Here I will describe the doings of some kinds of foolish or mad persons that I may paint my king in his true colours. Suppose a man were so to argue as to prove because a thing had been done contrary to Scripture, therefore that Scripture should grant it to be lawful. Adultery is committed, therefore the law against adultery is heretical.. I believe such a one would appear mad, even to my King; although he himself is the prince of madmen. And yet how would such a one argue one whit more wisely than my Henry argues? If indeed Scripture can be set aside by any deed, by no deed can it better be set aside than by a deed contrary to it. But my King in order to excel all others in madness proves by a fact that has no bearing on the question that Scripture should be set aside. For to mix water with wine is no more opposed to the second part of the sacrament than it is to the creation of the world, or to the birth of Christ. If therefore the King rightly argues: Wine is mixed with water without Scripture, therefore there is no attention to be paid to what Scripture says concerning the second part of the Sacrament; then is this syllogism also correct: Wine is mixed with water without the Scriptures, therefore what Scripture says concerning the creation and concerning the birth of Christ should be set aside. So that our glorious King teaches that the Scriptures and the word of God ought to be set aside, not only by an act contrary to them but by an act having no bearing on them; and that unless we agree with him, who wishes to be the only Christian in the world, nay, the Defender and upholder of the Church, then we are all heretics. And this reward, as he ought, my King receives unto himself as the reward of his error. But I will outline another fool: Suppose a man were to argue that a certain passage of Scripture was heretical because he had brought forward another passage of Scripture, not opposing it but merely having nothing to do with it. Suppose he were to say that John the Baptist was not the fore-runner, because Jethro counselled Moses to institute a form of civil government (Exod. XVIII), perhaps even my King would laugh at this, or pity the man’s mania.
But there is no comparison between this man’s mania and that of the King. For if by a thing that has no bearing on it, something in Scripture can be changed, this change would be more rightfully made in Scripture by something irrelevant that is nevertheless in the same Scripture than by something irrelevant that is entirely outside of the Scripture. For to mix wine with water is done outside the Scripture, and has no bearing on the second part of the Sacrament. And yet my King, according to what the Sophists say, has with this syllogism of his laid low the unhappy Luther, and has deserved to be given indulgences, a most worthy recompense for such profound wisdom. Therefore you will not err after this if you argue thus: Henry is King of England, and yet God has not made a note of it, nor recorded it, in Scripture; therefore Christ was neither born nor suffered! Nay, the whole of Scripture amounts to nothing! But I have no wish to write in the margin of my book, Here lies the vanquished King of England. For I do not desire him to be vanquished by my words but by the clear evidence of the case.
What then can we gather from all this? This, forsooth, that the thoughts of the hearts of wicked men are revealed by this sign of self-contradiction; for they have fallen into these abysses of absurdity and uttered these horrible monstrosities for no other reason than that they regard in their hearts this Divine Scripture as some human thing such as is the mixture of water and wine, nor do they give it any greater honour. Therefore doth Scripture itself in this manner confound all those who do not honour and glorify it as divine.
But what have these swine to do with Scripture? Let us come down to their own dialect and let us convince them that they cannot speak their own language.
Let the glorious Defender of the sacraments tell us how he proves that it is necessary that the Mass should be celebrated in the morning, or how it is contrary to Christ’s institution if we celebrate in the morning what He did in the evening. Likewise I ask concerning the mixing of water with the wine. Who made this an article of faith? Who dares to say it is a sin if we celebrate without water? Does Henry while he says, It must be so, and while he refuses to believe that Luther is in the habit of celebrating without water?
Custom, he says, has the force of law. I reply: Let it have the force of law in civil cases; but we have been called into liberty, which neither can, nor should, admit either law or custom when we treat of spiritual things. Why has the dominating and royal Henry so badly learned his own language, and why does he here so viciously beg the question, holding up for a fixed, proved, divine and necessary article of faith what is merely optional and a human invention? No wonder then that the ruin of his book is great, when he builds on such a sandy foundation.
