You see then, my reader, how like itself, no matter where met with or whence derived, is this Thomist wisdom, this crude and asinine crudeness? For it is the constant vice of the stupid Sophists that they beg the question, and what they ought to prove they presuppose as already proved. Then let them make unto themselves, out of Gold, male images of the Lord, as Ezechiel says, and fit the divine words to their dreams, and then say, It must be so, because I say so, that this is what Scripture saith. O Defenders, worthy are ye of the papal indulgences and sacraments!
But this is that kindred machination of Satan, which changes itself into an angel of light. And as from the beginning Satan desired to be like the Highest, so does he not cease working constantly by words and deeds like the divine words and deeds, that he may deceive the children of unbelief. And thus he masquerades in his papacy, when, after arrogating to himself the right of breaking a vow, with inflated cheeks he puts out so confidently in his Decretals this similitude: The first-born of an ass could be changed for a sheep; therefore I will change this vow for another work, — as if the first-born of an ass were a vow! This is how our King babbles: A rod is called a rod, and yet is not a rod. Therefore Paul calls that bread which is not bread; — as though a rod and bread were the same thing! What confusions will not Satan bring upon the Church, since the Sophists, who have been received into the Church, have begun to use this form of teaching and arguing?
But the King shows another specimen of his dexterity in this matter, so that no one can believe him any thing else but a Thomist. If, he says, Luther so rigidly ties up the words of Scripture, he will say that even Christ is wheaten bread in heaven; for He says, I am the bread, which came down from heaven. Also he will say He is a natural vine; for He says, I am the true vine, etc.
As I said before, nothing under the sun is born more thick and stupid than the Thomists, these monstrous creatures. For what boy would not laugh at this mad King in this matter, unless by reason of his signal wickedness and his zeal for blaspheming he be more deserving of hatred, or of tears? He has not enough sense, or perception, in him to see the vast difference between his dreams and the words of Christ. For the very consequence of His words, the absurdity else of things, the outrage on common intelligence, besides His own interpretation, prove Him to speak of spiritual bread, as He says: My words are spirit and life. Of which spirit and life there is no mention at all in the words that Paul speaks about the bread of the Sacrament, nay, all arguments go to prove that Paul must be understood to speak only of wheaten bread. And yet this immobile block dares assert a likeness of phrasing here, which not even a fool could get it into his head to believe possible. But the King does this in the dignified manner of the Thomists, whose custom is to pass over the rule for understanding Scripture (which is to take notice of the consequences, circumstances and objections), and to pick up and twist some word, and then assert anything you have a mind to.
Herein see then, I beg you, my reader, what you ought to think of this idiotic and ignorant book of this so stupid and stolid King. At the same time I beg you see how there is no judgment, no discernment, no diligence in the whole Thomist body; but all things are said and transacted and done with incredible rashness and presumption and arrogance, so that they can kill with tediousness both readers and listeners.
My Paul stands invincibly against all these futile defenders of transubstantiation, and says: The bread which we break, He strikes them with his horns twice; firstly, because they can make their own assertions by no reasoning, nor authority; secondly, because by their frigid explanations they do nothing else than seek most viciously to beg the question. And the sum of what they accomplish is that they prove that it might possibly be as they say it is, when they ought to prove both the fact and the Tightness, both that it is so, and that it ought to be so. For no one doubts that God can transubstantiate bread; but that He does do so they are not able to show. And I marvel at this most learned Thomist, why he does not transubstantiate the accidents also, since those words of transubstantiation, according to his brain, denote only the body of Christ. This is My body. Therefore there will be nothing there unless it be the body of Christ by the witness of his Ambrose, and therefore no whiteness will be there with the other accidents. Or why does he not argue, What prevents the bread not being there, in the same way that the accidents are there? Pray, where is the necessity for doing away with the substance, and keeping the accidents? Is it only that Thomist adage, It must be so?
