Part 19 (2/2)

Therefore I do not urge that both kinds be seized by force, as though ere bound to this fororous command; but I instruct men's consciences that theythey 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 Roh 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 ere held captive by the Turk and not per[41] it seemed well to eneral 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

[Sidenote: The Second Captivity: Transubstantiation]

The second captivity of this sacrarievous so far as the conscience is concerned, yet the very gravest danger threatens theit Here I shall be called a Wyclifite[42] 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 o, when I was delving into scholastic theology, the Cardinal of Caht, in his coues with great acumen that to hold that real bread and real wine, and not their accidents only[45], 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 Thomas[46], 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 Thoh approved by pope and council, remain but opinions and do not becoel 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 Thos so completely in the air, devoid of Scripture and reason, that he seeic For Aristotle treats so very differently froreathis opinions into base the--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 uilty 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 i 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 ences, the freedoood 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, whoht 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 dee, they say, ”This is our opinion, and the decision of the Church--that is, of ourselves!” Thus thesethe faith” [2 Tim 3:8] and untrustworthy, have the effrontery to set their own fancies before us in the naood grounds for my view, and this above all,--no violence is to be done to the words of God, whether by el; but they are to be retained in their si 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 en was repudiated, in olden tiras else written concerning Paradise, into allegories; for it ht 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 assuht 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 ords, 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 ht be done with all other things, it would yet not be right thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to e

Moreover, the Church had the true faith forwhich time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation--forsooth, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea!--until the pseudophilosophy of Aristotle became ra which ly defined; as for exaets; 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 hier 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 theer 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 led 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 in was meanwhile annihilated, or as they wouldenfolded in its accidents, finally ca will have to be said of the shut door and of the closed h which He went in and out without disturbing them Hence has risen that hotch-potch of a philosophy of constant quantity distinct from the substance, until it has coer knohat 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 so,” and endless other monstrosities, of all which they would be rid if they sireatly that the simple faith of this sacra the common people; for as they do not understand, neither do they dispute, whether accidents are present or substance[47] 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 oords, in the sixth book of his _Metaphysics_: ”An affirreement 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 divinesinorance 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 co in every detail?

But what do they say to Aristotle's assigning a subject to whatever is predicated of the attributes, although he holds that the substance is the chief subject? Hence for hie,” etc, are subjects of which so is predicated If that is correct, I ask: If a transubstantiation must be assumed in order that Christ's body be not predicated of the bread, why not also a transaccidentation in order that it be not predicated of the accidents? For the saer remains if one understands the subject to be ”this white” or ”this round”[49] is my body, and for the same reason that a transubstantiation is assumed, a transaccidentation must also be assumed, because of this identity of subject and predicate

Let us not, however, dabble too much in philosophy Does not Christ appear to have ad of the wine, not, ”_Hoc est sanguis uisin the word ”cup,”

when He said, ”This cup is the new testament in h He desired to keep us in a siht but believe His blood to be in the cup? For my part, if I cannot fathom how the bread is the body of Christ, I will take my reason captive to the obedience of Christ [2 Cor 10:5], and clinging simply to His word, firmly believe not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ

For in this I a thanks, He brake it and said, Take, eat; this [i e, this bread which He took and brake] is my body” [1 Cor 11:23] And Paul says: ”The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”

[1 Cor 10:16] He says not, in the bread, but the bread itself, is the communion of the body of Christ What matters it if philosophy cannot fathoreater than Aristotle Does philosophy fathom that transubstantiation of theirs, of which they thereement of the pronoun ”this” with ”body,” in Greek and Latin, is owing to the fact that in these languages the tords are of the saender, ”this” agrees with ”bread,” so that it would be proper to say, ”_Hie est corpus e and by common sense; the subject, forsooth, points to the bread, not to the body, when He says, ”_Hoc est corpus meum_,” ”_Das ist mein Leib_,”--i e, This bread is my body

Therefore it is with the sacrament even as it is with Christ In order that the Godhead may dwell in Him, it is not necessary that the human nature be transubstantiated and the Godhead be contained under its accidents; but both natures are there in their entirety, and it is truly said, ”This h philosophy cannot grasp this, faith grasps it, and the authority of God's Word is greater than the grasp of our intellect Even so, in order that the real body and the real blood of Christ may be present in the sacrament, it is not necessary that the bread and wine be transubstantiated and Christ be contained under their accidents; but both reether, and it is truly said, ”This bread is my body, this wine is my blood,” [Matt 26:26] and _vice versa_ Thus I will for the nonce understand it, or the honor of the holy words of God, which I will not suffer any petty hun to them At the same time, I permit other men to follow the other opinion, which is laid down in the decree _Firmiter_[50]; only let them not press us to accept their opinions as articles of faith, as I said above

[Sidenote: The Third Captivity: The Mass a Good Work and a Sacrifice]

The third captivity of this sacrament is that most wicked abuse of all, in consequence of which there is to-day no enerally accepted and firmly believed opinion in the Church than this,--that the ood work and a sacrifice And this abuse has brought an endless host of others in its train, so that the faith of this sacrament has Sacrifice become utterly extinct and the holy sacrament has been turned into a veritable air, tavern, and place of merchandise Hence participations[51], brotherhoods[52], intercessions, merits, anniversaries, ht and sold, traded and bartered in the Church, and fro

I a a difficult matter, and one perhaps impossible to abate, since it has beco custom and the common consent of men that it would be necessary to abolish h the whole external form of the churches, and to introduce, or rather re-introduce, a totally different kind of cereive hts of els I will perform the duties of ive the truth as I have received it, freely and without malice [Matt 10:8]

For the rest let every man look to his own salvation; I will faithfully do my part that none e of the truth, e appear before the judgment-seat of Christ

[Sidenote: The Word of Christ, which is the Testament]

In the first place, in order to attain safely and fortunately to a true and unbiased knowledge of this sacrament, we must above all else be careful to put aside whatever has been added by the zeal and devotion of inal, sis as vestans, candles, and the whole pageantry of outward things[53]; we must turn our eyes and hearts simply to the institution of Christ and to this alone, and set naught before us but the very word of Christ by which He instituted this sacrament, made it perfect, and committed it to us For in that word, and in that word alone, reside the power, the nature, and the whole substance of the mass All else is the work of man, added to the word of Christ; and the mass can be held and remain a mass just as ithout it Now the words of Christ, in which He instituted this sacrament, are these: