THE SACRAMENT OF THE BREAD

Let me tell you what progress I have made in my studies on the

administration of this sacrament. For when I published my treatise on

the Eucharist[26], I clung to the common usage, being in no wise

concerned with the question of the right or wrong of the papacy. But

now, challenged and attacked, nay, forcibly thrust into the arena, I

shall freely speak my mind, let all the papists laugh or weep

together.

[Sidenote: The First Captivity: the Withholding of the Cup from the

Laity]

In the first place, John vi is to be entirely excluded from this

discussion, since it does not refer in a single syllable to the

sacrament. For not only was the sacrament not yet instituted, but the

whole context plainly shows that Christ is speaking of faith in the

Word made flesh, as I have said above[27]. For He says, "My words are

spirit, and they are life," [John 6:63] which shows that He is

speaking of a spiritual eating, whereby whoever eats has life, whereas

the Jews understood Him to be speaking of bodily eating and therefore

disputed with Him. But no eating can give life save the eating which

is by faith, for that is the truly spiritual and living eating. As

Augustine also says: "Why make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and

thou hast eaten."[28] For the sacramental eating does not give life,

since many eat unworthily. Therefore, He cannot be understood as

speaking of the sacrament in this passage.

These words have indeed been wrongly applied to the sacrament, as in

the decretal _Dudum_[29] and often elsewhere. But it is one thing to

misapply the Scriptures, it is quite another to understand them in

their proper meaning. But if Christ in this passage enjoined the

sacramental eating, then by saying, "Except ye eat my flesh and drink

my blood, ye have no life in you," [John 6:53] He would condemn all

infants, invalids and those absent or in any wise hindered from the

sacramental eating, however strong their faith might be. Thus

Augustine, in the second book of his _Contra Julianum_[30], proves

from Innocent that even infants eat the flesh and drink the blood of

Christ, without the sacrament; that is, they partake of them through

the faith of the Church. Let this then be accepted as proved,--John vi

does not belong here. For this reason I have elsewhere[31] written

that the Bohemians have no right to rely on this passage in support of

their use of the sacrament in both kinds.

Now there are two passages that do clearly bear upon this matter--the

Gospel narratives of the institution of the Lord's Supper, and Paul in

I Corinthians xi. These let us examine.

Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that Christ gave the whole sacrament to

all the disciples [Matt. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22], and it is certain that

Paul delivered both kinds [1 Cor. 11]. No one has ever had the

temerity to assert the contrary. Further, Matthew reports that Christ

said not of the bread, "Eat ye all of it," [Matt. 26:27] but of the

cup, "Drink ye all of it"; and Mark likewise says not, "They all ate

of it," but, "They all drank of it." [Mark 14:23] Both Matthew and

Mark attach the note of universality to the cup, not to the bread; as

though the Spirit saw this schism coming, by which some would be

forbidden to partake of the cup, which Christ desired should be common

to all. How furiously, think you, would they rave against us, if they

had found the word "all" attached to the bread instead of the cup!

They would not leave us a loophole to escape, they would cry out upon

us and set us down as heretics, they would damn us or schismatics. But

now, since it stands on our side and against them, they will not be

bound by any force of logic--these men of the most free will[32], who

change and change again even the things that be God's, and throw

everything into confusion.

But imagine me standing over against them and interrogating my lords

the papists. In the Lord's Supper, I say, the whole sacrament, or

communion in both kinds, is given only to the priests or else it is

given also to the laity. If it is given only to the priests, as they

would have it, then it is not right to give it to the laity in either

kind; for it must not be rashly given to any to whom Christ did not

give it when He instituted it. For if we permit one institution of

Christ to be changed, we make all of His laws invalid, and every one

will boldly claim that he is not bound by any law or institution of

His. For a single exception, especially in the Scriptures, invalidates

the whole. But if it is given also to the laity, then it inevitably

follows that it ought not to be withheld from them in either form.

And if any do withhold it from them when they desire it, they act

impiously and contrary to the work, example and institution of Christ.

I confess that I am conquered by this to me unanswerable argument, and

that I have neither read nor heard nor found anything to advance

against it. For here the word and example of Christ stand firm, when

He says, not by way of permission but of command, "Drink ye all of

it." [Matt.26:27] For if all are to drink, and the words cannot be

understood as addressed to the priests alone, then it is certainly an

impious act to withhold the cup from laymen who desire it, even though

an angel from heaven were to do it. For when they say that the

distribution of both kinds was left to the judgment of the Church,

they make this assertion without giving any reason or it and put it

forth without any authority; it is ignored just as readily as it is

proved, and does not hold against an opponent who confronts us[33]

with the word and work of Christ. Such an one must be refuted with a

word of Christ, but this we[34] do not possess.

But if one kind may be withheld from the laity, then with equal right

and reason a portion of baptism and penance might also be taken from

them by this same authority of the Church. Therefore, just as baptism

and absolution must be administered in their entirety, so the

sacrament of the bread must be given in its entirety to all laymen, if

they desire it. I am amazed to find them asserting that the priests

may never receive only the one kind, in the mass, on pain of

committing a mortal sin; and that for no other reason, as they

unanimously say, than that both kinds constitute the one complete

sacrament, which may not be divided. I pray them to tell me why it may

be divided in the case of the laity, and why to them alone the whole

sacrament may not be given. Do they not acknowledge, by their own

testimony, either that both kinds are to be given to the laity, or

that it is not a valid sacrament when only one kind is given to them?

How can the one kind be a complete sacrament or the laity and not a

complete sacrament for the priests? Why do they flaunt the authority

of the Church and the power of the pope in my face? These do not make

void the Word of God and the testimony of the truth.

But further, if the Church can withhold the wine from the laity, it

can also withhold the bread from them; it could, therefore, withhold

the entire sacrament of the altar from the laity and completely annul

Christ's institution so far as they are concerned. I ask, by what

authority? But if the Church cannot withhold the bread, or both kinds,

neither can it withhold the wine. This cannot possibly be gainsaid;

for the Church's power must be the same over either kind as over both

kinds, and if she has no power over both kinds, she has none over

either kind. I am curious to hear what the Roman sycophants will have

to say to this.

What carries most weight with me, however, and quite decides me is

this. Christ says: "This is my blood, which is shed for you and for

many for the remission of sins." [Matt. 26:28] Here we see very

plainly that the blood is given to all those for whose sins it was

shed. But who will dare to say it was not shed for the laity? Do you

not see whom He addresses when He gives the cup? Does He not give it

to all? Does He not say that it is shed or all? "For you," He

says--well: we will let these be the priests--"and for many"--these

cannot be priests; and yet He says, "Drink ye all of it." [Matt.

26:27] I too could easily trifle here and with my words make a mockery

of Christ's words, as my dear trifler[34] does; but they who rely on

the Scriptures in opposing us, must be refuted by the Scriptures. This

is what has prevented me from condemning the Bohemians, who, be they

wicked men or good, certainly have the word and act of Christ on their

side, while we have neither, but only that hollow device of men--"the

Church has appointed it." It was not the Church that appointed these

things, but the tyrants of the churches, without the consent of the

Church, which is the people of God.

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 grace[35] 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 asserts[36]. 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 children[37], 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 abound[39].

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

them 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 together[40].

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 saying[41] 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 make new articles of

faith.

Years ago, when I was delving into scholastic theology, the Cardinal

of Cambray[43] gave me food for thought, in his comments on the fourth

book of the Sentences[44], where he argues 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

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-potch 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 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 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?

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 him, "this white," "this large," etc.,

are subjects of which something 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 same

danger 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 admirably anticipated such curiosity by saying of the

wine, not, "_Hoc est sanguis meus_," but "_Hie est sanguis mens_"

[Matt. 26:28]? And yet more clearly, by bringing in the word "cup,"

when He said, "This cup is the new testament in my blood." [1 Cor.

11:25] Does it not seem as though He desired to keep us in a simple

faith, so that we might 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 am borne out by the words, "He took bread, and giving

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

fathom this? The Holy Spirit is greater than Aristotle. Does

philosophy fathom that transubstantiation of theirs, of which they

themselves admit that here all philosophy breaks down? But the

agreement of the pronoun "this" with "body," in Greek and Latin, is

owing to the fact that in these languages the two words are of the

same gender. But in the Hebrew language, which has no neuter gender,

"this" agrees with "bread," so that it would be proper to say, "_Hie

est corpus meum_." This is proved also by the use of language 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 man is God," and "This God is man." Even though

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 remain there together, 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 human arguments to override or

wrest to meanings foreign 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 more generally

accepted and firmly believed opinion in the Church than this,--that

the mass is a good 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, memorial days, and the like

wares are bought and sold, traded and bartered in the Church, and from

this priests and monks derive their whole living.

I am attacking a difficult matter, and one perhaps impossible to

abate, since it has become so firmly entrenched through century-long

custom and the common consent of men that it would be necessary to

abolish most of the books now in vogue, to alter well-nigh the whole

external form of the churches, and to introduce, or rather

re-introduce, a totally different kind of ceremonies. But my Christ

lives; and we must be careful to give more heed to the Word of God

than to all the thoughts of men and of angels. I will perform the

duties of my office, and uncover the acts in the case; I will give 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 may cast on me the blame for his lack

of faith and knowledge of the truth, when we 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 men to the original, simple institution of this

sacrament,--such things as vestments, ornaments, chants, prayers,

organs, 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 well without it. Now the words of Christ, in which He

instituted this sacrament, are these:

"And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and

brake: and gave to His disciples, and said: Take ye and eat. This is

my body, which shall be given for you. And taking the chalice. He gave

thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. This is the

chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you

and for many unto remission of sins. This do for the commemoration of

me." [Matt. 26:26; 1 Cor. 11:24 f.; Luke 22:20]

These words the Apostle also delivers and more fully expounds in i

Cor. xi [1 Cor. 11:23 ff.]. On them we must lean and build as on a

firm foundation, if we would not be carried about with every wind of

doctrine, even as we have hitherto been carried about by the wicked

doctrines of men, who turn aside the truth [Titus 1:14]. For in these

words nothing is omitted that pertains to the completeness, the use

and the blessing of this sacrament; and nothing is included that is

superfluous and not necessary for us to know. Whoever sets them aside

and meditates or teaches concerning the mass, will teach monstrous and

wicked doctrines, as they have done who made of the sacrament an _opus

operatum_[56] and a sacrifice.

Therefore let this stand at the outset as our infallibly certain

proposition,--the mass, or sacrament of the altar, is Christ's

testament which He left behind Him at His death, to be distributed

among His believers. For that is the meaning of His word,--"This is

the chalice, the new testament in my blood." [Luke 22:20] Let this

truth stand, I say, as the immovable foundation on which we shall base

all that we have to say, or we are going to overthrow, as you will

see, all the godless opinions of men imported into this most precious

sacrament. Christ, Who is the Truth, saith truly that this is the new

testament in His blood, which is shed for us. Not without reason do I

dwell on this sentence; the matter is of no small moment, and must be

most deeply impressed upon us.

Let us enquire, therefore, what a testament is, and we shall learn at

the same time what the mass is, what its use and blessing, and what

its abuse. A testament, as every one knows, is a promise made by one

about to die, in which he designates his bequest and appoints his

heirs. Therefore a testament involves, first, the death of the

testator, and secondly, the promise of the bequest and the naming of

the heir. Thus St. Paul discusses at length the nature of a testament

in Romans iv, Galatians iii and iv, and Hebrews ix. The same thing is

also clearly seen in these words of Christ. Christ testifies

concerning His death when He says: "This is my body, which shall be

given; this is my blood, which shall be shed." [Luke 22:19 f.] He

designates the bequest when He says: "Unto remission of sins." And He

appoints the heirs when He says: "For you, and for many"--i. e., for

such as accept and believe the promise of the testator; or here it is

faith that makes men heirs, as we shall see.