I pass over here that rhetorical contempt of his for the two most convincing analogies that I brought forward, viz.: those of the glowing iron and the incarnate God, where neither is it necessary for the iron to yield to the fire, nor for the manhood to yield to the Godhead. Although I am not here required to defend my assertions, yet I shall give my opponent enough to think about if I prove that what he has alleged can be taken otherwise. And so I can say, The body of Christ, the bread remaining bread, is in the sacrament in the same way that fire is in iron, the substance of the iron remaining the same. And in the same way God is in man, the humanity remaining humanity, both substances being so mixed that each preserves unimpaired its power of working and its natural properties, and yet, both constituting one entity. And this I say I can assert until the Papists displace my analogy not by their Thomist contempt but by the statement of their own faith. It is their business to prove their affirmative, which in one particular at least I am able to disprove. For this is not to write a defence of the sacraments, to pass by and despise the arguments of one’s opponent, as does this senseless Thomist, but to demonstrate that they are null and void, otherwise the Defender forces men to think his opponent’s arguments are invulnerable when he practices stupid dissimulation, and, like a coward, dodges the issue.
It is most striking and beautifully Thomist, his final argument, which is worthy to be remembered, in which Lord Henry, our Teacher, gives this reason why the bread may not be said to remain; forsooth, because no substance is worthy to be mixed with that Substance Which created all things. Here, reader, admire once for all this mighty exhibition of Thomist wisdom: First of all, Lord Henry thinks that in the Sacrament the Divinity of Christ takes the place of the bread, and, that being so, the bread ought to give place to the Divinity, lest such an unworthy substance as bread should be mixed with the Creative Substance. I ask, What heretic was ever such an insane person as to teach that the bread was changed into Divinity? Has not Henry himself, with his swine and asses, taught till now that the bread is changed into the body, not into the Divinity? Or will they give to the body and blood of Christ such attributes that it can be called the Creative Substance? Ye see how far impious madness conducts sacrilegious minds after they have once begun to take refuge in lying.
In fine, this most ludicrous kind of argument should deservedly move Luther, to wit: The substance is unworthy, therefore it cannot be mixed with a more worthy. So that forsooth in these matters our faith depends on the worthiness or unworthiness of substances! Let us conclude then, from Thomist authority, that God was not man, because the human substance is unworthy to be joined with the dignity of so great Majesty. Let us deny that the Holy Spirit is shed abroad in the hearts even of good men (to say nothing of justifying wicked men), because the heart of man is unworthy of the overpowering Majesty of the Spirit. Thus this that follows is Henry’s wisdom: Bread is not the body of Christ, because the body of Christ, a Creative Substance, is too worthy to be mixed with such a common substance. Finely, wonderfully spoken! most Thomist-like, and most Henry-like! If the unworthiness of the bread does not permit it to be the body of Christ, nevertheless the worthiness of this reasoning is beyond all price, and could dwell and flourish in Thomist and asinine brains and nowhere else.
But if, I ask, the substance of the bread be so unworthy to be mixed with the body, a Creative Substance, why then are the accidents worthy to be mixed, nay to remain, since the God of the Thomists decrees that in all respects the substance is of more power than the accidents, — except i
n the way of recognition, which is due to a deficiency of vision on our part? What will the Lord Henry, the subtle Defender, say to this? Without doubt nothing else than: It must be so; I am a King; and if this is not enough, I am a Thomist; therefore it is true. All of which signifies that Thomists say nothing that is not worthy of themselves. For so it suits these swine having eaten their provender to eat the bran and the pods, and in place of the substance of bread to boast concerning the accidents. Truly Christ’s word is here found true when He says: I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries will not be able to resist and gainsay. For ye see clearly, my reader, when they try to contradict me, with what insane lies these sacrilegious Papists wound themselves! This is the power of truth that it makes a show of those liars, who defame themselves, and takes the crafty in their own craftiness.
