is the necessity, where the religious duty, where the practical use, of denying both kinds, i. e., the visible sign, to the laity, when every one concedes to them the grace35 of the sacrament without the sign? If they concede the grace, which is the greater, why not the sign, which is the lesser? For in every sacrament the sign as such is of far less importance than the thing signified. What then is to prevent them from conceding the lesser, when they concede the greater? I can see but one reason; it has come about by the permission of an angry God in order to give occasion for a schism in the Church, to bring home to us how, having long ago lost the grace of the sacrament, we contend for the sign, which is the lesser, against that which is the most important and the chief thing; just as some men for the sake of ceremonies contend against love. Nay, this monstrous perversion seems to date from the time when we began for the sake of the riches of this world to rage against Christian love. Thus God would show us, by this terrible sign, how we esteem signs more than the things they signify. How preposterous would it be to admit that the faith of baptism is granted the candidate or baptism, and yet to deny him the sign of this faith, namely, the water!
Finally, Paul stands invincible and stops every mouth, when he says in I Corinthians xi, “I have received from the Lord what I also delivered unto you.” [1 Cor. 11:23] He does not say, “I permitted unto you,” as that friar lyingly asserts36. Nor is it true that Paul delivered both kinds on account of the contention in the Corinthian congregation. For, first, the text shows that their contention was not about both kinds, but about the contempt and envy among rich and poor, as it is clearly stated: “One is hungry, and another is drunken, and ye put to shame them that have not.” [1 Cor. 11:21] Again, Paul is not speaking of the time when he first delivered the sacrament to them, for he says not, “I receive of the Lord and give unto you,” but, “I received and delivered” — namely, when he first began to preach among them, a long while before this contention. This shows that he delivered both kinds to them; and “delivered” means the same as “commanded,” for elsewhere he uses the word in this sense. Consequently there is nothing in the friar’s fuming about permission; it is a hotch-potch without Scripture, reason or sense. His opponents do not ask what he has dreamed, but what the Scriptures decree in this matter; and out of the Scriptures he cannot adduce one jot or tittle in support of his dreams, while they can bring forward mighty thunderbolts in support of their faith.
Come hither then, ye popish flatterers, one and all! Fall to and defend yourselves against the charge of godlessness, tyranny, lese-majesty against the Gospel, and the crime of slandering your brethren, — ye that decry as heretics those who will not be wise after the vaporings of your own brains, in the face of such patent and potent words of Scripture. If any are to be called heretics and schismatics, it is not the Bohemians nor the Greeks, for they take their stand upon the Gospel; but you Romans are the heretics and godless schismatics, for you presume upon your own fictions and fly in the face of the clear Scriptures of God. Parry that stroke, if you can!
But what could be more ridiculous, and more worthy of this friar’s brain, than his saying that the Apostle wrote these words and gave this permission, not to the Church universal, but to a particular church, that is, the Corinthian? Where does he get his proof? Out of his one storehouse, his own impious head. If the Church universal receives, reads and follows this epistle in all points as written for itself, why should it not do the same with this portion of it? If we admit that any epistle, or any part of any epistle, of Paul does not apply to the Church universal, then the whole authority of Paul falls to the ground. Then the Corinthians will say that what he teaches about faith in the epistle to the Romans does not apply to them. What greater blasphemy and madness can be imagined than this! God forbid that there should be one jot or tittle in all of Paul which the whole Church universal is not bound to follow and keep! Not so did the Fathers hold, down to these perilous times, in which Paul foretold there should be blasphemers and blind and insensate men [2 Tim. 3:2], of whom this friar is one, nay the chief.
However, suppose we grant the truth of this intolerable madness. If Paul gave his permission to a particular church, then, even from your own point of view, the Greeks and Bohemians are in the right, for they are particular churches; hence it is sufficient that they do not act contrary to Paul, who at least gave permission. Moreover, Paul could not permit anything contrary to Christ’s institution. Therefore I cast in thy teeth, O Rome, and in the teeth of all thy sycophants, these sayings of Christ and Paul, on behalf of the Greeks and the Bohemians. Nor canst thou prove that thou hast received any authority to change them, much less to accuse others of heresy or disregarding thy arrogance; rather dost thou deserve to be charged with the crime of godlessness and despotism.
Furthermore, Cyprian, who alone is strong enough to hold all the Romanists at bay, bears witness, in the fifth book of his treatise Of the Fallen, that it was a wide-spread custom in his church to administer both kinds to the laity, and even to children37, yea to give the body of the Lord into their hands; of which he cites many instances. He inveighs, or example, against certain members of the congregation as follows: “The sacrilegious man is angered at the priests because he does not forthwith receive the body of the Lord with unclean hands, or drink the blood of the Lord with defiled lips.” He is speaking, as you see, of laymen, and irreverent laymen, who desired to receive the body and the blood from the priests. Dost thou find anything to snarl at here, thou wretched flatterer? Say that even this holy martyr, a Church Father preeminent for his apostolic spirit, was a heretic and used that permission in a particular church.