You see, therefore, that what we call the mass is the promise of

remission of sins made to us by God; and such a promise as has been

confirmed by the death of the Son of God. For the one difference

between a promise and a testament is that a testament is a promise

which implies the death of him who makes it. A testator is a man

making a promise who is about to die; whilst he that makes a promise

is, if I may so put it, a testator who is not about to die. This

testament of Christ was forshadowed in all the promises of God from

the beginning of the world; nay, whatever value those olden promises

possessed was altogether derived from this new promise that was to

come in Christ. Hence the words "covenant" and "testament of the Lord"

occur so frequently in the Scriptures, which words signified that God

would one day die. For where there is a testament, the death of the

testator must needs follow (Hebrews ix). Now God made a testament:

therefore it was necessary that He should die [Heb. 9:16]. But God

could not die unless He became man. Thus both the incarnation and the

death of Christ are briefly comprehended in this one word "testament."

From the above it will at once be seen what is the right and what the

wrong use of the mass, what is the worthy and what the unworthy

preparation for it. If the mass is a promise, as has been said, it is

to be approached, not with any work or strength or merit, but with

faith alone. For where there is the word of God Who makes the promise,

there must be the faith of man who takes it. It is plain, therefore,

that the first step in our salvation is faith, which clings to the

word of the promise made by God, Who without any effort on our part,

in free and unmerited mercy makes a beginning and offers us the word

of His promise. For He sent His Word, and by it healed them [Ps.

107:20]. He did not accept our work and thus heal us. God's Word is

the beginning of all; on it follows faith, and on faith charity; then

charity works every good work, for it worketh no ill, nay, it is the

fulfilling of the law [Rom. 13:10]. In no other way can man come to

God and deal with Him than through faith; that is, not man, by any

work of his, but God, by His promise, is the author of salvation, so

that all things depend on the word of His power, and are upheld and

preserved by it [Heb. 1:3], with which word He begat us, that we

should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures [Jas. 1:18].

Thus, in order to raise up Adam after the all, God gave him this

promise, addressing the serpent: "I will put enmities between thee and

the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and

thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." [Gen. 3:15] In this word of

promise Adam, with them that were his, was carried as it were in God's

bosom, and by faith in it he was preserved, patiently waiting for the

woman who should crush the serpent's head, as God had promised. And in

that faith and expectation he died, not knowing when or in what guise

she would come, yet never doubting that she would come. For such a

promise, being the truth of God, preserves, even in hell, those who

believe it and wait for it. After this came another promise, made to

Noah--to last until the time of Abraham--when a bow was set as a sign

in the clouds [Gen. 9:12], by faith in which Noah and his descendants

found a gracious God. After that He promised Abraham that all nations

should be blessed in his seed [Gen. 12:3]; and this is Abraham's

bosom, into which his posterity was carried [Luke 16:22]. Then to

Moses and the children of Israel, and especially to David, He gave the

plain promise of Christ [Deut. 18:18], thereby at last making clear

what was meant by the promise to them of old time [2 Sam. 7:6]. And so

it came finally to the most complete promise of the new testament, in

which with plain words life and salvation are freely promised, and

granted to such as believe the promise. And He distinguished this

testament by a particular mark from the old, calling it the "new

testament." [Luke 22:20] For the old testament, which He gave by

Moses, was a promise not of remission of sins or of eternal things,

but of temporal,--namely, the land of Canaan,--by which no man was

renewed in his spirit, to lay hold on the heavenly inheritance.

Therefore it was also necessary that dumb beasts should be slain, as

types of Christ, that by their blood the testament might be confirmed;

so that the testament was even as the blood, and the promise even as

the sacrifice. But here He says: "The new testament in my blood" [Luke

22:20]--not in another's, but in His own, and by this blood grace is

promised, through the Spirit, unto the remission of sins, that we may

obtain the inheritance.

The mass, according to its substance, is, therefore, nothing else than

the aforesaid words of Christ--"Take and eat" [1 Cor. 11:24]; as if He

said: "Behold, O sinful man and condemned, out of pure and unmerited

love wherewith I love thee, and by the will of the Father of all

mercies, I promise thee in these words, or ever thou canst desire or

deserve them, the forgiveness of all thy sins and life everlasting.

And, that thou mayest be most certainly assured of this my irrevocable

promise, I give my body and shed my blood, thus by my very death

confirming this promise, and leaving thee my body and blood as a sign

and memorial of this same promise. As oft, therefore, as thou

partakest of them, remember me, and praise, magnify, and give thanks

or my love and largess toward thee."

Herefrom you will see that nothing else is needed for a worthy holding

of mass than a faith that confidently relies on this promise, believes

Christ to be true in these words of His, and doubts not that these

infinite blessings have been bestowed upon it. Hard on this faith

there follows, of itself, a most sweet stirring of the heart, whereby

the spirit of man is enlarged and waxes at--that is love, given by the

Holy Spirit through faith in Christ--so that he is drawn unto Christ,

that gracious and good Testator, and made quite another and a new man.

Who would not shed tears of gladness, nay well-nigh faint for the joy

he hath toward Christ, if he believed with unshaken faith that this

inestimable promise of Christ belonged to him! How could one help

loving so great a Benefactor, who offers, promises and grants, all

unbidden, such great riches, and this eternal inheritance, to one

unworthy and deserving of somewhat far different?

Therefore, it is our one misfortune, that we have many masses in the

world, and yet none or but the fewest of us recognize, consider and

receive these promises and riches that are offered, although verily we

should do nothing else in the mass with greater zeal (yea, it demands

all our zeal) than set before our eyes, meditate, and ponder these

words, these promises of Christ, which truly are the mass itself, in

order to exercise, nourish, increase, and strengthen our faith by such

daily remembrance. For this is what He commands, saying, "This do in

remembrance of me." [1 Cor. 11:24]

This should be done by the preachers of the Gospel, in order that this

promise might be faithfully impressed upon the people and commended to

them, to the awakening of faith in the same. But how many are there

now who know that the mass is the promise of Christ? I will say

nothing of those godless preachers of fables, who teach human

traditions instead of this promise. And even if they teach these words

of Christ, they do not teach them as a promise or testament, and,

therefore, not to the awakening of faith.