We have therefore this article, although never with much concern exacted by me before, now greatly confirmed by the assertions of the Papists themselves, — that is by their lies and stupidity and blasphemies, — so that now we are very sure that it is the merest figment that which these impious and blind Thomists babble concerning this transubstantiation, and that we should rely firmly on the faithful words of God, in which, by the mouth of Paul, He simply and clearly says that the body of Christ is bread, bread which we both break and eat.
And so not to be ungrateful to my Teacher, the Lord Henry, I now change my view and wish to transubstantiate my opinion and to say: Before this I laid it down that it was of no consequence whether a man thought in one way or another concerning transubstantiation; but now, having seen the reasons and beautiful arguments of the Defender of the Sacraments, I decree that it is impious and blasphemous if any say that the bread is transubstantiated, and Catholic and pious if any say with Paul: The bread, which we break, is the body of Christ. Let him be anathema who says otherwise and changes one jot or tittle of the Scripture, although he should be our new Lord Henry, and a famous Thomist.
And now we come to the fifth chapter, the masterpiece and corner-stone of Henry’s defence, in which he declares, The Mass is a work and a sacrifice. Here at last the Lord Henry is the Lord Henry, and the Thomist is the Thomist. Possibly he may have heard from some half-witted orator that if at any time one feels the strength of an opponent to be too unconquerable, the first thing to do is with scornful mien to mock at him and despise him, so that the foolish hearer may believe the opponent to have been conquered by such an orator before even being attacked.
In similar manner our Lord King starts off with some magnificent bombast, so that he may finely feign himself to be weary of confuting the foolish and ignorant Luther, who denies that the Mass is a work and a sacrifice. Satan, forsooth, feels a wound, and therefore, uneasy in mind and uncertain what to do, tries to irritate me with bitter words and impotent mocking and contempt. But He who has given unto us to know the thoughts of Satan, will give also unto us to laugh at the mocker and despise the contemner and with boldness to denounce his impotent and foolish bombast.
And so if you take account of threatening and mocking words, the Kingly Defender has seven times conquered Luther. But if you regard the matter itself, these are mere trifles which to us for the last three years our Papist neighbours and friends have repeated vainly, to wit, The Mass is a work and a sacrifice; for the daily usage of many has it so; So the Church (that is, the harlot of Babylon) thinks; It must be so; Our Teachers have taught us so; The Fathers have said so.
Here we see the madness with which in this connection the angry King rages and shouts and foams forth what would be not very propitious to Luther, if threats were of any value for defending the sacraments, and were able to terrify Luther. But that he should strengthen so generally received, so common, so proved, let us add, so wealthy and so pleasing an article by at least one word of sacred Scripture, or that he should strengthen it with the words of God, or that he should weaken the force of my Scriptures, This ought not to be; Daily usage has not this; The Church does not think this; Our Teachers do not teach this; This was not proper for a Defender of the Sacraments.
But in order that so illustrious a Defender should not omit saying something, he brings forward one undoubtedly powerful argument, which till now has been enough to convince everyone that the Mass is a work and a sacrifice. The argument is as follows: If the Mass were not a good work, the laity would not reward the clergy with any temporal benefit in return for it.
Stand amazed, reader, at this royal and Thomist reasoning, and, as I said, undoubtedly powerful; for it has moved very many men hitherto, and moves them today. Here Luther lies vanquished, and who so dexterously finished him off as the King of England in this book of his by this supreme stroke of reasoning! Sorry though I am, I am obliged to confess that it is so. In very truth, I am bound to admit it, the Mass is a sacrifice and a good work; for (as the King tells us) the laity pay the priests money for it.
Again for the same reason it must be true, in spite of anything Luther may say, that the Mass would not be a good work, if the laity did not pay their money for it; and the event would have proved this, if the laity had ceased losing (I should say paying) their money for Masses; and it must also be that the Mass is whatever money chooses to make it. Rightly and excellently has the King spoken in this reasoning! He has defended the Mass in an argument worthy of the great Defender!
Therefore it is through the largesse of the laity, and the power of money, that the Mass is a work and something that has been in the past useful to the priests. Take notice, reader, that no other argument for the Mass has been adduced by its Kingly Defender except this one.