In the same place, Cyprian narrates an incident that came under his own observation. He describes at length how a deacon was administering the cup to a little girl, who drew away from him, whereupon he poured the blood of the Lord into her mouth. We read the same of St. Donatus, whose broken chalice this wretched flatterer so lightly disposes of. “I read of a broken chalice,” he says, “but I do not read that the blood was given.”38 It is no wonder! He that finds what he pleases in the Scriptures will also read what he pleases in the histories. But will the authority of the Church be established, or will heretics be refuted, in this way? Enough of this! I did not undertake this work to reply to him who is not worth replying to, but to bring the truth of the matter to light.
I conclude, then, that it is wicked and despotic to deny both kinds to the laity, and that this is not in the power of any angel, much less of any pope or council. Nor does the Council of Constance give me pause, for if its authority carries weight, why does not that of the Council of Basel also carry weight? For the latter council decided, on the contrary, after much disputing, that the Bohemians might use both kinds, as the extant records and documents of the council prove. And to that council this ignorant flatterer refers in support of his dream; in such wisdom does his whole treatise abound39.
The first captivity of this sacrament, therefore, concerns its substance or completeness, of which we have been deprived by the despotism of Rome. Not that they sin against Christ, who use the one kind, for Christ did not command the use of either kind, but let it to every one’s free will, when He said: “As oft as ye do this, do it in remembrance of me.” [1 Cor. 11:25] But they sin who forbid the giving of both kinds to such as desire to exercise this free will. The fault lies not with the laity, but with the priests. The sacrament does not belong to the priests, but to all, and the priests are not lords but ministers, in duty bound to administer both kinds to those who desire them, and as oft as they desire them. If they wrest this right from the laity and forcibly withhold it, they are tyrants; but the laity are without fault, whether they lack one kind or both kinds; they must meanwhile be sustained by their faith and by their desire for the complete sacrament. Just as the priests, being ministers, are bound to administer baptism and absolution to whoever seeks them, because he has a right to them; but if they do not administer them, he that seeks th
em has at least the full merit of his faith, while they will be accused before Christ as wicked servants. In like manner the holy Fathers of old who dwelt in the desert did not receive the sacrament in any form for many years together40.
Therefore I do not urge that both kinds be seized by force, as though we were bound to this form by a rigorous command; but I instruct men’s consciences that they may endure the Roman tyranny, well knowing they have been deprived of their rightful share in the sacrament because of their own sin. This only do I desire, — that no one justify the tyranny of Rome, as though it did well to forbid one of the two kinds to the laity; we ought rather to abhor it, withhold our consent, and endure it just as we should do if we were held captive by the Turk and not permitted to use either kind. That is what I meant by saying41 it seemed well to me that this captivity should be ended by the decree of a general council, our Christian liberty restored to us out of the hands of the Roman tyrant, and every one let free to seek and receive this sacrament, just as he is free to receive baptism and penance. But now they compel us, by the same tyranny, to receive the one kind year after year; so utterly lost is the liberty which Christ has given us. This is but the due reward of our godless ingratitude.
The Second Captivity: Transubstantiation
The second captivity of this sacrament is less grievous so far as the conscience is concerned, yet the very gravest danger threatens the man who would attack it, to say nothing of condemning it. Here I shall be called a Wyclifite42 and a heretic a thousand times over. But what of that? Since the Roman bishop has ceased to be a bishop and become a tyrant, I fear none of his decrees, for I know that it is not in his power, nor even in that of a general council, to make new articles of faith.
Years ago, when I was delving into scholastic theology, the Cardinal of Cambray43 gave me food for thought, in his comments on the fourth book of the Sentences44, where he argues with great acumen that to hold that real bread and real wine, and not their accidents only45, are present on the altar, is much more probable and requires fewer unnecessary miracles — if only the Church had not decreed otherwise. When I learned later what church it was that had decreed this — namely, the Church of Thomas46, i. e., of Aristotle — I waxed bolder, and after floating in a sea of doubt, at last found rest for my conscience in the above view — namely, that it is real bread and real wine, in which Christ’s real flesh and blood are present, not otherwise and not less really than they assume to be the case under their accidents. I reached this conclusion because I saw that the opinions of the Thomists, though approved by pope and council, remain but opinions and do not become articles of faith, even though an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise [Gal. 1:8]. For what is asserted without Scripture for an approved revelation, may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas hangs so completely in the air, devoid of Scripture and reason, that he seems here to have forgotten both his philosophy and his logic. For Aristotle treats so very differently from St. Thomas of subject and accidents, that methinks this great man is to be pitied, not only for drawing his opinions in matters of faith from Aristotle, but for attempting to base them on him without understanding his meaning — an unfortunate superstructure upon an unfortunate foundation.