Wherefore we choose to keep silence before these Papists and holy Henrys on the question of those magnificent articles of their faith by which they believe that Communion should be celebrated only in the morning, that it should only be celebrated in a sacred place or by means of their portables (as they call them), that water should always be mixed with the wine, and other articles most weighty and most worthy of these most holy saints. But we call those who are tied up to all these details mere fools and block-heads, and hold that we are free to communicate in the Sacrament either by day or by night, either in the morning or in the evening. The time, the hour, the place, the dress, the ritual are left free. And with us he does not sin who eats and drinks moderately before Communion, which Paul also affirms (I Cor. XI) saying: if any man is hungry let him eat at home, so that we do not come to judgment to the Lord’s Supper.
Thus Christ, Who in the evening instituted the Communion, did not institute the evening for the Communion, nor the morning; for He said no word about time, persons, places or dress. Otherwise if He had made our following the time an article of faith, He would have made also articles of faith out of age, place, persons, dress, and it would not be lawful for any, except men of the same age as the apostles were, to partake of that Supper, and only then in lay dress. It follows that the Sacrament cannot be given to women, not even to virgins, since the Scripture does not say that they were present. And who can count all the absurdities which will follow in the end the proposition of this exacting King?
But it is different with the two parts of the Sacrament; for Christ did not leave that free, but instituted it and its use in fixed and clear language. And in my opinion it would be better and safer not to mix water with the wine, since it is merely a human and sinister figment, nay, has a very bad signification. For it does not signify our incorporation into Christ, since the Scripture has no such sign, but that which Isaiah saith (Is. I): Thy wine is mixed with water; that is to say, the most pure Scripture of God is vitiated by human traditions. And this is fulfilled, as much as could be, in this Sacrament of theirs, nay, the wine is altogether changed into water; for there is nothing left of the word of God in this their Sacrament. Not that I condemn the custom of communicating in the morning and in consecrated places, but let us reject the necessity. For it is our wish that if any man is not able to fast, or from a rheum or chill cannot rise fasting, let him eat and drink before he partakes of the Lord’s Supper. And let him do this freely, whereby he may be the more comfortable both in body and mind. For what Henry calls the Church we call the scarlet woman. For although the Church cannot do without rites and ceremonies, it does not make laws and ensnare men’s souls with them. They do this, who boast the name of Church, those swine and asses, those followers of Henry, those Papists and Sophists, who are deceivers of their fellow men and Anti-Christs.
You have been told now, my reader, what you ought to think of the wisdom of the King of England, and you see how foolishly and ridiculously he argues that custom (although of unknown origin and optional and changeable) should prevail against the clear and conceded and immutable word of the Gospel. And at the same time you learn in what contempt he held the word of God while he concocted, — swollen with pride at the name and majesty of his Kingship, — this book of his against the poor and needy Luther. But you have seen in part the judgment of Christ, how He fears not proud and b
lasphemous Kings; but on the other hand transfers mountains before they know it, and takes the crafty in their own craftiness.
I find proof therefore that my book on the Babylonish Captivity was a most Christian work, since that exacting Thomist King has not touched any of its strong points, but flicking with his wavering and withered stubble against my Rock he has made himself a notorious spectacle to the world, so that hoys, and even idiots, may understand how famous he is become for his ignorance, his foolishness, his malice, and his wickedness. Let us pass to something else.
In my fourth argument, after I had proved that it was not necessary to believe that the bread and wine were transubstantiated, the Thomist King comes at me with two catapults. The first is the saying of Ambrose. The second is that Thomist battering ram, which is called It must be so. He alleges that Ambrose asserts that nothing remains but the body and blood after consecration.