O the pity of it! Under this captivity, they take every precaution

that no layman should hear these words of Christ, as if they were too

sacred to be delivered to the common people. So mad are we[57] priests

that we arrogantly claim that the so-called words of consecration may

be said by ourselves alone, as secret words, yet so that they do not

profit even us, or we too fail to regard them as promises or as a

testament, for the strengthening of faith. Instead of believing them,

we reverence them with I know not what superstitious and godless

fancies. This misery of ours, what is it but a device of Satan to

remove every trace of the mass out of the Church? although he is

meanwhile at work filing every nook and corner on earth with masses,

that is, abuses and mockeries of God's testament, and burdening the

world more and more heavily with grievous sins of idolatry, to its

deeper condemnation. For what worse idolatry can there be than to

abuse God's promises with perverse opinions and to neglect or

extinguish faith in them?

For God does not deal, nor has He ever dealt, with man otherwise than

through a word of promise, as I have said[58]; again, we cannot deal

with God otherwise than through faith in the word of His promise. He

does not desire works, nor has He need of them; we deal with men and

with ourselves on the basis of works. But He has need of this,--that

we deem Him true to His promises, wait patiently for Him, and thus

worship Him with faith, hope and love. Thus He obtains His glory among

us, since it is not of ourselves who run, but of Him who showeth mercy

[Ps. 115:1], promiseth and giveth, that we have and hold every

blessing [Rom. 9:16]. That is the true worship and service of God

which we must perform in the mass. But if the words of promise are not

proclaimed, what exercise of faith can there be? And without faith,

who can have hope or love? Without faith, hope and love, what service

can there be? There is no doubt, therefore, that in our day all

priests and monks, together with all their bishops and superiors, are

idolaters and in a most perilous state, by reason of this ignorance,

abuse and mockery of the mass, or sacrament, or testament of God.

For any one can easily see that these two--the promise and faith--must

go together. For without the promise there is nothing to believe,

while without faith the promise, remains without effect; for it is

established and fulfilled through faith. From this every one will

readily gather that the mass, which is nothing else than the promise,

is approached and observed only in this faith, without which whatever

prayers, preparations, works, signs of the cross, or genuflections are

brought to it, are incitements to impiety rather than exercises of

piety; for they who come thus prepared are wont to imagine themselves

on that account justly entitled to approach the altar, when in reality

they are less prepared than at any other time and in any other work,

by reason of the unbelief which they bring with them. How many priests

will you find every day offering the sacrifice of the mass, who accuse

themselves of a horrible crime if they--wretched men!--commit a

trifling, blunder, such as putting on the wrong robe or forgetting to

wash their hands or stumbling over their prayers; but that they

neither regard nor believe the mass itself, namely, the divine

promise--this causes them not the slightest qualms of conscience. O

worthless religion of this our age, the most godless and thankless of

all ages!

Hence the only worthy preparation and proper use of the mass is faith

in the mass, that is to say, in the divine promise. Whoever,

therefore, is minded to approach the altar and to receive the

sacrament, let him beware of appearing empty before the Lord God [Ex.

23:15; 34:20]. But he will appear empty unless he has faith in the

mass, or this new testament. What godless work that he could commit

would be a more grievous crime against the truth of God, than this

unbelief of his, by which, as much as in him lies, he convicts God of

being a liar and a maker of empty promises? The safest course,

therefore, will be to go to mass in the same spirit in which you would

go to hear any other promise of God; that is, not to be ready to

perform and bring many works, but to believe and receive all that is

there promised, or proclaimed by the priest as having been promised to

you. If you do not go in this spirit, beware of going at all; you will

surely go to your condemnation.

I was right then in saying[59] that the whole power of the mass

consists in the words of Christ, in which He testifies that the

remission of sins is bestowed on all those who believe that His body

is given and His blood shed for them. For this reason nothing is more

important for those who go to hear mass than diligently and in full

faith to ponder these words. Unless they do this, all else that they

do is in vain.

[Sidenote: The External Sign, which is the Sacrament]

But while the mass is the word of Christ, it is also true that God is

wont to add to well-nigh every promise of His a certain sign as a mark

or memorial of His promise, so that we may thereby the more faithfully

hold to His promise and be the more forcibly admonished by it. Thus,

to his promise to Noah that He would not again destroy the world by a

flood, He added His bow in the clouds, to show that He would be

mindful of His covenant [Gen. 9:13]. And after promising Abraham the

inheritance in his seed, He gave him the sign of circumcision as the

seal of his righteousness by faith. Thus, to Gideon He granted the

sign of the dry and the wet fleece, to confirm His promise of victory

over the Midianites [Judges 6:36 ff.]. And to Ahaz He offered a sign

through Isaiah concerning his victory over the kings of Syria and

Samaria, to strengthen his faith in the promise [Isa. 7:10 ff.]. And

many such signs of the promises of God do we find in the Scriptures.

