Collected Works of Martin Luther

by Martin Luther

  And so we make this confession: The Mass is a work, and we join the chorus in its praise, and we are sorry for our atrocious error in not knowing that the King of England called the Mass a work. Had we known it, we should not have lacked the learning whereby we might have I avoided this our error, and rendered unnecessary the writing of his great book.

  But this will much disturb the Defender that it follows from this argument that the Mass will not he a good work, unless the consecrator is a good man. For a wicked man does a wicked act in consecrating, that is to say, in celebrating Mass, according to what the King says. Therefore it should not be lawful for a bad priest to consecrate, nay, he cannot consecrate because they require that the Mass must be a good work. And then at the same time will perish that magnificent piece of Theology, whereby it is decreed that the Mass, even of a bad priest, is always a good work by virtue of the work that is done, although not by virtue of the one that does it. For our Lord Henry regards in the Mass the work of him that does the work, and not merely the work done. But perhaps the King has been busied in other directions than in either learning or committing to memory what theology teaches concerning the work done, and the one that does the work. In this way the enemies of the truth deserve to confound and make one another ridiculous, as a reward for their blasphemies.

  After another fashion the Mass is truly and properly, as we have stated it to be, a word of promise with the sign added of bread and wine. For if everything else fail, and you only believe these words of Christ: This is My body, which is given for you, you have indeed the entire Mass.

  And then if you do but receive the sign with faith, you have received the use and fruit of the Mass. Hence it is most clear that the Mass is not anything of our work, or our word, but only Christ’s; Who gives not only the word of promise, but also the sign thereof in the bread and wine; and its use cannot be in offering or in working but only in receiving and taking.

  But how should the unhappy Defender know these things that we state, seeing that he does not know his own doctrine concerning the work that is done (de opere operato), and, while he attacks us, horribly confutes himself?

  Next, in order to defend the Mass as a sacrifice, he speaks thus like a Thomist: Let it be granted that the Mass is a promise, it does not therefore follow that it is not at the same time a sacrifice, since in the old law there were sacrifices which were at the same time promises.

  I answer that of this Thomist assertion the King ought to have produced at least one example. But now, according to custom, he thinks it is sufficient if he merely states that in the old law sacrifices were promises, and then shortly after declares It must be so. But such a stolid Defender (it seems to me), should have before him a vocabulary in which first of all he should learn what is the meaning of both sacrifice and promise. If promise is a word, sacrifice is a thing, so that even boys of tender age understand that it is impossible for a promise to be a sacrifice, for a word to be a thing. O wretched me, who am compelled to waste my time with such monstrous ignorance, and am unworthy to contend with men of understanding or learning!

  Therefore it is a manifest error to say that in the Old Testament sacrifices were promises, unless the Kingly Defender wishes to use a Thomist figure of speech and say that sacrifices were promising, that is signifying what would be fulfilled in Christ. But we in the Mass would rather call those words of Christ a promise, without which the bread and the wine would be neither a sign, nor a sacrament, nor the Mass. For that by sacrifices, offered in faith, promises were obtained is another matter. We are not arguing here either concerning the fruit, or the meaning, of the sacrifices; but of the thing itself, that we may know what a sacrifice is and what it is not.

  The Lord Henry wonders what kind of preachers I have heard, because I have written that nothing is ever said in sermons concerning these promises; for he himself has heard, even to the point of weariness, sermons on the testament, the promises, the witnesses, etc.

  I answer: And I wonder that the head of the King is so dense, and his madness so great, that he, who has heard such famous sermons, should yet have learned nothing from them (not even have seen that the word of God cannot be our work, or sacrifice), but should be endlessly blabbering to the contrary. For if there were any spark of human reason alive in him, he could not deny that God’s sign is verily God’s work towards us. Likewise the sacrifice and promises of God are the word of God, and not our work.

  And then this King of lying, who in this place writes that he has heard even to weariness of the testaments and promises of this kind, afterwards gabbles concerning the sacrament of holy orders, and declares that in the whole supper of Christ there is no promise, not only disgracefully contradicting himself, but raging against the Lord’s supper with an impudent lie. So doth fury and madness drive headlong the Papists, that in truth they have no knowledge of what they state, or of what they contradict.

  He dares also to assert that it is manifest that the priests do riot only what Christ did in the supper, but what He did on the cross.

  I answer: Since the Lord Henry only says this, and does not prove it, I say on the contrary: It is manifest that the priests omit in the Mass what Christ did in the supper, and do that which the Jews did to Christ on the cross. Nor do I say this only, but I prove it also. For he who perverts and extinguishes the word of God, he verily crucifies the Son of God, that which they all do who make a work out of a promise, since this is indeed to change the truth of God into a lie.

  After this he assails me with the Canon of the Mass, in which the Mass is called a sacrifice, by the authority of which he wishes me to be bound because I have used its form of words. For these words As often as ye do this, etc., are not found, he tells us, in the Gospel, but the words Do this. And other words are also found in Paul.