I therefore permit every man to hold either of these views, as he chooses. My one concern at present is to remove all scruples of conscience, so that no one may fear to become guilty of heresy if he should believe in the presence of real bread and real wine on the altar, and that every one may feel at liberty to ponder, hold and believe either one view or the other, without endangering his salvation. However, I shall now more fully set forth my own view.
In the first place, I do not intend to listen or attach the least importance to those who will cry out that this teaching of mine is Wyclifite, Hussite, heretical, and contrary to the decision of the Church, for they are the very persons whom I have convicted of manifold heresies in the matter of indulgences, the freedom of the will and the grace of God, good works and sin, etc. If Wyclif was once a heretic, they are heretics ten times over, and it is a pleasure to be suspected and accused by such heretics and perverse sophists, whom to please were the height of godlessness. Besides, the only way in which they can prove their opinions and disprove those of others, is by saying, “That is Wyclifite, Hussite, heretical!” They have this feeble retort always on their tongue, and they have nothing else. If you demand a Scripture passage, they say, “This is our opinion, and the decision of the Church — that is, of ourselves!” Thus these men, “reprobate concerning the faith” [2 Tim. 3:8] and untrustworthy, have the effrontery to set their own fancies before us in the name of the Church as articles of faith.
But there are good grounds for my view, and this above all, — no violence is to be done to the words of God, whether by man or angel; but they are to be retained in their simplest meaning wherever possible, and to be understood in by their grammatical and literal sense unless the context plainly forbids; lest we give our adversaries occasion to make a mockery of all the Scriptures. Thus Origen was repudiated, in olden times, because he despised the grammatical sense and turned the trees, and all things else written concerning Paradise, into allegories; for it might therefrom be concluded that God did not create trees. Even so here, when the Evangelists plainly write that Christ took bread and brake it [Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; Acts 2:46; 1 Cor. 11:23], and the book of Acts and Paul, in their turn, call it bread, we have to think of real bread, and real wine, just as we do of a real cup; or even they do not maintain that the cup is transubstantiated. But since it is not necessary to assume a transubstantiation wrought by Divine power, it is to be regarded as a figment of the human mind, or it rests neither on Scripture nor on reason, as we shall see.
Therefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand “bread” to mean “the form, or accidents of bread,” and “wine” to mean “the form, or accidents of wine.” Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents? And even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their meaning.
Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation — forsooth, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea! — until the pseudophilosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church, these last three hundred years, during which many other things have been wrongly defined; as for example, that the Divine essence neither is begotten nor begets; that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, and the like assertions, which are made without reason or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits.
Perhaps they will say that the danger of idolatry demands that bread and wine be not really present. How ridiculous! The laymen have never become familiar with their fine-spun philosophy of substance and accidents, and could not grasp it if it were taught them. Besides, there is the same danger in the case of the accidents which remain and which they see, as in the case of the substance which they do not see. For if they do not adore the accidents, but Christ hidden under them, why should they adore the bread, which they do not see?
But why could not Christ include His body in the substance of the bread just as well as in the accidents? The two substances of fire and iron are so mingled in the heated iron that every part is both iron and fire. Why could not much rather Christ’s body be thus contained in every part of the substance of the bread?
What will they say? We believe that in His birth Christ came forth out of the unopened womb of His mother. Let them say here too that the flesh of the Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more aptly say, transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in its accidents, finally came forth through the accidents! The same thing will have to be said of the shut door and of the closed mouth of the sepulchre, through which He went in and out without disturbing them. Hence has risen that hotch-p
otch of a philosophy of constant quantity distinct from the substance, until it has come to such a pass that they themselves no longer know what are accidents and what is substance. For who has ever proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that heat, color, cold, light, weight or shape are mere accidents? Finally, they have been driven to the fancy that a new substance is created by God or their accidents on the altar — all on account of Aristotle, who says, “It is the essence of an accident to be in something,” and endless other monstrosities, of all which they would be rid if they simply permitted real bread to be present. And I rejoice greatly that the simple faith of this sacrament is still to be found at least among the common people; for as they do not understand, neither do they dispute, whether accidents are present or substance47 but believe with a simple faith that Christ’s body and blood are truly contained in whatever is there, and leave to those who have nothing else to do the business of disputing about that which contains them.
But perhaps they will say: From Aristotle we learn that in an affirmative proposition subject and predicate must be identical, or, to set down the beast’s own words, in the sixth book of his Metaphysics: “An affirmative proposition demands the agreement of subject and predicate,” which they interpret as above. Hence, when it is said, “This is my body,” the subject cannot be identical with the bread, but must be identical with the body of Christ. What shall we say when Aristotle and the doctrines of men are made to be the arbiters of these lofty and divine matters? Why do we not put by such curiosity, and cling simply to the word of Christ, willing to remain in ignorance of what here takes place, and content with this, that the real body of Christ is present by virtue of the words?48 Or is it necessary to comprehend the manner of the divine working in every detail?
Collected Works of Martin Luther Page 22