Thus also to the mass, that crown of all His promises. He adds His

body and blood in the bread and wine, as a memorial sign of this great

promise; as He says, "This do in remembrance of me." [1 Cor. 11:24]

Even so in baptism He adds to the words of the promise, the sign of

immersion in water. We learn from this that in every promise of God

two things are presented to us--the word and the sign--so that we are

to understand the word to be the testament, but the sign to be the

sacrament. Thus, in the mass, the word of Christ is the testament, and

the bread and wine are the sacrament. And as there is greater power in

the word than in the sign, so there is greater power in the testament

than in the sacrament; for a man can have and use the word, or

testament, apart from the sign, or sacrament. "Believe," says

Augustine, "and thou hast eaten."[60] But what does one believe save

the word of promise? Therefore I can hold mass every day, yea, every

hour, for I can set the words of Christ before me, and with them

refresh and strengthen my faith, as often as I choose. That is a truly

spiritual eating and drinking.[61]

Here you may see what great things our theologians of the

Sentences[62] have produced. That which is the principal and chief

thing, namely, the testament and word of promise, is not treated by

one of them; thus they have obliterated faith and the whole power of

the mass. But the second part of the mass,--the sign, or

sacrament,[63]--this alone do they discuss, yet in such a manner that

here too they teach not faith but their preparations and _opera

operata_, participations and fruits[64], as though these were the

mass, until they have fallen to babbling of transubstantiation and

endless other metaphysical quibbles, and have destroyed the proper

understanding and use of both sacrament and testament, altogether

abolished faith, and caused Christ's people to forget their God, as

the prophet says, days without number [Jer. 2:32]. But do you let the

others tell over the manifold fruits of hearing mass, and turn hither

your mind, and say and believe with the prophet, that God here

prepares a table before you, against all those that afflict you, at

which your soul may eat and grow fat [Ps. 23:5]. But your faith is fed

only with the word of divine promise, for "not in bread alone doth man

live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." [Deut.

8:3; Matt. 4:4] Hence, in the mass you must above all things pay

closest heed to the word of promise, as to your rich banquet, green

pasture, and sacred refreshment; you must esteem this word higher than

all else, trust in it above all things, and cling firmly to it even

through the midst of death and all sins. By thus doing you will attain

not merely to those tiny drops and crumbs of "fruits of the mass,"

which some have superstitiously imagined, but to the very fountainhead

of life, which is faith in the word, from which every blessing flows;

as it is said in John iv: "He that believeth in me, out of his belly

shall flow rivers of living water" [John 7:38]; and again: "He that

shall drink of the water that I will give him, it shall become in him

a fountain of living water, springing up into life everlasting." [John

4:14][65]

Now there are two things that commonly tempt us to lose the fruits of

the mass: first, the fact that we are sinners and unworthy of such

great things because of our exceeding vileness; and, secondly, the act

that, even if we were worthy, these things are so high that our

faint-hearted nature dare not aspire to them or ever hope to attain to

them. For to have God for our Father, to be His sons and heirs of all

His goods--these are the great blessings that come to us through the

forgiveness of sins and life everlasting. And who that regarded them

aright must not rather stand aghast before them than desire to possess

them? Against this twofold faintness of ours we must lay hold on the

word of Christ and fix our gaze on it much more firmly than on those

thoughts of our weakness. For "great are the works of the Lord [Ps.

111:2]; wrought out according to all His wills, who is able to do

exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think." [Eph. 3:20] If

they did not surpass our worthiness, our grasp and all our thoughts,

they would not be divine. Thus Christ also encourages us when He says:

"Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a

kingdom." [Luke 17:32] For it is just this overflowing goodness of the

incomprehensible God, lavished upon us through Christ, that moves us

to love Him again with our whole heart above all things, to be drawn

to Him with all confidence, to despise all things else, and be ready

to suffer all things for Him; wherefore this sacrament is well styled

"a fount of love."

Let us take an illustration of this from every day life[66]. If a

thousand _gulden_ were bequeathed by a rich lord to a beggar or an

unworthy and wicked servant, it is certain that he would boldly claim

and take them regardless of his unworthiness and the greatness of the

bequest. And if any one should seek to oppose him by casting in his

teeth his unworthiness and the large amount of the legacy, what do you

suppose he would say? He would say, forsooth: "What is that to you?

What I accept, I accept not on my merits or by any right that I may

personally have to it; I know that I am unworthy and receive more than

I have deserved, nay, I have deserved the very opposite. But I claim

it because it is so written in the will, and on the score of another's

goodness. If it was not an unworthy thing for him to bequeath so great

a sum to an unworthy person, why should I reuse to accept it because

of my unworthiness? Nay, the more unworthy I am, the more reason have

I to accept this other man's gracious gift." With such thoughts we

need to fortify the consciences of men against all qualms and

scruples, that they may lay hold on the promise of Christ with

unwavering faith, and take the greatest care to approach the

sacrament, not trusting in their confession, prayer and preparation,

but rather despairing of these and with a proud confidence in Christ

Who gives the promise. For, as we have said again and again, the word

of promise must here reign supreme in a pure and unalloyed faith, and

such faith is the one and all-sufficient preparation.

[Sidenote: The Mass Converted into a Good Work]

Hence we see how angry God is with us, in that he has permitted

godless teachers to conceal the words of this testament from us, and

thereby, as much as in them lay, to extinguish faith. And the

inevitable result of this extinguishing of faith is even now plainly

to be seen--namely, the most godless superstition of works. For when

faith dies and the word of faith is silent, works and the traditions

of works immediately crowd into their place. By them we have been

carried away out of our own land, as in a Babylonian captivity, and

despoiled of all our precious possessions. This has been the fate of

the mass; it has been converted by the teaching of godless men into a

good work, which they themselves call an _opus operatum_[67] and by

which they presumptuously imagine themselves all-powerful with God.

Thereupon they proceeded to the very height of madness, and having

invented the lie that the mass works _ex opere operate_[68], they

asserted further that it is none the less profitable to others, even

if it be harmful to the wicked priest celebrating it. On such a

foundation of sand they base their applications, participations,

sodalities, anniversaries and numberless other money-making schemes.

These lures are so powerful, widespread and firmly entrenched that you

will scarcely be able to prevail against them unless you keep before

you with unremitting care the real meaning of the mass, and bear well

in mind what has been said above. We have seen that the mass is

nothing else than the divine promise or testament of Christ, sealed

with the sacrament of His body and blood. If that is true, you will

understand that it cannot possibly be a work, and that there is

nothing to do in it, nor can it be dealt with in any other way than by

faith alone. And faith is not a work, but the mistress and the life of

all works[69]. Where in all the world is there a man so foolish as to

regard a promise made to him, or a testament given to him, as a good

work which by his acceptance of it he renders to the testator? What

heir will imagine he is doing his departed father a kindness by

accepting the terms of the will and the inheritance bequeathed to him?