  See here the unhappy Satan how he crawls, how he wriggles, how he tries subterfuges, but in vain, he will not escape. I have rejected and do reject the Canon because it is quite openly against the Gospel, and gives the name of sacrifices to what are signs of God added to His promises, and are given to us to be received by us, and not to be offered up.

  For in that the King saith, In the Gospel we find not the words, As often as ye do this, what boy does not see that there is a lack of grammar in our great Defender? As if it were necessary that the writers of the Gospels should agree in every syllable and should establish that form of sacrament which the Papists have established for us so immutably and bindingly, that they make a man guilty of deadly sin and deliver him to hell if he omits that little word For, being, forsooth, like Rhadamantus and Aeacus! Thus go on in their madness these killers of the freedom of conscience.

  Therefore by the testimony of grammarians, and the common sense of mankind, I say that it is the same thing that which the writers of the Gospel say concerning the Supper, although they differ in a few words, and that Do this is the same as As often as ye do this. And I believe that the Holy Spirit, by a singular provision, took the precaution that the Evangelists should describe the same thing a little differently, and should sin that unpardonable sin against the Papist set form of the sacrament, in order that He might make us secure from the future superstition and tyranny of wicked men. For a man does not the less truly consecrate, who uses the form of Luke, Mark, Matthew, or Paul, than he who uses the form of that impious and false Canon.

  But where I have written that a sacrifice and the Mass are contrary, since a sacrifice is offered and the Mass is received, on this question the daring Lord Henry dares call Luther to the Bible, saying: Where can be found anywhere in the Old Testament any sacrifice which is not at the same time offered and received? Clearly here, so he boasts, the chief argument of Luther breaks down, and the glorious Defender securely triumphs.

  I answer: This is not my chief argument, but that which the Lord Henry, in his Thomist kindness, gave me previously, to wit, The Mass is a testament and promise. This, I say, is my chief argument.

  But to make a suggestion to the triumphant King!
If the Lord Henry had only once opened his Bible and looked in it, nay, if he had remembered the fifty-first Psalm, which he read once as a boy (if he is a Christian), he would not have boasted of his Thomist triumph, since he would have read there of the burnt-offering, than which there is in the Old Testament no greater or more illustrious sacrifice. This clearly was wholly offered to God alone, nothing was taken from it.

  But if my King had the least common sense, I would turn the question of triumph against him, and would say, Where is there in the Old Testament any sacrifice that was received which was not entirely offered? Will he here make into sacrifice the shoulders and breasts and other parts that were granted to the priests for their use? Or will the equivocal and mocking King even call that an offering which was brought by the people and priests from the fields and was presented before the Lord? Forsooth to bring is the same thing as to offer, according to the Lord Henry.

  But what does it matter to me what this trifler imagines? To me it is sufficient that in the Old Testament it is written: Whatever was offered to God was wholly consumed. What was not burned but was given partly to the priest and partly to the people, was not offered, being separated from what was offered and being eaten. But what have these sacred things to do with the profane Papists? Therefore in the cup of the Babylonish harlot there is no sacrifice which is merely offered; for the Bible of our Lord Henry says so. But our own Bibles are filled with such sacrifices.

  Finally he brings in the sayings of the Fathers to establish the sacrifice of the Mass, and laughs at my folly, who claim to know alone more than all others, which is most foolish, etc.

  And here I say that by this argument of his my opinion is confirmed; for this is what I said, The Thomist asses have nothing they can bring forward but the number of men and the antiquity of the use, and then they say to one who brings forward Scripture, Are you the wisest of all? Do you alone know? And then, It must be so. But to me, the most foolish of all men, this is enough, that the most wise Henry can produce no Scripture against me, nor can he confute those that I have brought against him. Then also he is forced to grant that his Fathers have often erred, and that their ancient use does not make an article of faith, and that it is not lawful to trust in them, — but only in that Church of the multitude, of which he is the Defender with his Indulgences.

  But I against the sayings of the Fathers, of men, of angels, of devils place not ancient usage, not multitudes of men, but the word of the one Eternal Majesty, the Gospel, which they are forced to approve, and in which the Mass is clearly said to be a sign and testament of God, wherein He promises us His grace, confirming it with a sign. This is God’s word and work, not ours. Here I stand, here I sit, here I remain, here I glory, here I triumph, here I laugh at the Papists, Thomists, Henrys, Sophists and all the gates of hell, nay, at the sayings of men, however saintly, and at their fallacious customs.

  The word of God is above all. The divine Majesty makes me care not at all though a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cyprians, or a thousand of Henry’s Churches should stand against me. God cannot err, or be deceived. Augustine and Cyprian and all the elect could err, and have erred. Answer me now, Lord Henry. Be a man now, Defender. Write books now. Thy curses are nothing. Thine accusations have no effect. Thy lies I despise. Thy threats do not frighten me. For thou art as stupid in this passage as is a block; and at other times art nothing but words.

