June 1541. (?) .
Because E. F. G. also desires to record the collacion speech, so I from the lousy article Transsubstantiation zufalls' that, I will have done it herewith, harmless this.
(2) I wonder why they wanted to impose such an article, which they themselves did not keep. For although the Decretals say, transsubstantiatis pane et vino in corpus Christi potestate divina, they soon after fell from the word transsubstantiatis, which undoubtedly came into the church from the rude dolts Thomists, and is called, as all have said, and still, conversionem panis in corpus Christi, that is, the essence of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, as into my flesh and blood the food is changed.
(3) Now that some have spoken evil of this kind
that Christ's body and blood in the whole world should daily take into itself so much bread and wine, that at last it might become so solid and great that heaven and earth would become too narrow for it; yet its body, now transfigured, can neither increase nor decrease. For this reason they have devised another, and cut out the natural interpretation of the word transsubstantiatio (but must not do away with the same word) and patched in another, namely, that it should read: annihi- latio, ut stet textus: Annihilatis pane et vino, in corpus Christi, the bread becomes not that Christ's body is there.
4 In the end, this did not please the others either, because it did not seem right to them that there should be nothingness in the sacrament, and they gave the poor word transsubstantiatio a different meaning, and transsud-.
*This writing is found in the Wittenberg edition (1551), vol. II, p. 265; in the Altenburg, vol. VIII, p. 995; in the Leipzig, vol. XXI, p. 404 and in the Erlangen, vol. 65, p. 129. The proofs given in the Erlangen edition are printed from the comparative register in the 24th volume of Walch's old edition, but unfortunately the editor erred by one line, so all the proofs, except the first, are wrong. This text is not found in the Jena edition. We give the text according to the Wittenberg edition.
stantiatio mean as much as desitio ober desinentia, that the text thus transsubstantiatis, that is, desinentibus esse pane et vino, et succedente corpore Christi, the bread shall cease with its essence, and give place to the body of Christ.
5 Although this is nothing other than nullification, they did not want to do away with the word transsubstantiatio in honor of the decree, and yet they rejected its natural interpretation, that is, they did not retain any transubstantiation.
And here is the most fearful thing, that such a loose poem comes and is founded in philosophy, yes, in the wrong misunderstood philosophy, because Aristotle 6th Methaphys speaks (do I remember it right): Ad propositionem affirmativam requiritur extremorum compositio, ad negativam divisio etc., that is, if two words interpret or speak a thing, they must be put together, as: God is man. Such text they have thus made: Subjectum et praedicatum supponuntur in eodem, that I leave un-Germanized to them; but is the opinion that the two, subjectum et praedicatum, id est, res significata must be One thing, as: est cor
pus meum. Here Ü06 cannot be called bread, because corpus is called a body; therefore hoc must also be called a body. So Hoc est cor
pus meum, that (hear: my body) is my body. Here under the word hoc or "that" the bread must be lost, or transsubstantiari after such high art.
But if Aristotle should have heard such things alive, he would have said: What devil has led such rough asses over my book, yet the dolts do not know what I call substantiam, subjectum or praedicatum; and this is true.
So they have also used such false philosophy in the article lncarnationis, as when I speak: This man is God, this child of Mary is creator of the world, or, this is my dear son etc. Such speech they do not leave, that God and man, or, Mary's child and creator are one thing, but so they say, and much better: Homo est deus, id est filius Dei sustentans humanam naturam, est Deus; quia necesse sit subjectum et praedicatum pro eodem supponere. Hic filius Dei sustentans humanam naturam in pueritia sua est Creator mundi, that shall be deliciously spoken, and shall mean the Christian faith defended from philosophy. But if humanity were as hidden or unknown as the essence of bread under its form, it would have had to be lost and transubstantiated according to this kind of philosophy just as much as bread, for it is the same speech and rule to speak, and it would have remained the faith of Eutyche, 1) yes, of the Jews.
9. but now the humanity of Christ is known and there, they flee the words homo, hic puer etc., with this addition, sustentans humanam naturam, which is an almost clumsy speech, which can neither be taught nor said to the people, moreover unchristian, quia negat filium Dei esse hominem actu primo, sed fingit eum sustentare humanam naturam, velut actu secundo, quod est haereticissime dictum. Such portenta have taught, who now want to make us heretics. Therefore, we remain with the common speech, ubi componuntur extrema: homo est Deus, man and God is One Thing, because so much is said, in good German, if I want to translate homo est Deus.
1) Eutyches taught that everything human was absorbed into the divine nature of Christ and became one nature with Him.