What godless audacity is it, therefore, when we who are to receive the

testament of God come as those who would perform a good work or Him!

This ignorance of the testament, this captivity of the sacrament--are

they not too sad for tears? When we ought to be grateful for benefits

received, we come in our pride to give that which we ought to take,

mocking with unheard-of perversity the mercy of the Giver by giving as

a work the thing we receive as a gift; so that the testator, instead

of being the dispenser of His own goods, becomes the recipient of

ours. Out upon such godless doings!

Who has ever been so mad as to regard baptism as a good work, or to

believe that by being baptised he was performing a work which he might

offer to God or himself and communicate to others? I, therefore, there

is no good work that can be communicated to others in this one

sacrament or testament, neither will there be any in the mass, since

it too is nothing else than a testament and sacrament. Hence it is a

manifest and wicked error to offer or apply masses for sins, or

satisfactions, for the dead, or for any necessity whatsoever of one's

own or of others. You will readily see the obvious truth of this if

you but hold firmly that the mass is a divine promise, which can

profit no one, be applied to no one, intercede or no one, and be

communicated to no one, save him alone who believes with a faith of

his own. Who can receive or apply, in behalf of another, the promise

of God, which demands the personal faith of every individual? Can I

give to another what God has promised, even if he does not believe?

Can I believe for another, or cause another to believe? But this is

what I must do if I am able to apply and communicate the mass to

others; for there are but two things in the mass--the promise of God,

and the faith of man which takes that which the promise offers. But if

it is true that I can do this, then I can also hear and believe the

Gospel for others, I can be baptised for another, I can be absolved

from sins for another, I can also partake of the sacrament of the

altar for another, and--to run the gamut of their sacraments also--I

can marry a wife for another, be ordained for another, receive

confirmation and extreme unction for another! In fine, why did not

Abraham believe for all the Jews? Why was faith in the promise made to

Abraham demanded of every individual Jew?

Therefore, let this irrefutable truth stand fast. Where there is a

divine promise every one must stand upon his own feet, every one's

personal faith is demanded, every one will give an account for himself

and will bear his own burden [Gal. 6:5], as it is said in the last

chapter of Mark: "He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved;

but he that believeth not, shall be damned." [Mark 16:16] Even so

every one may derive a blessing from the mass for himself alone and

only by his own faith, and no one can commune for any other; just as

the priest cannot administer the sacrament to any one in another's

stead, but administers the same sacrament to each individual by

himself. For in consecrating and administering, the priests are our

ministers, through whom we do not offer a good work or commune (in the

active), but receive the promises and the sign and are communed (in

the passive). That has remained to this day the custom among the

laity, for they are not said to do good, but to receive it. But the

priests have departed into godless ways; out of the sacrament and

testament of God, the source of blessings to be received, they have

made a good work which they may communicate and offer to others.

But you will say: How is this? Will you not overturn the practice and

teaching of all the churches and monasteries, by virtue of which they

have flourished these many centuries? For the mass is the foundation

of their anniversaries, intercessions, applications, communications,

etc.--that is to say, of their at income. I answer: This is the very

thing that has constrained me to write of the captivity of the Church,

for in this manner the adorable testament of God has been subjected to

the bondage of a godless traffic, through the opinions and traditions

of wicked men, who, passing over the Word of God, have put forth the

thoughts of their own hearts and misled the whole world. What do I

care for the number and influence of those who are in this error? The

truth is mightier than they all. If you are able to gainsay Christ,

according to Whom the mass is a testament and sacrament, then I will

admit that they are in the right. Or if you can bring yourself to say

that that man is doing a good work, who receives the benefit of the

testament, or who uses this sacrament of promise in order to receive

it, then I will gladly condemn my teachings. But since you can do

neither, why do you hesitate to turn your back on the multitude who go

after evil, and to give God the glory and confess His truth? Which is,

indeed, that all priests today are perversely mistaken, who regard the

mass as a work whereby they may relieve their own necessities and

those of others, dead or alive. I am uttering unheard-of and startling

things; but if you will consider the meaning of the mass, you will

realize that I have spoken the truth. The fault lies with our utter

supineness, in which we have become blind to the wrath of God that is

raging against us.

[Sidenote: The Prayers Distinguished from the Mass]

I am ready, however, to admit that the prayers which we pour out

before God when we are gathered together to partake of the mass, are

good works or benefits, which we impart, apply and communicate to one

another, and which we offer for one another; as James teaches us to

pray for one another that we may be saved [Jas. 5:16], and as Paul, in

I Timothy ii, commands that supplications, prayers and intercessions

be made for all men, for kings, and for all that are in high station

[1 Tim. 2:1 f.]. These are not the mass, but works of the mass--if the

prayers of heart and lips may be called works--for they flow from the

faith that is kindled or increased in the sacrament. For the mass,

being the promise of God, is not fulfilled by praying, but only by

believing; but when we believe, we shall also pray and perform every

good work. But what priest of them all offers the sacrifice of the

mass in this sense and believes that he is offering up naught but the

prayers? They all imagine themselves to be offering up Christ Himself,

as all-sufficient sacrifice, to God the Father, and to be performing a

good work for all whom they have the intention to benefit. For they

put their trust in the work which the mass accomplishes, and they do

not ascribe this work to prayer. Thus, gradually, the error has grown,

until they have come to ascribe to the sacrament what belongs to the

prayers, and to offer to God what should be received as a benefit.

