of their idol, I became convinced that the papacy is the kingdom of Babylon and the power of
Nimrod the mighty hunter. Now a learned professor of Leipzig writes against me on the sacrament
in both kinds, and is about to do still greater wonders.^242 He says that it was neither commanded
nor decreed, whether by Christ or the apostles, that both kinds should be administered to the laity."
- Luther first discusses the sacrament of the Holy Communion, and opposes three errors
as a threefold bondage; namely, the withdrawal of the cup from the laity, the doctrine of
transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the mass.
(a) As regards the withdrawal of the cup, he refutes the flimsy arguments of Alveld, and
proves from the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, that the whole sacrament was intended
for the laity as well as the clergy, according to the command, "Drink ye all of this." Each writer
attaches the mark of universality to the cup, not to the bread, as if the Spirit foresaw the (Bohemian)
schism. The blood of Christ was shed for all for the remission of sins. If the laymen have the thing,
why should they be refused the sign which is much less than the thing itself? The Church has no
more right to take away the cup from the laity than the bread. The Romanists are the heretics and
schismatics in this case, and not the Bohemians and the Greeks who take their stand on the manifest
teaching of the Word of God. "I conclude, then, that to deny reception in both kinds to the laity is
an act of impiety and tyranny, and one not in the power of any angel, much less of any Pope or
council whatsoever." ... "The sacrament does not belong to the priests, but to all; nor are the priests
lords, but servants, whose duty it is to give both kinds to those who seek them, as often as they
seek them." ... "Since the Bishop of Rome has ceased to be a bishop, and has become a tyrant, I
fear absolutely none of his decrees; for I know that neither he, nor even a general council, has
authority to establish new articles of faith."
(b) The doctrine of transubstantiation is a milder bondage, and might be held alongside with
the other and more natural view of the real presence, which leaves the elements unchanged. It is
well known that Luther was to the end of life a firm believer in the real presence, and oral
manducation of the very body and blood of Christ by unworthy as well as worthy communicants
(of course, with opposite effects). He denied a miraculous change of the substance of the elements,
but maintained the co-existence of the body and blood in, with, and under bread and wine, both
being real, the one invisible and the other visible.^243 In this book he claims toleration for both
theories, with a personal preference for the latter. "Christians are at liberty, without peril to their
salvation, to imagine, think, or believe in either of the two ways, since here there is no necessity
of faith." ... "I will not listen to those, or make the slightest account of them, who will cry out that
this doctrine is Wiclifite, Hussite, heretical, and opposed to the decisions of the Church." The
Scripture does not say that the elements are transubstantiated: Paul calls them real bread and real
wine, just as the cup was real. Moreover, Christ speaks (figuratively), "This cup is the new covenant
in my blood," meaning his blood contained in the cup. Transubstantiation is a scholastic or
Aristotelian figment of the twelfth century.^244 "Why should Christ not be able to include his body
within the substance of bread, as well as within the accidents? Fire and iron, two different substances,
(^242) He means Alveld’s Tractatus de communione sub utraque specie quantum ad laicos, 1520. He contemptuously omits his name.
(^243) This view is usually called consubstantiation; but Lutherans object to the term in the sense ofimpanation, or local inclusion, mixture,
and circumscription. They mean an illocal presence of a ubiquitous body.
(^244) This is not strictly historical. Transubstantiation was clearly taught by Paschasius Radbertus in the ninth century, though not without
contradiction from Ratramnus. See Schaff,Ch. Hist., vol. IV. 544 sqq.