Judge now, whoever thou art, O reader, what I can worthily say in reply to such mad and deplorably perverted monsters? What harlot would have dared so impudently to boast of her shamelessness as this most brazen King openly boasts of the avarice and impostures of the priests, throwing them at us as the reason for his profound faith?
But many times the anger of the divine judgment terrifies us, who, by this shocking example of His wrath, warns us, to think humbly in sacred things, when we see Him with such punishments, not reserved for the future, to strike those who oppose wholesome doctrine and open truth. For I could not with all my endeavors make this miserable King such a disgusting and abominable spectacle to the whole world as by his own insanity he makes himself.
Learn, I beseech you, unhappy Papists, moved sometimes even by your own acts of turpitude, to fear the judgment of God. What will it be in the future, if in this present time He so severely confounds you?
No less is the madness which follows, when after with many words pouring contempt on me (this is what he has learned best from his teacher of rhetoric), he finally protests that he will leave untouched that which above all he should have confuted, namely my chief support and strongest argument, in which I have proved from the words of Christ that the Mass is a testament, and a promise; and therefore cannot be a work, or a sacrifice. This the unhappy Defender, overcome by the strength of this argument, and dissembling with his conscience, has not only passed over, but protests that he of set purpose passes it over, and leaves it to others.
O Defender of the sacraments! O Supporter of the Romish church, twice a Thomist and by far the most deserving of the Pope’s indulgence! He could have been pardoned if he had passed over my strong argument in silence; but to protest that of set purpose he passes it over, after understanding that I solely and altogether rely on it, and use it to beat down all his arguments, this is so ridiculous and foolish, that nothing could be more so.
Therefore by the special permission of the Kingly Defender (let me not again be ungrateful) I assert and declare that the Mass is neither a work, nor a sacrifice, until such time as another shall come and prove that the testament and promise of God can be either a work or a sacrifice. But when will such a one come? The King himself plainly sees that he will come at the Greek Kalends, therefore he safely leaves the argument untouched; for he would have been miserably defeated and overthrown if he
had touched it.
One would think that this great King was here either in very truth suffering from a lesion of the brain, or that some enemy, in order to disgrace him, had published this book under the King’s name. Whoever saw greater insanity than this? Luther is assailed with royal boasting, and in the same work his strong arguments and foundations are not only kept out of sight, but an open pronouncement is made that he is allowed to hold them.
After our Thomist Lord Henry has proved by this silver and gold reasoning that the Mass is a work, he proceeds in his strength to overthrow the reasonings of Luther, and he first speaks like a Thomist as follows:
He who cuts down a tree does a work. Therefore he who consecrates does a work. Therefore the Mass also is a work. And if it is a work it is not bad, therefore good.
Thus he writes, this glorious Defender of the sacraments. Here also Luther lies completely vanquished. I confess openly that I am crushed by the immensity of the Thomist fatuity, and I struggle to speak in such a broken voice that wretched men may in part understand me. I say then: The Mass is received in two ways, one way as Henry and the Thomists receive it. In this way, as you see in the King’s book, the Mass is the same thing as to consecrate, or to utter words of consecration. But not even the dullness of the Thomists can deny that we too do this work, so far am I from denying that here our teacher Henry has scored a point.
But this is a new definition of the Mass, and this is a new analogy, and neither by fever nor by frenzy could I myself ever have thought of the Mass in such a way. And I marvel that our wordy Thomists have not strengthened this entertaining argument with five or six other arguments. For if to consecrate is the Mass, so also is to shout, to sing, to use incense, to burn candles, to wash the cup, to elevate the host, perhaps even to sneeze and to expectorate. And what in there by this wise ruling of Henry’s that cannot be called the Mass? Nay, we concede to this new inventor of words and things that he may call the head of an ass, or a swine, the Mass. For what matters it to call it whatever you wish to him with whom words and things in accord with his understanding of Aristotle either stand or fall as he pleases?
Collected Works of Martin Luther Page 90