It is necessary, therefore, to make a sharp distinction between the

testament or sacrament itself and the prayers which are there offered;

and no less necessary to bear in mind that the prayers avail nothing,

either for him who offers them or for those for whom they are offered,

unless the sacrament be first received in faith, so that it is faith

that offers the prayers, for it alone is heard, as James teaches in

his first chapter [Jas. 1:6 f.]. So great is the difference between

prayer and the mass. The prayer may be extended to as many persons as

one desires; but the mass is received by none but the person who

believes for himself, and only in proportion to his faith. It cannot

be given either to God or to men; but God alone gives it, by the

ministration of the priest, to such men as receive it by faith alone,

without any works or merits. For no one would dare to make the mad

assertion that a ragged beggar does a good work when he comes to

receive a gift from a rich man. But the mass is, as has been said[70],

the gift and promise of God, offered to all men by the hand of the

priest. It is certain, therefore, that the mass is not a work which

may be communicated to others, but it is the object, as it is called,

of faith, for the strengthening and nourishing of the personal faith

of each individual.

[Sidenote: The Most Dangerous Error of All: the Mass a Sacrifice]

But there is yet another stumbling-block that must be removed, and

this is much greater and the most dangerous of all. It is the common

belief that the mass is a sacrifice, which is offered to God. Even the

words of the canon[71] tend in this direction, when they speak of

"these gifts," "these offerings," "this holy sacrifice," and farther

on, of "this oblation." Prayer also is made, in so many words, "that

the sacrifice may be accepted even as the sacrifice of Abel," etc.,

and hence Christ is termed the "Sacrifice of the altar." In addition

to this there are the sayings of the holy Fathers, the great number of

examples, and the constant usage and custom of all the world.

To all of this, firmly entrenched as it is, we must resolutely oppose

the words and example of Christ. For unless we hold fast to the truth,

that the mass is the promise or testament of Christ, as the words

clearly say, we shall lose the whole Gospel and all our comfort. Let

us permit nothing to prevail against these words, even though an angel

from heaven should teach otherwise [Gal. 1:8]. For there is nothing

said in them of a work or a sacrifice. Moreover, we have also the

example of Christ on our side. For at the Last Supper, when He

instituted this sacrament and established this testament, Christ did

not offer Himself to God the Father, nor did He perform a good work on

behalf of others, but He set this testament before each of them that

sat at table with Him and offered him the sign. Now, the more closely

our mass resembles that first mass of all, which Christ performed at

the Last Supper, the more Christian will it be. But Christ's mass was

most simple, without the pageantry of vestments, genuflections, chants

and other ceremonies. Indeed, if it were necessary to offer the mass

as a sacrifice, then Christ's institution of it was not complete.

Not that any one should revile the Church universal for embellishing

and amplifying the mass with many additional rites and ceremonies. But

this is what we contend for; no one should be deceived by the glamour

of the ceremonies and entangled in the multitude of pompous forms, and

thus lose the simplicity of the mass itself, and indeed practice a

sort of transubstantiation--losing sight of the simple substance of

the mass and clinging to the manifold accidents of outward pomp. For

whatever has been added to the word and example of Christ, is an

accident of the mass, and ought to be regarded just as we regard the

so-called monstrances and corporal cloths in which the host itself is

contained[72]. Therefore, as distributing a testament, or accepting a

promise, differs diametrically from offering a sacrifice, so it is a

contradiction in terms to call the mass a sacrifice; for the former is

something that we receive, while the latter is something that we

offer. The same thing cannot be received and offered at the same time,

nor can it be both given and taken by the same person; just as little

as our prayer can be the same as that which our prayer obtains, or the

act of praying the same as the act of receiving the answer to our

prayer.

What shall we say, then, of the canon of the mass[73] and the sayings

of the Fathers? First of all, if there were nothing at all to be said

against them, it would yet be the safer course to reject them all

rather than admit that the mass is a work or a sacrifice, lest we deny

the word of Christ and overthrow faith together with the mass.

Nevertheless, not to reject altogether the canons and the Fathers, we

shall say the following: The Apostle instructs us in I Corinthians xi

that it was customary for Christ's believers, when they came together

to mass, to bring with them meat and drink, which they called

"collections" and distributed among all who were in want [1 Cor. 11:20

ff.], after the example of the apostles in Acts iv [Acts 4:34 f.].

From this store was Acts taken the portion of bread and wine that was

consecrated for use in the sacrament[74]. And since all this store of

meat and drink was sanctified by the word and by prayer [1 Tim. 4:5],

being "lifted up" according to the Hebrew rite of which we read in

Moses [Lev. 8:27], the words and the rite of this lifting up, or for

offering, have come down to us, although the custom of collecting that

which was offered, or lifted up, has fallen long since into disuse.

Thus, in Isaiah xxxvii, Hezekiah commanded Isaiah to lift up his

prayer in the sight of God for the remnant [Isa. 37:4]. The Psalmist

sings: "Lift up your hands to the holy places" [Ps. 134:2]; and: "To

Thee will I lift up my hands." [Ps. 63:4] And in I Timothy ii we read:

"Lifting up pure hands in every place." [1 Tim. 2:8] For this reason

the words "sacrifice" and "oblation" must be taken to refer, not to

the sacrament and testament, but to these collections, whence also the

word "collect" has come down to us, as meaning the prayers said in the

mass.