  It is most disgraceful for so great a King to write so great a book and to refuse to touch this my chief contention. Nor has any one been found who has ever dared to touch it, no matter how many have come forward. They flee by seven ways backwards, who came the same way to the attack with a mighty vehemence and triumphant shouting. It is strange how they wish to hurt me on this occasion, and how terrible a spectre I am in their eyes. But none have acted with more prudence for once than King Henry, who desires to overthrow Luther, but protests that he will not touch this his strong argument. But I neither feel, nor ought to feel, thanks for such great kindness, nay, let his anger and fury rot, if he can hurt and does not do so.

  The rage with which he attacks me, because I have taught that faith without works is the best preparation for the sacrament, and that Christians should not be bound to receive it, I utterly despise. They are the words of a man, who thinks that men are made good in God’s sight by laws, knowing less what faith and works mean, and what the laws work in the consciences of bad men, than any insensate block of wood. For it does not belong to the Papists’ programme to know these things, but, as Peter and Jude say, only to utter blasphemies. For consciences are taken care of not by laws but by grace alone; for by laws, especially human laws, consciences are miserably put out of commission.

  But in the end of this passage it is worth while to see how anxiously he labours to establish the traditions of men as necessary, against my opinion, in which I have stated that nothing should be established outside of the Scriptures, or, if it is established, it ought to be left free and not made a thing of necessity, since by the enfranchisement of Christ we are lords even of the Sabbath. And accordingly first of all the King argues as follows:

  If nothing is to be observed except what is handed down by the Scriptures, since it is not recorded that the sacrament was taken by Christ, it follows that neither can the priests take the sacrament. Resting on this Thomist hypothesis, he formulates this syllogism against me: Priests take the sacrament of necessity, and this the Gospel does not record; therefore other things not recorded in the Gospel are to be observed of necessity.

  This Thomist conclusion is arrived at by the rule of consequences very familiar to them, which is called begging the question. For the King ought first to prove that in order to avoid deadly sin the priests should take the sacrament. For I hold that it is free to be taken, or not taken, by the priests. It is made necessary only by the traditions of men and the custom of the multitude. And so the Thomist King very conveniently proves traditions by traditions, proves negation by negation; for on such things, and not on any other proofs, the Defender of the sacraments and the whole of Henry’s Church is obliged to depend. In the second place he argues as follows:

  Christ consecrated the sacrament, not the apostles. Therefore it is not lawful for the apostles, or priests, to consecrate, because it is not allowable to establish, or do, anything except what is found in Scripture.

  If the unhappy Luther wishes to dodge the issue, and say, Christ commanded the apostles to consecrate when He saith, Do this, then my unkind Lord Henry gets there before me and says, But this He saith of receiving, not of consecrating.

  O Saviour Christ, what unheard-of blindness and craziness there is in these men! If I now ask: Lord Henry, in what grammar did your Lordship take lessons? What vocabulary told you that Do this was the same as Take this? He will answer, It must be so, — for names are at his disposal. But sending away these swine let us say:

  Christ fixed the custom of taking when He said, Take and cat, as the very words themselves clearly testify, not indeed to Henry and his fellow blocks, but to every mere boy and idiot. Christ instituted the duty of consecrating, when He saith, Do this. For to do is to imitate all this which He Himself then did.

  And what shall I say to these sacrilegious monsters, who show by such arguments how that they have written thus out of impotent hatred, so that nothing more foolish and senseless can be imagined? For if this argument of the stolid King has any value, then it will be lawful to follow Christ in nothing. For suppose that Christ did not institute the consecration of the sacrament (which is impossible), nevertheless He showed an example of consecrating; and wished it to be in Scripture recorded, unless our King will contend that we ought neither to pray, nor to bless, nor to suffer, because properly of our prayers, our works and our sufferings has been written in the Scriptures no word.

  Therefore let us turn our pen to the principal and chief part of his perfidy, which is that saying of Augustine: I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Church moved me so to do. T
hese words they sacrilegiously so twist and change that to the Church (that is, to the Romish harlot, who is neither Church nor Christian except in name) they attribute the right to make laws.

  The Lord Henry adds to this that he even urges me by the authority of this same saying, citing my own words, where I said, With the Church is the right of judging all dogmas. I see that this ignorant royal head has need of nothing else than a gem round his neck inscribed with a vocabulary, or with a short list of words, that he may begin where boys begin and learn his parts of speech, unless he does what he does from mere Thomist wickedness, forcing all words to mean all things, so that even here the right of judging laws becomes the same thing as the right of establishing, or making laws.

  Briefly, even if Augustine should have asserted in round words that any one in the Church has the right to make laws, who is Augustine? Who compels us to believe him? By what authority is his word an article of faith? I confess that his saying has come to my notice; but it is not safe enough, nor firm enough. The right of making a law must be proved by a saying of God, not by a saying of man.

  But now they do not simply vitiate the saying of Augustine. For he speaks of the Church scattered throughout the world; whose right it is to judge concerning dogmas; but they attribute this right to the Pope, whom they themselves confess to be only too often a limb of the devil, and mistaken. And not only so do they give him the right and the permission to judge, but also the right and the permission to construct. Hence there is need that we should here make plain to these ignorant Sophists, what is the difference between the law of judging, or approving, and the law of constructing, or commanding.