What can I reply to such senseless and stupid fools? If I ask, 7s the saying of Ambrose a necessary article of faith? the King will reply: It must be so. If I put the question: Who gave Ambrose the right to manufacture articles of faith? the King will answer: It must be so. And does not this blockhead see that the word of Ambrose is such that it defeats itself? For it is impossible that nothing should remain but the body and blood after consecration, unless it be that with these super-subtle Thomist thinkers, form, colour, cold and other accidents are said to be nothing. For these truly, since they are not nothing, we see remaining in such a manner that we can even by feeling them prove that Ambrose has here palpably erred.
But let it be granted that Ambrose was willing that there be no bread or wine remaining; to this I will say, I allow Ambrose to enjoy his own interpretation. Nor did the holy man desire by this interpretation to bind the conscience of any man as though by an article of faith, when it cannot be proved from the Scriptures. But as he freely thought in this manner: so he has clearly permitted others to think otherwise, — except the Thomists, whom it is right that their own drowsy dreams should ensnare and trouble, taking them, as they do, for articles of faith.
And now for that other strong kingly argument, which must he so, for the words (he says) of Christ are clear when He tells us. This is My body. He does not say, With this, or in this, is My body. And here again I charge the King not so much with indolence as with wickedness. For the robber takes away from the words of Christ, and royally passes over my argument, as though he had the right to lay hands on the words of God and re-arrange them according to his own liking. By the silliest and most asinine Thomist philosophising, he makes the pronoun This stand for My body. And then as though he had conquered he cries aloud: The words are plain: This is My body. But meanwhile the whole of that weighty argument, with which I was attacking that pretended philosophy, he passes over in silence, the subtle Sophist! For in my whole disputation I laboured the point that the pronoun This in the passage in question could not refer to My body. And I did not require a fatted swine to tell me that there was nothing but the body there if the pronoun This should point only to the body.
But this most vicious begging the question, customary with all the Sophists, ought first to have shown that the pronoun This refers to the body, and in that way overthrow my reasoning. He does neither of these, but gabbles ridiculously, Christ did not say, In this or with this; but this is My body. And could not I answer with the same Thomist subtilty: Christ did not say that the bread is transubstantiated into the body as you masters of fables pretend?
But the King should have attacked the argument in which I showed from the context of the words in question that the pronoun This stands for the bread, and that the words plainly mean, This is My body, that is, this bread is My body. For the context is as follows: He took bread and gave thanks and brake it and said, This is My body, etc. You see here that all those words, — took, gave thanks, brake — are said of the bread. And to the bread the pronoun This points, for that very thing which He took, gave thanks for, and brake, this taken and blessed and broken thing is what He means when He says, This is My body. This refers to the subject, not to the predicate. For He did not take, bless, and break His body, but the bread. Therefore This does not point to the body, but to the bread. These words, which are clear, the King wickedly darkens, and urges his bare-faced interpretation of This is My body, and in his temerity makes the pronoun This refer to the body.
But this is a signal mark of the Thomist wisdom, which, when asked the reason for this article of faith, and knowing no article is admitted by me unless supported by plain Scripture, has no other reply to make than It must be so. The words are clear and plain. But who is so insane a grammarian that from this saying: This is My body he understands or gathers that the bread is changed in substance unless he happens to be of the Thomist scum, who have even untaught us all our Grammar? Why should he not say just as easily that change of substance is proved by the words, The Apocalypse of the Blessed John. For if it is quite enough to establish an article of faith to say in a regal manner, The words are clear, after that there are no words which are not capable of proving any thing concerning anything, especially when the block-head hears these same clear words brought forward by me with a meaning quite different from his meaning, and free from all obscurity.
Nay, our famous King Henry, the Sophist trickster, has dared even to demand from me: Prove there is no transubstantiation. Forsooth this most stupid Thomist must be taught even the elements of disputing; for, when he ought to prove the affirmative, he demands from his opponent that he prove the negative. Let us send these so learned men to the heretics and to the Turk to defend our faith, since it is now not necessary to give any reason for faith but merely to say, Prove that it is not so. O ye Thomist swine and asses, now that I have proved (as I have said) my contention strongly from the Gospel itself, to wit, that, in matters of faith, only what Scripture asserts is to be asserted, and what Scripture does not assert is not to be asserted, but is to be held optional, incontrovertibly the sacrament itself the Scripture plainly calls bread.