The same thing is indicated when the priest elevates the bread and the

chalice immediately after the consecration, whereby he shows that he

is not offering anything to God, for he does not say a single word

here about a victim or an oblation. But this elevation is either a

survival of that Hebrew rite of lifting up what was received with

thanksgiving and returned to God, or else it is an admonition to us,

to provoke us to faith in this testament which the priest has set

forth and exhibited in the words of Christ, so that now he shows us

also the sign of the testament. Thus the oblation of the bread

properly accompanies the demonstrative this in the words, "This is my

body," by which sign the priest addresses us gathered about him; and

in like manner the oblation of the chalice accompanies the

demonstrative this in the words, "This chalice is the new testament,

etc." For it is faith that the priest ought to awaken in us by this

act of elevation. And would to God that, as he elevates the sign, or

sacrament, openly before our eyes, he might also sound in our ears the

words of the testament with a loud, clear voice, and in the language

of the people, whatever it may be, in order that faith may be the more

effectively awakened. For why may mass be said in Greek and Latin and

Hebrew, and not also in German or in any other language?[75]

[Sidenote: Fraternal Advice to the Priests]

Let the priests, therefore, who in these corrupt and perilous times

offer the sacrifice of the mass, take heed, first, that the words of

the greater and the lesser canon[76] together with the collects, which

smack too strongly of sacrifice, be not referred by them to the

sacrament, but to the bread and wine which they consecrate, or to the

prayers which they say. For the bread and wine are offered at the

first, in order that they may be blessed and thus sanctified by the

Word and by prayer; but after they have been blessed and consecrated,

they are no longer offered, but received as a gift from God. And let

the priest bear in mind that the Gospel is to be set above all canons

and collects devised by men; and the Gospel does not sanction the

calling of the mass a sacrifice, as has been shown.

Further, when a priest celebrates a public mass, he should determine

to do naught else through the mass than to commune himself and others;

yet he may at the same time offer prayers for himself and for others,

but he must beware lest he presume to offer the mass. But let him that

holds a private mass[77] determine to commune himself. The private

mass does not differ in the least from the ordinary communion which

any layman receives at the hand of the priest, and has no greater

effect, apart from the special prayers and the act that the priest

consecrates the elements for himself and administers them to himself.

So far as the blessing[78] of the mass and sacrament is concerned, we

are all of us on an equal footing, whether we be priests or laymen.

If a priest be requested by others to celebrate so-called votive

masses[79], let him beware of accepting a reward for the mass, or of

presuming to offer a votive sacrifice; he should be at pains to refer

all to the prayers which he offers for the dead or the living, saying

within himself, "I will go and partake of the sacrament for myself

alone, and while partaking I will say a prayer for this one and that."

Thus he will take his reward--to buy him food and clothing--not for

the mass, but for the prayers. And let him not be disturbed because

all the world holds and practices the contrary. You have the most sure

Gospel, and relying on this you may well despise the opinions of men.

But if you despise me and insist upon offering the mass and not the

prayers alone, know that I have faithfully warned you and will be

without blame on the day of judgment; you will have to bear your sin

alone. I have said what I was bound to say as brother to brother for

his soul's salvation; yours will be the gain if you observe it, yours

the loss if you neglect it. And if some should even condemn what I

have said, I reply in the words of Paul: "But evil men and seducers

shall grow worse and worse: erring and driving into error." [2 Tim.

3:13]

From the above every one will readily understand what there is in that

oft quoted saying of Gregory's[80]: "A mass celebrated by a wicked

priest is not to be considered of less effect than one celebrated by

any godly priest, and St. Peter's mass would not have been better than

Judas the traitor's, if they had offered the sacrifice of the mass."

Which saying has served many as a cloak to cover their godless doings,

and because of it they have invented the distinction between _opus

operati_ and _opus operantis_[81], so as to be free to lead wicked

lives themselves and yet to benefit other men. But Gregory speaks

truth; only they misunderstand and pervert his words. For it is true

beyond a question, that the testament or sacrament is given and

received through the ministration of wicked priests no less completely

than through the ministration of the most saintly. For who has any

doubt that the Gospel is preached by the ungodly? Now the mass is part

of the Gospel, nay, its sum and substance; for what is the whole

Gospel but the good tidings of the forgiveness of sins? But whatever

can be said of the forgiveness of sins and the mercy of God, is all

briefly comprehended in the word of this testament. Wherefore the

popular sermons ought to be naught else than expositions of the mass,

that is, a setting forth of the divine promise of this testament; that

would be to teach faith and truly to edify the Church. But in our day

the expounders of the mass play with the allegories of human rites and

play the fool with the people.

Therefore, just as a wicked priest may baptise, that is, apply the

word of promise and the sign of the water to a candidate for baptism,

so he may also set forth the promise of this sacrament and administer

it to those who partake, and even himself partake, like Judas the

traitor, at the Lord's Supper. It still remains always the same

sacrament and testament, which works in the believer its own work, in

the unbeliever a "strange work." [Isa. 28:21] But when it comes to

offering a sacrifice the case is quite different. For not the mass but

the prayers are offered to God, and therefore it is as plain as day

that the offerings of a wicked priest avail nothing, but, as Gregory

says again, when an unworthy intercessor is chosen, the heart of the

judge is moved to greater displeasure. We must, therefore, not

confound these two--the mass and the prayers, the sacrament and the

work, the testament and the sacrifice; for the one comes from God to

us, through the ministration of the priest, and demands our faith, the

other proceeds from our faith to God, through the priest, and demands

His answer. The former descends, the latter ascends. Therefore the

former does not necessarily require a worthy and godly minister, but

the latter does indeed require such an one, because God heareth not

sinners [John 9:31]. He knows how to send down blessings through

evildoers, but He does not accept the work of any evildoer, as He

showed in the case of Cain [Gen. 4:5], and as it is said in Proverbs

xv, "The victims of the wicked are abominable to the Lord" [Prov.

15:8]; and in Romans xiv, "All that is not of faith is sin." [Rom.

14:23]

[Sidenote: Worthy Communicants]

But in order to make an end of this first part, we must take up one

remaining point against which an opponent might arise. From all that

has been said we conclude that the mass was provided only for such as

have a sad, afflicted, disturbed, perplexed and erring conscience, and

that they alone commune worthily. For, since the word of divine

promise in this sacrament sets forth the remission of sins, that man

may fearlessly draw near, whoever he be, whose sins distress him,

either with remorse or past or with temptation to future wrongdoing.

For this testament of Christ is the one remedy against sins, past,

present and future, if you but cling to it with unwavering faith and

believe that what the words of the testament declare is freely granted

to you. But if you do not believe this, you will never, nowhere, and

by no works or efforts of your own, find peace of conscience. For

faith alone sets the conscience at peace, and unbelief alone keeps the

conscience troubled.