But so far our Thomist King has been a philosopher; it is now a pretty sight to see how he takes the part of a Thomist theologian against my reasoning, when I brought forward against his Thomist article of faith that heavenly thunderbolt of Paul (I Cor. X), where so clearly he calls this Sacrament bread that neither the ignorance of the King nor the wickedness of the Thomists can find any loop-hole for lying and pretending, since the words of Paul stand out more lucid than the light: The bread, which we break, is it not the communion of the Lord’s body? He does not say, The body which we break. He does not say: The nothing which remains after consecration that we break, or, The accidents which we break; but, The bread which we break, as being already blessed and consecrated. This blessed bread, then, is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc. Similar are the words in I Cor. II: He that eats this bread, etc.
This good and sweet Thomist, who brings forth no Scriptures and no reasons but merely his own affirmation, It must be so, tells us that the sacred Scripture has sometimes a way of calling a thing that which it was, or that which is like it, as in Exod. VII: The rod of Aaron swallowed up the rod of the magician, that is to say, the serpent which was the rod of Aaron. These are his words. Rightly your lies return on your own head, thou stolid and sacrilegious King, who hast dared with brazen face to say of the words of the infallible God that they say one thing and mean another. What a loop-hole, pray, has this mad blasphemy of the King opened for all heretics and enemies of the faith! If it once is admitted that the authority of Scripture rests on uncertain and deceitful words, what then will all the teachers of all kinds of dogmas not be able to prove, to disprove, to hold and defend? How much more rightly has Saint Augustine refused to allow even a lie said in jest, or said out of politeness, to have any place in the sacred Scriptures. But this King gives us a means of eluding the authority of Scripture if it be brought against us, and of interpreting it in such a way that it cannot have any weight.
But let it be so; let
the Thomist King not grant so much honour to his Creator as that He has put His meaning into His words. Rather should he have confessed that he does not know how a rod swallowed up a rod, than to deprave what is written. And if it be true that a rod is called a serpent, which was once a rod, by what consequence does it follow that here that is called bread which is not bread, but once was? Relying, forsooth, on this Thomist wisdom, you will argue thus: The Scripture once says that a virgin was a mother^ therefore must other virgins also be mothers, although Scripture says nothing about them, in the same way in which it comes about here that bread need not be bread, because a rod is not a rod.
By this trick you can produce any number of such monstrosities out of the Scriptures. No wonder that this pretentious Thomist has the odour of those dregs and offscourings, called Arians; for they also, when they were confronted with clear Scripture evidence that Christ is God, answered a long while ago with royal and Anglican acuteness: Christ is God but not verily, that is, He is called, or named, God, but He is not born God. In like manner this new Arian dares to blaspheme, saying, With Paul it was called bread, but it was not really bread. So also the Manicheans will find a supporter in this glorious Defender of the sacraments; for they took away reality as recorded by the words of God, and substituted phantasy.
And now at last I will use on him his royal art and will say: Thy Thomist transubstantiation is not real, but is only called transubstantiation, or resembles transubstantiation. How will he prevent me? Is it not lawful for me to trifle with his sleepy utterances just as he trifles with the sincere words of God? My proof is as follows: Since it is once read in the Scriptures that a thing is called a rod which is not a rod, therefore it is lawful for me, when I wish, both within and outside of Scripture, by my own authority, to deny the substance of whatsoever I wish, and to assert that it is so in name only, unless the example of so great a King, so Thomist-like, so subtle, so glorious, and so boastful a Defender and an authority, is of no value whatever.
Collected Works of Martin Luther Page 89
